Questions for the photographers...

wsuffa said:
Kent, the pictures are a good start.

I would suggest you not use the full auto exposure setting. Recommend either the aperture or time priority. I prefer Av, except when shooting moving objects. Auto white balance is OK. As you get experience, using manual WB gives you more control.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using full auto. I think all three were shot on aperture priority, and near the largest aperture for their zoom levels. I do see that the ISO was quite high, though. Maybe I was on manual... Hmmmm.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I wasn't using full auto. I think all three were shot on aperture priority, and near the largest aperture for their zoom levels. I do see that the ISO was quite high, though. Maybe I was on manual... Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Those photos were taken in doors without a flash. Your lens isn't fast enough to get a nice sharp picture with a reasonable ISO.

As a few people have stated, look to get a used 430EX or 580EX and you will see a world of difference in the sharpness of pictures taken indoors and/or low light
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Rich,

I was under the impression that chromatic aberration was something that is normally seen at the edges of a shot... And both the 2nd and 3rd shots were cropped.

I guess I'm not really sure what I'm looking for. ?
Click to expand...

CA is most commonly seen at the edges, but it's really any lack of convergence of colors on a particular point. Visually, it usually looks like the colors are separated into their components, because that's exactly what's happening. It can also be more noticeable in a part of the picture that's not sharply-focused.

In your pictures I see it in the far left of the leaves in the second picture, and around the window frame in the third, more on the left than the right.

I'm probably being much too picky. I guess I'm too used to the anal-retentive editors at the stock companies who go out of their way to find problems that no normal human being would ever notice.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
CA is most commonly seen at the edges, but it's really any lack of convergence of colors on a particular point. Visually, it usually looks like the colors are separated into their components, because that's exactly what's happening. It can also be more noticeable in a part of the picture that's not sharply-focused.

In your pictures I see it in the far left of the leaves in the second picture, and around the window frame in the third, more on the left than the right.

I'm probably being much too picky. I guess I'm too used to the anal-retentive editors at the stock companies who go out of their way to find problems that no normal human being would ever notice.

-Rich
Click to expand...

It's almost impossible to avoid CA in zoom lenses due to the number of elements, especially with low cost zoom lenses. Unless you are willing to pay several thousand dollars per lens and use single focal ED large optic lenses, it's just something to accept.
 
Just reading along. A note on the original post, the Sony pro gear has built in GPS.

As far as the rest, no expert here. Just love blasting away with the DSLR when I have time. Most of my photo/camera knowledge is from a photo class over 20 years ago.

As far as shooting RAW/JPEG, I do. There's almost no penalty and most good software will store them together automatically and let you choose which one you want to edit/use, etc.

Only downside on my camera body (Sony A55) is a slightly slower write cycle which can affect speed "sports" type continuous shooting, which I rarely use.

I have the Sony since I have family with 30 year old Minolta glass that still works great with the body. The A77 and higher models weren't out yet when I bought the A55. Do wish I had waited.

But you'll say that every year except in years where your chosen vendor goes through a dry spell. (Nikon went a number of years without updates and people were ticked just a few years ago. Then they started releasing stuff again.)
 
Henning said:
It's almost impossible to avoid CA in zoom lenses due to the number of elements, especially with low cost zoom lenses. Unless you are willing to pay several thousand dollars per lens and use single focal ED large optic lenses, it's just something to accept.
Click to expand...

Good software can help, though, if you shoot in RAW, which was kind of my point. I'm regularly amazed at how well Photoshop does that correction (among others) -- and even does them automatically if its database has the optical information about the lens you used. And the database is vast enough to include almost any lens that most of us are likely to use.

-Rich
 
Currently shooting with Nikon D800E, D3S, and D3X, with a range of lenses from 14-600mm, Leica M-240 and M-9 with 21-90mm lenses, along with a cabinet full of film cameras, strobes, etc.

Pretty much RAW only for both camera systems using Adobe Camera Raw as the convertor, and Photoshop CS6. Epson printers.


Photoshop or Lightroom are pretty much the standard software versions and offer the most flexibility, but are also more complex. If you're planning on doing prints, you need to calibrate your paper to your monitor so you can more closely see what the final print would look like. Computer power is important, lots of RAM and fast processors, along with the ability to safely store the resulting big files.

However, it still comes down to the glass and the megapixels. A blurry, distorted, or noisy image can only be helped so much with computer power. Good lenses and lots of megapixels are the starting point. The rest can come later.
 
AcroBoy said:
If you're planning on doing prints, you need to calibrate your paper to your monitor so you can more closely see what the final print would look like.
Click to expand...

Good point. The Canon profiles supplied with their printers are *pretty* good when used with Canon paper (which is excellent, by the way), but other paper is best with calibration. I use Datacolor's Spyderprint, but there are others.

Screen calibration is also recommended using something like Spyder.

But for someone starting out with better equipment, that's probably overkill.
 
Kent - a couple of others thing to add to your accessories list:

1) Pec Pads & Eclipse liquid for lens cleaning. PecPads are non-abrasive, lint free wipes... Eclipse is lens cleaning liquid. Safe for coated lenses & filters (and with the right "tool" also for camera sensors). Far better solution than eyeglass cleaner.

2) Neutral/UV/skylight filters to live on the end of your lens. They're in the "protective" category - keeps dust/grime/fingerprints off the lenses & they serve as bastions to prevent scratches to the lens itself. Cheaper to replace if damaged than lenses are.
 
wsuffa said:
Kent - a couple of others thing to add to your accessories list:

1) Pec Pads & Eclipse liquid for lens cleaning. PecPads are non-abrasive, lint free wipes... Eclipse is lens cleaning liquid. Safe for coated lenses & filters (and with the right "tool" also for camera sensors). Far better solution than eyeglass cleaner.

