Advice on buying camera

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Jack, Dec 29, 2013.

  1. Jack

    Jack Guest

    >> Stitching is nonsense for this type of work. You can go as low
    >> as perhaps 200 pixels per inch and get top quality prints. To
    >> make A3 prints, here is a chart of MP sensor sizes, with crops
    >> to the same aspect ratio as an A3 print, and the Pixels Per Inch
    >> for an A3 print
    >>
    >> Sensor MP Cropped Pixels Size PPI for A3 Print
    >> 12 4027x2848 244
    >> 16 4615x3264 280
    >> 24 5656x4000 342
    >> 36 6046x4912 421
    >>


    What would a 16MP P&S use? If it's a 4615x3264 Px sensor, then will its
    picture quality be as good as *any* 16 MP camera -- lens quality allowed
    for -- will achieve?

    And what about a 20MP P&S -- will that just interpolate, using a 16MP
    camera's sensor?

    PS What does P&S stand for?
     
    Jack, Dec 31, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jack

    Jack Guest

    A further matter is that when I zoom right in to my close-up shots of
    paintings, they seem blurred; I had expected the limiting factor on picture
    quality to be resolution, but evidently it's not. Can I assume that a better
    lens would do a better job? For what it's worth, it seems blurred in the
    centre as well as the periphery. Was I wrong to imagine that a lens shows
    its quality only for what it can do near the periphery?
     
    Jack, Dec 31, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. "Jack" <> wrote:
    >"Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote:
    >> Stitching is nonsense for this type of work.

    ....

    >Can I take it, then, that I could in principle get an image -- stitching
    >irregularities taken out of the equation -- that is as high quality as any
    >camera will achieve, by using my Optio to do close-ups, which are then put
    >together in Photoshop?


    It isn't possible to take the stitching irregularities out of
    the equation if you do stitching. But yes it is possible to do
    multiple close-ups and get equal results. The problem is that
    for the work you have proposed it is many times more difficult
    and vastly more time consuming compared to a setup that takes
    just one image and gets it correct without nearly as much
    hassle.

    Many things are easier to do in post processing with digital
    editing. These issues are not. You are far better off getting
    the right image in the camera than trying to correct multiple
    problems per final image in post processing.

    As outlined in the article you replied to, your best bet appears
    to be either a D7100 or D610 camera, a Tamron 90mm f2.5 manual
    focus macro lens or a Lester A. Dine 105mm f/2.8 manual focus
    macro lens, plus a Vivitar 2X Marcro Focusing TC.

    For lighting a set of 4 or 5 older flash units (old Nikon's and
    old Vivitar's are all suitable) with optical triggers, behind a
    large diffuser will make your "daylight" something that is
    constant and repeatable.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 31, 2013
    #43
  4. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2013-12-31 20:00:04 +0000, "Jack" <> said:

    >>> Stitching is nonsense for this type of work. You can go as low
    >>> as perhaps 200 pixels per inch and get top quality prints. To
    >>> make A3 prints, here is a chart of MP sensor sizes, with crops
    >>> to the same aspect ratio as an A3 print, and the Pixels Per Inch
    >>> for an A3 print
    >>>
    >>> Sensor MP Cropped Pixels Size PPI for A3 Print
    >>> 12 4027x2848 244
    >>> 16 4615x3264 280
    >>> 24 5656x4000 342
    >>> 36 6046x4912 421
    >>>

    >
    > What would a 16MP P&S use? If it's a 4615x3264 Px sensor, then will its
    > picture quality be as good as *any* 16 MP camera -- lens quality allowed
    > for -- will achieve?
    >
    > And what about a 20MP P&S -- will that just interpolate, using a 16MP
    > camera's sensor?


    There is what these folks do:
    <
    http://www.designboom.com/art/oce-3...productions-of-fine-art-paintings-09-30-2013/
    >


    and using a Gigapan rig might be a poor man's way of doing something
    similar using a compact camera such as a Canon G series + the $299
    Gigapan Epic. However, I don't think they had art work reproductuion in
    mind as a use, but if nobody tries...
    < http://gigapan.com >

    > PS What does P&S stand for?


    P&S = "Point & Shoot" = "Compact". Though among some sensitive types,
    "P&S" can be thought of as a derogatory term.

