|
Buy Understanding Exposure if you haven't yet. It should help illustrate how shutter speed/aperture/iso are all complimentary components of getting a correct exposure recorded.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Oh... I spent all day Saturday at ISO 200. I still have some vestigial knowledge from when I was a kid, and my mom taught me how to use her film SLR. I think I only ever had 100, 200, and 400 film, so seeing big numbers like 1600 on the 20D just seemed absurd. This might help lower the percentage of my shots that look like they were taken by Ozzy Osbourne I'd totally buy a photobook by Ozzy, for what it's worth. "Wow, that's a truck full of cocaine" "Oh neat, behind the cocaine truck is a hooker truck"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Buy Understanding Exposure if you haven't yet. It should help illustrate how shutter speed/aperture/iso are all complimentary components of getting a correct exposure recorded. One thing I want to throw out, a lot of people who trained on film are not used to the idea that ISO is no longer a limiting factor in most reasonable ways during daylight hours. Understanding Exposure is for those days. When shooting digital you mostly focus on ISO as a presentation limitation (e.g. past X is NG visually), then choose the right aperture for DOF and the right shutter speed for motion stop (or not). Aperture/shutter speed is way more important than ISO on digital cameras. I tend to shoot for DOF and adjust shutter/ISO as needed to get what I want. Then again, when I do shoot film I just push whatever it is to 1600.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Yeah, any DSLR from the past few years should be able to handle up to ISO 800 effortlessly, and even 3200 at least should be acceptable for web use. 80% of the time, I leave my D750 on aperture priority and auto-ISO up to the natural limit of 12800. Another 15% for shutter priority when I'm shooting something speed-sensitive, and full manual for the last 5% when I'm dicking around with flash or something. Don't fall into the trap of thinking all manual all the time somehow makes you more of a pro--if all you're doing is chasing the needle in the viewfinder to maintain a "proper" exposure, then you might as well set your camera for full auto. More important is knowing which elements are relevant to the picture you're trying to take, and letting the sophisticated piece of technology in your hands take care of the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Not only that, but almost every modern camera over the last 5-6 years has at least 11-12 stops of dynamic range. As long as you don't blow out the highlights or shadows, you can probably recover almost anything in post - except good lighting to begin with. Getting good lighting in all circumstances does however require understanding exposure - in that you will need to know how to use a flash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Shadow recovery is super awesome, especially if you're shooting outdoors with bright skies. I just keep my eye on the histogram and know I can recover anything that isn't pitch black. And even then I probably could too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Oh... I spent all day Saturday at ISO 200. I still have some vestigial knowledge from when I was a kid, and my mom taught me how to use her film SLR. I think I only ever had 100, 200, and 400 film, so seeing big numbers like 1600 on the 20D just seemed absurd. This might help lower the percentage of my shots that look like they were taken by Ozzy Osbourne We're now at sorta usable ISO 12800 for current cameras (but you still use low ISO as much as possible). Basically stay at 100 when possible, go higher when necessary, and try out till you find the highest ISO you find passable at realistic image size (i.e. probably not 100% magnified on screen).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
On my 600d, 800 is great, 1600 and 3200 are usable in the right conditions. Experiment with it, and dont pixel peep for noise. Export it from lightroom and look at it full res.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
I've had fun messing around with my RAW files. Is there a free editor that goons recommend more than others? I found one called RawTherapee that (seems like it has) a ton of features, and it isn't too hard to use, so I've been using that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Rather a noisy picture than a blurry picture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Noise is just film grain for the digital era, and is therefore Art(tm).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
50 years from now kids will think it's hipster cool to use ancient USB1 cheapo cameras for those authentic noise patterns. i can't wait  also, don't try and take cool perspective photographs of a skyscraper at 80mm 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Our very own SoundMonkey is way ahead of the game, got some love for that Mavica aliasing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
mavica crew