2) Neutral/UV/skylight filters to live on the end of your lens. They're in the "protective" category - keeps dust/grime/fingerprints off the lenses & they serve as bastions to prevent scratches to the lens itself. Cheaper to replace if damaged than lenses are.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I use a UV filter as a lens protector and a microfiber cloth for cleaning. I don't use any solutions though, I'll just dust off the filter and if there is a smudge I just breath on it. I do keep it coated with Collenite Insulator Wax though and normally just a polish with the microfiber removes any smudge.
 
Also, what should be on your list, if not mentioned yet, is a tripod [legs & head]. Buy something that is of good quality and fits with your camera [weight wise]. E.g. Manfrotto has a wide variety to choose from. I have standardized on Manfrotto equipment for both photo and video. There are quite a few other brands, and the B&H website can show you what is available.
 
Herman vanOoijen said:
Also, what should be on your list, if not mentioned yet, is a tripod [legs & head]. Buy something that is of good quality and fits with your camera [weight wise]. E.g. Manfrotto has a wide variety to choose from. I have standardized on Manfrotto equipment for both photo and video. There are quite a few other brands, and the B&H website can show you what is available.
Click to expand...

If you want stability, the name to look for is Gitzo.
 
wsuffa said:
Yes, they're well regarded. One of the big dogs in photo online/mail order.

I have purchased (literally) thousands of dollars of camera gear from them. Fast delivery, good folks. Long had/still have a storefront in NYC.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the feedback, which is very much appreciated.

BTW if you ever need advice or suport with any order from Adorama Camera you are most welcome to email me directly; [email protected]
 
You can spend an entire day looking through the printed phone book sized B&H catalog. All sorts of interesting toys.
 
Nikon made a 35 mm slide scanner that had a bulk feeder for (IIRC) 50 slides. I think It was the Coolscan 4000 or 5000 scanner and optional slide feeder.

I'm still using a Konica/Minolta 5400 that will do 6 negatives/5 slides at a time. I scanned several thousand, 5 at a time. :hairraise:

Prosumer-grade scanners are hard to find new these days. Canon & Konica stopped making them, if Nikon is making new ones, that would be the exception.

eBay is your friend - some go for a pretty price.

Probably cheaper to send them out and have someone scan them for you.
 
wsuffa said:
Nikon made a 35 mm slide scanner that had a bulk feeder for (IIRC) 50 slides. I think It was the Coolscan 4000 or 5000 scanner and optional slide feeder.

I'm still using a Konica/Minolta 5400 that will do 6 negatives/5 slides at a time. I scanned several thousand, 5 at a time. :hairraise:

Prosumer-grade scanners are hard to find new these days. Canon & Konica stopped making them, if Nikon is making new ones, that would be the exception.

eBay is your friend - some go for a pretty price.

Probably cheaper to send them out and have someone scan them for you.
Click to expand...

Not at 32¢ a piece when I have a couple thousand to do.
 
denverpilot said:
If you find something let me know... We have dad's entire slide collection... Sigh.
Click to expand...

There's a rig with a carousel projector where they change out the light source and you mount a DSLR camera on it and it takes a picture of the slide, but that's the closest I've found.
 
wsuffa said:
Nikon made a 35 mm slide scanner that had a bulk feeder for (IIRC) 50 slides. I think It was the Coolscan 4000 or 5000 scanner and optional slide feeder.
Click to expand...

SF-210 feeder and CoolScan 5000 series it appears. They're running $2000 on eBay and $4200 new on Amazon (from 3rd party seller). Yikes.

Probably cheaper to send them out and have someone scan them for you.
Click to expand...
Henning said:
Not at 32¢ a piece when I have a couple thousand to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have probably around 10,000. :(
 
Henning said:
There's a rig with a carousel projector where they change out the light source and you mount a DSLR camera on it and it takes a picture of the slide, but that's the closest I've found.
Click to expand...

My dad did something similar. Projected the pictures and took digital photographs of the image on the screen. Much faster than the scanners I have. Worked adequately well, too.
 
Sounds like paying someone else dumb enough to do it, is the way to go.
 
I used to sell a "Slide Copier." It was a device which mounted on the camera body. Insert into its outer end the slide to be copied. Adjust the device for proper focus; and with chosen slide film in the camera, take a picture of the slide to be copied. DAYLIGHT source was important so as to have proper color balance.

If such a device is available to fit DSLR(needing appropriate lens mount), same procedure would apply. Snap the shutter button; there's your digital file to be downloaded. Voila!
I sold my store in 2004 and haven't maintained up-to-date info on all technology changes.

HR
 
Everskyward said:
. But I suppose if you want a very high quality duplicate you're going to pay for it.
Click to expand...

This. At least for me. Want to preserve old photos in the highest quality possible. Some of the B&W negs have deteriorated to the point where I got *one* shot at scanning them. Some are now unusable.
 
wsuffa said:
This. At least for me. Want to preserve old photos in the highest quality possible. Some of the B&W negs have deteriorated to the point where I got *one* shot at scanning them. Some are now unusable.
Click to expand...

20MP should be enough for my uses - A 20MP image is good for a 300dpi 12x18 print. Doubtful I'd ever make a print that big, nor on a much higher resolution.

I'm just curious what the "Unique Speed-Load adapters for fast loading slides & Negatives" are really like.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
20MP should be enough for my uses - A 20MP image is good for a 300dpi 12x18 print. Doubtful I'd ever make a print that big, nor on a much higher resolution.

I'm just curious what the "Unique Speed-Load adapters for fast loading slides & Negatives" are really like.
Click to expand...
And higher resolution chews up memory much faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top