    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Dec 31, 2013
    #44
  5. Jack

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 20:39:09 -0000, "Jack" <>
    wrote:

    >A further matter is that when I zoom right in to my close-up shots of
    >paintings, they seem blurred; I had expected the limiting factor on picture
    >quality to be resolution, but evidently it's not. Can I assume that a better
    >lens would do a better job? For what it's worth, it seems blurred in the
    >centre as well as the periphery. Was I wrong to imagine that a lens shows
    >its quality only for what it can do near the periphery?
    >


    Manual or Autofocus? Autofocus wants an edge. Some flat subjects
    don't have an edge to find. Try putting a flat sheet of paper (index
    card stock works well) with an X printed on it to

    Manual focus works best, but what you see in the viewfinder is not
    always sharp focus, especially if the subject is art.

    Try putting a flat sheet of paper (index card stock works well) with
    an smallish X printed on it, and focus on that. When in focus, remove
    the paper.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Dec 31, 2013
    #45
  6. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    surface, without the legs getting in the way?

    PS would a 'ILC P&S' be an oxymoron?
     
    Jack, Dec 31, 2013
    #46
  7. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    surface, without the legs getting in the way?

    PS would a 'ILC P&S' be an oxymoron?
     
    Jack, Dec 31, 2013
    #47
  8. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:

    > Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    > say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    > surface, without the legs getting in the way?


    I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    Is this what you had in mind?
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >

    > PS would a 'ILC P&S' be an oxymoron?


    Quite possibly. ;-)


    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Dec 31, 2013
    #48
  9. "Jack" <> wrote:
    >>> Stitching is nonsense for this type of work. You can go as low
    >>> as perhaps 200 pixels per inch and get top quality prints. To
    >>> make A3 prints, here is a chart of MP sensor sizes, with crops
    >>> to the same aspect ratio as an A3 print, and the Pixels Per Inch
    >>> for an A3 print
    >>>
    >>> Sensor MP Cropped Pixels Size PPI for A3 Print
    >>> 12 4027x2848 244
    >>> 16 4615x3264 280
    >>> 24 5656x4000 342
    >>> 36 6046x4912 421
    >>>

    >
    >What would a 16MP P&S use? If it's a 4615x3264 Px sensor, then will its
    >picture quality be as good as *any* 16 MP camera -- lens quality allowed
    >for -- will achieve?
    >
    >And what about a 20MP P&S -- will that just interpolate, using a 16MP
    >camera's sensor?
    >
    >PS What does P&S stand for?


    P&S is "Point & Shoot". More or less, a mostly automatic camera
    that is smaller and easier to use.

    In theory the pixel size of the sensor is a determining factor
    that is independant of all else. In practice sensors are not
    made equally, and they all depend of the quality of the lens.
    P&S cameras are not intended to attract the most critical
    photographers, and they don't have either the best sensors nor
    the best lenses.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 31, 2013
    #49
  10. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >
    >> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    >> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    >> surface, without the legs getting in the way?

    >
    >I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >Is this what you had in mind?
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >


    That is an abomination!

    The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.
    Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    case.

    In fact though, that horizontal arm is probably not needed at
    all, and the camera could be mounted in the usual way with the
    ball head vertical on the tripod and then using the ball to tilt
    the camera to a horizontal position.

    Better yet would be a large enough copy stand.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 31, 2013
    #50
  11. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2013-12-31 22:25:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >>
    >>> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    >>> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    >>> surface, without the legs getting in the way?

    >>
    >> I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >> Is this what you had in mind?
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >

    >
    > That is an abomination!


    Sure it is Floyd. However, I have used it successfully in that
    configuration, as you see it and in the field to shoot subjects close
    to the ground.

    > The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    > more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    > horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.


    Actually that is pretty stable. Surprisingly so.

    > Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    > while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    > case.


    Yup! From time to time it is the only solution to a particular problem.
    So is reversing the center tube so the ball head,or other mount is
    under the center of the tripod. That is also an option with that
    particular tripod that I use when appropriate, and is as stable as
    using an standard position.

    In fact though, that horizontal arm is probably not needed at
    > all, and the camera could be mounted in the usual way with the
    > ball head vertical on the tripod and then using the ball to tilt
    > the camera to a horizontal position.