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Speaking of noise (and since I'm not sure where else I should ask my dumb question): I just bought a "new" Canon 7D (Mark I) off of eBay. When I push the iso up to around 800, I start seeing lots of red, white, and blue pixels in the dark areas of my pictures. The higher the iso, the more pronounced they are. I'm wondering if this is just normal noise or not. I used to have a Canon T3i, and I swear I never noticed anything like this with that camera. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention? Here's a quick screenshot of a photo (at like 200%) shot at 1600 to kinda give you an idea of what I'm talking about :  If I'm just an idiot and this is normal then I'll be relieved. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
I have a 60D and if I remember correctly the two have very similar sensors, and unfortunately 800 is when things start getting iffy. For what it's worth I recently saw an ISO 3200 photo off my 60D that didn't look as bad as it did when pixel peeping, but it's still quite noticeable. E: oh wait those pixels. I was phone posting and didn't notice at first, thought you were just disappointed with the noise. I've not seen that before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm starting to worry that maybe I ended up a bum sensor or something. Maybe that's why I got a good deal on it. The camera came with a one year Mack warranty, for whatever that's worth. I don't know anything about them, but internet reviewers don't seem to have a very high opinion of them. May end up trying to send it back. Vastarien fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
could it be dust or something? i don't know anything btw
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Im on a phone too and can't see anything but regular noise, but it sounds like you're either dealing with hot or stuck pixels. Some info: https://photographylife.com/dead-vs-stuck-vs-hot-pixels
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
There's definitely a couple of stuck pixels that I can clearly see in camera's live view. I tried the manual cleaning remapping trick suggested all over the internet, but it seems that they're just not going anywhere. The others are only visible in the photos when zooming way in to 100-200%. Adobe Camera Raw does a pretty good job at detecting and automatically removing the worst of them (particularly the nonwhite ones), and a little noise reduction will remove most of the rest. Still, it's really obnoxious and I'm worried that it's only going to get worse. e: decided to just return the camera after trying out the video for the first time and seeing one big red pixel and one big blue pixel right near the center of the video. Ugh. Vastarien fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
If it's always the same pixels you can do a batch spot heal in Lightroom, and can even save it as an macro for auto-apply on import.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Well, it turns out that most of what I was concerned about is just typical noise for the 7D. Feeling like a dumbass, but at least I don't need to worry about that. The two stuck pixels are annoying about not a huge concern. Adobe Camera Raw automatically removes them. And I don't plan on using this camera for video, but if I do I can remove those pixels in After Effects with the wire removal plugin, I guess. Not ideal, but it works. Enjoying the camera otherwise! Got the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 for it. Loving the lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
I really view Canon aps-c cameras as tools for getting images, not for making super beautiful and flawless pieces of artistic photography. Even without the hot pixels, there's still going to be a lot of artifacts from cranking up the ISO, or pushing shadows in post. Canon has durable gear, an exhaustive specialty lens lineup, and (its only real strength in the actual digital imaging aspect) very nice default colors and auto WB metering. If you want something from Canon that you can post process to hell and still hang in a gallery for close inspection, go full frame. Or just be careful to get a properly exposed image. I've been shooting more with my 7D lately, working on a wildlife documentation project for my job. I stopped using Lightroom lately and have just been doing my batch culling in Bridge, because otherwise I'm too lazy to avoid the temptation to import everything from a day's shooting into LR and too OCD to avoid hoarding all the bad & duplicate photos once they're in the library. Around the same time I made the switch from LR, I started to think there was something wrong with either my 7D or my 400L, because like 90% of my shots were noticeably softer than the older stuff from the same setup, that I had stowed away in LR. Long story short, it turns out that LR previews add a lot of sharpening. Kind of a good news/bad news situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:working on a wildlife documentation project for my job. I want to hear more about this. Maybe not in this thread, but in the Wildlife Thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Cross posting this from the general photography thread:Me posted:So, I messed around with the old Pentax K1000 I found, but the lack of quick feedback on my photos, ie having to wait on development time, was more frustrating than I thought it'd be. I picked up digital copies of 2 books, Understanding Exposure and "The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos". I'm also gonna grab a bag, some more rechargeable batteries, a basic tripod, and a little remote control thing to take pics without tapping the camera. I'm thinking about driving up to the mountains this weekend to try taking some pictures, if the weather is slightly less absurdly hot and humid. I'm pretty excited. I really enjoyed the photography class I took in high school, and I really need a hobby to get me out of the house on the days I'm not working 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Annath posted:Cross posting this from the general photography thread: You're going to have so much fun, but just keep in mind that a large majority of your pictures aren't going to be that great. I'm my own worst critic so I tend to throw away a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Odette posted:You're going to have so much fun, but just keep in mind that a large majority of your pictures aren't going to be that great. I'm my own worst critic so I tend to throw away a lot. Right now, I just want to make sure that: A. Nothing I bought is poo poo-tier, because its all still within the return window and B. That I'm learning and having fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Odette posted:You're going to have so much fun, but just keep in mind that a large majority of your pictures aren't going to be that great. I'm my own worst critic so I tend to throw away a lot. I've taken a few hundred shots so far and thrown out most of them. I'm keeping some memento pictures though, even when they are obviously "bad". Like, I was walking in the woods a month back and this clumsy young buck whitetail comes crashing into a clearing behind me. I turn around like "who is this idiot running off of the trail" and we had this hilarious staredown for several minutes. The photos aren't technically good, but I will forever remember the afternoon I made lovely deer call sounds and confused the gently caress out of a deer who looked back at me all like    
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Your gear is fine. Nobody makes poo poo-tier cameras anymore, just shoot shoot shoot until you start to feel like your gear is limiting you. This should take a year or so, unless you confuse the "my gear isn't letting me take the pictures I want to take" feeling for the "I have money! Weeeeeeee!!!! Cameras and lenses and flashes and tripods and lenses and random bullshit!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!" feeling. Those feeling feel very similar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Annath posted:K1000 to k-50 switch Have you tried out the lenses from your old film camera on your k-50. About the only thing you're missing is a wider aperture prime lens and if your k1000 has a 50mm k-mount lens, you should be able to stick it straight on to your new dslr, right? Edit: don't fret over your gear. Some of my favorite photos I took with my 12mp Canon rebel that I bought at a pawn shop along with an 18-55 & 55-250 lens. Your setup is capable of resolving a good deal more detail than that so consider yourself set. Your subjects and the kind of light they are in are much more crucial factors than your camera's megapixel count or dynamic range. Proper handling, composition and focus are more important, too. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Have you tried out the lenses from your old film camera on your k-50. About the only thing you're missing is a wider aperture prime lens and if your k1000 has a 50mm k-mount lens, you should be able to stick it straight on to your new dslr, right? This is true and a good idea
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Sorry to ask this but ... My 13 yo is hell bent on buying a DSLR and has been mowing lawns and doing odd jobs all summer to save up the money. (She is responsible). Problem is that she has no idea what to buy and I'm not a camera person. Her goals are "action shots" of sports and animals. She wants the ability to change lenses. We read the OP and understand that all the brands are good and she has handled cameras in several different stores but can't decide. Everywhere we go people are pushing Canon which has us leaning toward t3i vs t5; mostly because no one has talked about anything else. Advice? Is resistance futile? Join the Canon collective?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
wormil posted:Sorry to ask this but ... Consider the Fuji X-T2, tho I'm not sure if it's in that budget range. Otherwise, really just get the camera that feels good in her hands, or that she likes the look of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Why does she want an SLR specifically? Is she into photography already? Has she ever taken a class about it, done it for 4-H county fair projects, been involved in a club that does photography? With just the couple of details you provided, it's not clear to me where she's coming from; like, she could already be an enthusiastic amateur, or she could be chasing the idea of being a cool "expert" with lots of complicated gear in a hobby she might not actually be super interested in. I don't mean the second thing like an actual analysis of the situation, I was just trying to think of a misguided ideal that a kid that age might have when it comes to buying lots of expensive stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