    ....and I use it as you have described more than you would give me credit for.

    > Better yet would be a large enough copy stand.


    True, but I don't have one handy.
    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Dec 31, 2013
    #51
  12. Jack

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2013-12-31, Jack <> wrote:
    > Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    > say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    > surface, without the legs getting in the way?


    Get a tripod with a reversible column - then you can fit the camera
    between the legs. Awkward for eye-level view-finder use of course, but
    as this is effectively a copy-stand you can establish the exact field of
    view and focus distance once-and-for-all then set the camera
    accordingly.

    The drawback with such a setup is that the camera to subject distance is
    too short for anything but a perfectly flat surface (so OK for drawings
    or watercolours, but not so good for acrylic or oils with impasto or
    modelling, or anything else 'lumpy'). Lighting without casting shadows
    or reflections of the tripod or camera where you don't want them, can
    also be tricky.

    > PS would a 'ILC P&S' be an oxymoron?


    If you mean "interchangeable lens point and shoot camera", then yes.
    There are of course cameras with interchangeable lenses which also
    manage auto-focus and auto-exposure - but for photographing paintings
    you won't need either of those features; you'll get far better results
    with manual everything and proper use of an exposure meter. Sadly,
    these days, proper manual controls are more expensive to make than
    automatic ones. You'll be fighting against the auto stuff, if you have
    to use it.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Dec 31, 2013
    #52
  13. Jack

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 21:28:42 -0000, "Jack" <>
    wrote:

    >Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    >say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    >surface, without the legs getting in the way?
    >
    >PS would a 'ILC P&S' be an oxymoron?
    >


    I like to improvise. I had a project where I needed a little bit more
    height to the camera than my tripod would allow. I picked up a 10'
    PVC pipe, cut off three 2' sections, drilled holes near the top of
    each section, fitted a nail through the holes, and stuck the tripod
    legs in these extensions. The legs went into the sections only to
    nails. The extended tripod tended to slip a little on the floor, so I
    bought two sets of rubber crutch tips. The project worked out fine.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Dec 31, 2013
    #53
  14. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2013-12-31 22:46:30 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

    > On 2013-12-31 22:25:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses of,
    >>>> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a horizontal
    >>>> surface, without the legs getting in the way?
    >>>
    >>> I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >>> Is this what you had in mind?
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >

    >>
    >> That is an abomination!

    >
    > Sure it is Floyd. However, I have used it successfully in that
    > configuration, as you see it and in the field to shoot subjects close
    > to the ground.
    >
    >> The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    >> more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    >> horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.

    >
    > Actually that is pretty stable. Surprisingly so.
    >
    >> Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    >> while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    >> case.

    >
    > Yup! From time to time it is the only solution to a particular problem.
    > So is reversing the center tube so the ball head,or other mount is
    > under the center of the tripod. That is also an option with that
    > particular tripod that I use when appropriate, and is as stable as
    > using an standard position.


    Here is what the the reverse center tube set up looks like. As I said,
    every bit as stable as using the standard set up.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0611c.jpg >

    >
    >> In fact though, that horizontal arm is probably not needed at all, and
    >> the camera could be mounted in the usual way with the
    >> ball head vertical on the tripod and then using the ball to tilt
    >> the camera to a horizontal position.

    >
    > ...and I use it as you have described more than you would give me credit for.
    >
    >> Better yet would be a large enough copy stand.

    >
    > True, but I don't have one handy.



    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
    #54
  15. Jack

    Jack Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2014010116102822769-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2013-12-31 22:46:30 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > said:
    >
    >> On 2013-12-31 22:25:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>
    >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>> On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses
    >>>>> of,
    >>>>> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a
    >>>>> horizontal
    >>>>> surface, without the legs getting in the way?
    >>>>
    >>>> I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >>>> Is this what you had in mind?
    >>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >
    >>>
    >>> That is an abomination!

    >>
    >> Sure it is Floyd. However, I have used it successfully in that
    >> configuration, as you see it and in the field to shoot subjects close to
    >> the ground.
    >>
    >>> The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    >>> more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    >>> horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.

    >>
    >> Actually that is pretty stable. Surprisingly so.
    >>
    >>> Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    >>> while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    >>> case.

    >>
    >> Yup! From time to time it is the only solution to a particular problem.
    >> So is reversing the center tube so the ball head,or other mount is under
    >> the center of the tripod. That is also an option with that particular
    >> tripod that I use when appropriate, and is as stable as using an standard
    >> position.

    >
    > Here is what the the reverse center tube set up looks like. As I said,
    > every bit as stable as using the standard set up.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0611c.jpg >
    >


    What worries me is that one with a reversible central tube might be unlikely
    to have a crank extension mechanism, something I rather want.
    Also I feel the shadow cast by the legs is going to be trouble since I'll be
    using dayilight coming through my window; so I reckon I need one with quite
    long legs that can be separated widely apart, or have some different design.
     
    Jack, Jan 2, 2014
    #55
  16. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-01-02 01:43:06 +0000, "Jack" <> said:

    >
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > news:2014010116102822769-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2013-12-31 22:46:30 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >> said:
    >>
    >>> On 2013-12-31 22:25:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>>
    >>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses
    >>>>>> of,
    >>>>>> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a
    >>>>>> horizontal
    >>>>>> surface, without the legs getting in the way?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >>>>> Is this what you had in mind?
    >>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >
    >>>>
    >>>> That is an abomination!
    >>>
    >>> Sure it is Floyd. However, I have used it successfully in that
    >>> configuration, as you see it and in the field to shoot subjects close to
    >>> the ground.
    >>>
    >>>> The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    >>>> more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    >>>> horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.
    >>>
    >>> Actually that is pretty stable. Surprisingly so.
    >>>
    >>>> Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    >>>> while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    >>>> case.
    >>>
    >>> Yup! From time to time it is the only solution to a particular problem.
    >>> So is reversing the center tube so the ball head,or other mount is under
    >>> the center of the tripod. That is also an option with that particular
    >>> tripod that I use when appropriate, and is as stable as using an standard
    >>> position.

    >>
    >> Here is what the the reverse center tube set up looks like. As I said,
    >> every bit as stable as using the standard set up.
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0611c.jpg >
    >>

    >
    > What worries me is that one with a reversible central tube might be unlikely
    > to have a crank extension mechanism, something I rather want.
    > Also I feel the shadow cast by the legs is going to be trouble since I'll be
    > using dayilight coming through my window; so I reckon I need one with quite
    > long legs that can be separated widely apart, or have some different design.


    I don't miss a crank mechanism as I can adjust vertically without too
    much trouble. As far as the leg shadow problem goes (It does exist) I
    have another leg extension to pull out, and the leg spread is also
    adjustable for each leg to position appropriately, negating the shadow
    issue.

    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
    #56
  17. Jack

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-02, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2014-01-02 01:43:06 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >> news:2014010116102822769-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>> On 2013-12-31 22:46:30 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013-12-31 22:25:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses
    >>>>>>> of,
    >>>>>>> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a
    >>>>>>> horizontal
    >>>>>>> surface, without the legs getting in the way?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >>>>>> Is this what you had in mind?
    >>>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >>>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is an abomination!
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure it is Floyd. However, I have used it successfully in that
    >>>> configuration, as you see it and in the field to shoot subjects close to
    >>>> the ground.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    >>>>> more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    >>>>> horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually that is pretty stable. Surprisingly so.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    >>>>> while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    >>>>> case.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup! From time to time it is the only solution to a particular problem.
    >>>> So is reversing the center tube so the ball head,or other mount is under
    >>>> the center of the tripod. That is also an option with that particular
    >>>> tripod that I use when appropriate, and is as stable as using an standard
    >>>> position.
    >>>
    >>> Here is what the the reverse center tube set up looks like. As I said,
    >>> every bit as stable as using the standard set up.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0611c.jpg >
    >>>

    >>
    >> What worries me is that one with a reversible central tube might be unlikely
    >> to have a crank extension mechanism, something I rather want.
    >> Also I feel the shadow cast by the legs is going to be trouble since I'll be
    >> using dayilight coming through my window; so I reckon I need one with quite
    >> long legs that can be separated widely apart, or have some different design.

    >
    > I don't miss a crank mechanism as I can adjust vertically without too
    > much trouble. As far as the leg shadow problem goes (It does exist) I
    > have another leg extension to pull out, and the leg spread is also
    > adjustable for each leg to position appropriately, negating the shadow
    > issue.