wormil posted:Sorry to ask this but ... First thing, don't get the t5, it's a overpriced, underperforming camera. Second, what she is looking for can be quite expensive, even from a photography standpoint. Unless she is trying to take a picture of dogs and cats, usually you need longer lenses that require lots of high quality glass. Action photography usually needs large buffers with fast fps capabilities. Finally, definitely look into used. Most companies don't change the ergonomics of their cameras between generations, and getting a used older generation means more bang for the buck. Or it could mean that if she decides that photography isn't her thing, the resale value hasn't dropped like a rock and she hasn't wasted a huge amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
It's all expensive for a teenager, but an older Canon Rebel (T3i/T5i) or even something like a Canon 50D can be put together with a Canon 55-250mm lens and a Yongnuo 35mm/f2 or Canon 18-55mm zoom for ... probably a little less than $400. There are Nikon equivalents for the above set up. The past few generations of Nikon sensors (so how well they do in low-light, and their resolution) have been better on the whole than Canon. I just don't know as much about them so I can't recommend what to get. I think their standard cheapo telephoto only goes to 200mm, not 250. But Otherwise it's all the same, if not better quality, than Canon. Similarly-priced or even cheaper would be an Olympus or Panasonic micro 4/3rds setup. There are a plethora of these to choose from, so you and your kid would need to shop around. There are really good deals on used m43 cameras on keh.com. Just try to go for one with 16 instead of 12 megapixels for maximum 'better than a smartphone camera' value. There are a lot of '40-150mm' lenses for m43 that are very cheap (like less than $100), and they would be equivalent to something like an 80-200mm zoom lens for basic Nikon or Canon DSLRs. Panasonic and Olympus lenses are interchangeable. Everything else in the interchangeable lens camera kit realm will be either $500+ or getting pretty old. Still, a very cheap old basic Nikon or Canon DSLR from 2009 or earlier would be just fine if she/you is on a tighter budget. Just don't expect them to hold any decent resale vale after another year or so of use. Edit: I keep harping on the telephoto (100mm+ lenses because that's what she is going to want for animals, action, sports, and so on.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
For Nikon, you could go with a D3200 with 18-55 and 55-200 setup for about $420 ($250+90+75), and you would be covered for 18mm to 200mm with image stabilization, and have glorious 24 megapixels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
First, thanks for the replies!alkanphel posted:Consider the Fuji X-T2, tho I'm not sure if it's in that budget range. Lutha Mahtin posted:Why does she want an SLR specifically? HolyDukeNukem posted:First thing, don't get the t5, it's a overpriced, underperforming camera. ... Thanks. Yeah I've been looking at used and refurbished. SMERSH Mouth posted:Canon Rebel (T3i/T5i) or even something like a Canon 50D can be put together with a Canon 55-250mm lens and a Yongnuo 35mm/f2 or Canon 18-55mm zoom for ... probably a little less than $400. Wild EEPROM posted:For Nikon, you could go with a D3200 with 18-55 and 55-200 setup for about $420 ($250+90+75), and you would be covered for 18mm to 200mm with image stabilization, and have glorious 24 megapixels. I think I'm going to give in on the Canon front and push her toward the T3i. I know they are great cameras but my last Canon had horrific battery life and it made me a little prejudiced against them. Personally I liked the Canons better than the Nikons when we were in the store but it's not for me .. so. Oh and someone mentioned a class, she will definitely be taking one. Her HS probably has photography classes, they have lots of cool stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
wormil posted:Realistically she's only going to have about $450-500 so that's out of the budget. Realistically, $400-500 is not going to get you a lens that does proper sport and animal photography (on APS-C), not to mention camera. At this point, I highly recommend getting a used OMD EM5 or EM10 instead. Their AF is pretty darn fast, just get the 12-50mm kit zoom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
alkanphel posted:Realistically, $400-500 is not going to get you a lens that does proper sport and animal photography (on APS-C), not to mention camera. Keep in mind she's 13 and won't be filming cheetahs from a speeding Land Rover or trying to catch the touchdown reception at the superbowl. She'll be shooting birds, lizards, cats, flowers, the moon, a 1,000 pics a day of our pooch, friends running around, etc. She says "action shots" but within the realm of an 13 year old kid. I was also just looking at some of the Nikon Coolpix, p610, L840; not sure if she will go for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 08:10
|
|