    Some tripods allow the legs to be opened almost horizontally, allowing
    them to be propped against furniture or walls instead of the floor.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 2, 2014
    #57
  18. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Noboby has suggested any buzz words to put in my Google search, or any make
    and model :-(. But thanks for the replies, aanyway.
     
    Jack, Jan 2, 2014
    #58
  19. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-01-02 13:54:58 +0000, "Jack" <> said:

    > Noboby has suggested any buzz words to put in my Google search, or any make
    > and model :-(. But thanks for the replies, aanyway.


    I could have sworn I mentioned my Manfrotto 30218PRO which is old
    enough to be replaced with another model from their catalog with one
    which has similar features. Then there are Giottos, Gitzo, and others,
    it is just a matter of what you are prepared to spend.
    <
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...=4075788742+4291429298+4291428784+4289361368&
    >

    or
    < http://tinyurl.com/m5fw57u >

    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
    #59
  20. Jack

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-01-02 01:52:55 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

    > On 2014-01-02 01:43:06 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >> news:2014010116102822769-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>> On 2013-12-31 22:46:30 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013-12-31 22:25:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2013-12-31 21:28:42 +0000, "Jack" <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Can someone point me towards a tripod that can get photos of canvasses
    >>>>>>> of,
    >>>>>>> say, A2 size, directly beneath the tripod head and lying on a
    >>>>>>> horizontal
    >>>>>>> surface, without the legs getting in the way?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I use my Manfrotto 30218PRO for that sort of thing.
    >>>>>> Is this what you had in mind?
    >>>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0378c.JPG >
    >>>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0379c.JPG >
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is an abomination!
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure it is Floyd. However, I have used it successfully in that
    >>>> configuration, as you see it and in the field to shoot subjects close to
    >>>> the ground.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The farther from the center of the tripod that camera is, the
    >>>>> more unstable it is. And given there is no reason for the
    >>>>> horizontal arm to be extended outward, it should not be.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually that is pretty stable. Surprisingly so.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Granted that some times a horizontal extension is necessary, and
    >>>>> while it isn't stable it may be the only way; this isn't such a
    >>>>> case.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup! From time to time it is the only solution to a particular problem.
    >>>> So is reversing the center tube so the ball head,or other mount is under
    >>>> the center of the tripod. That is also an option with that particular
    >>>> tripod that I use when appropriate, and is as stable as using an standard
    >>>> position.
    >>>
    >>> Here is what the the reverse center tube set up looks like. As I said,
    >>> every bit as stable as using the standard set up.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0611c.jpg >
    >>>

    >>
    >> What worries me is that one with a reversible central tube might be unlikely
    >> to have a crank extension mechanism, something I rather want.
    >> Also I feel the shadow cast by the legs is going to be trouble since I'll be
    >> using dayilight coming through my window; so I reckon I need one with quite
    >> long legs that can be separated widely apart, or have some different design.

    >
    > I don't miss a crank mechanism as I can adjust vertically without too
    > much trouble. As far as the leg shadow problem goes (It does exist) I
    > have another leg extension to pull out, and the leg spread is also
    > adjustable for each leg to position appropriately, negating the shadow
    > issue.


    As far as dealing with the leg shadow issue, as I said, it is a simple
    matter to adjust the leg lengths and spread angles to negate the
    problem.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0615E.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0616E.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0617E.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/IMG_0618E.jpg >

    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill

    camera buying advice needed

    Bill, Nov 29, 2003, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    553
    Marvin Margoshes
    Nov 29, 2003
  2. Robert
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    513
    Robert
    Aug 29, 2005
  3. Unforgiven

    Looking for advice on buying first digital camera

    Unforgiven, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    437
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    352
    AaronW
    Sep 28, 2006
  5. Stig Holmberg

    Advice on buying the best (sharpest) P+S "macro" camera

    Stig Holmberg, Oct 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Point & Shoot Camera
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    945
    Guenter Fieblinger
    Oct 30, 2005
  6. Nige
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    461
  7. Kevin Duggan

    Advice on buying 1st Digital camera please

    Kevin Duggan, Jan 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    443
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 24, 2004
  8. Robert
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    707
    SleeperMan
    Aug 30, 2005
Loading...