Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Mar 30, 2014.

  1. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    It's trivial to clean a sensor, but most don't do it. Since when does
    what people do become a measure of "trivial."
    It's trivial to the gas tank of my car, when it snows. I would just
    rather not do it, and pay the extra cost.
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I guess that depends on what you mean by work.
    For me that would require the focusing to use what I'm actually looking at and focus on that and I'm not sure if cameras can currently do that where they use the reflection off the retina to work out what to focus on.

    and it might be too expensive to buy a news lens and you'd be better off with an older cheaper lens.

    There are also almost always more expensive too than buying SH.
    Nom it's not but it is OK to compare it to another 58mm.

    So, it's a fact it's realism, which is why cameras are tested.

    I'm sure there were but tehy are older cameras so should be as good should they, but the fact it it isn;t more light tight than a lot of older and cheaper cameras.

    So have they stopped production of all there other lens that cover that range ?
    Deosn;t seem like they have any intention of doing so.

    So Nikon will be ceasiong productiopn of all lenses between 14-24mm
    such as the AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED ? I really don't think so.

    I guess will just wait and see .
    Whisky-dave, Apr 14, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Guest Guest

    That's illogical, captain !

    The focus is done BEFORE activation of the flash.
    When it's really dark.[/QUOTE]

    he said flashing lights, not flash, therefore it's not dark all the

    if it's dark, use the focus assist if needed, which is what i said in
    the first place.
    Guest, Apr 14, 2014
  4. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark.[/QUOTE]

    i've never had a problem, even with f/4 lenses.
    maybe if you pixel peep, but normally, it's not noticeable.

    try theatre photography, where high iso is *really* useful.
    Guest, Apr 14, 2014
  5. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    Doesn't work at all for astrophotography.
    Or in sports stadiums at night.
    They might be lower weight for a given aperture if they only have to
    illuminate a digital sensor rather than full frame 35mm.
    Martin Brown, Apr 14, 2014
  6. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Nospam mentions shallow depth of field but he misses the point that
    sometimes shallow depth of field is exactly what one wants.
    J. Clarke, Apr 14, 2014
  7. RichA

    Guest Guest

    astrophotography is definitely an edge case.
    those are well lit if there's a game. if not, then what's there to
    i wasn't talking about crop sensor lenses. again, like versus like.

    however, crop sensor lenses can be bigger and heavier than a full frame
    version, namely at the wide end. at the longer end, they generally
    weigh less.
    Guest, Apr 14, 2014
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    which you can easily get if that's what you want, and is in fact much
    easier on a full frame camera than on 4/3rds.
    Guest, Apr 14, 2014
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Try in the dark, then, you will see the difference between 1,4 and 4.[/QUOTE]

    i have. the trick is use both eyes.
    it's just one of many examples.

    nikon d7000 @ iso 3200
    pentax k5 @ iso 3200
    fuji x100 @ iso 6400
    canon 5d @ iso 3200 (and given the exposure, was very dim)

    all very impressive, given the isos involved. mix in a little noise
    reduction in lightroom (or photoshop), and you can go a bit faster too.
    then you know how useful high iso can be.
    Guest, Apr 14, 2014
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    With the same lens ? Hahahaha. Great joke.
    Take a shot at FF , crop it. Now you have APS-C or 3/4, whatever.
    Does it change the DOF ?[/QUOTE]

    actually it does, because you have to enlarge the result more.

    however, that's an invalid comparison. the comparison to make is
    between a crop and full frame sensor with the same number of pixels and
    using the same equivalent focal length, which will produce the same
    composition in the image.

    the smaller the sensor, the wider the aperture has to be to match a
    given image quality and depth of field, but the problem you run into is
    that the faster lenses don't exist for the smaller sensors.

    for example, you can get an f/1.4 lens on full frame, but to duplicate
    that on crop, you would need an f/1.0 (not available, other than
    obscure lenses that are impossible to actually find) and an f/0.7 on
    4/3rds (definitely not available).

    that is why it's easier on full frame.
    nope. you have a much wider choice of lenses for crop sensor cameras
    because both full frame and crop lenses will work on a crop sensor
    camera, whereas on a full frame camera, you are limited to full frame

    you could set the camera to crop mode for crop lenses but then you're
    losing the advantages of having a full frame sensor. at that point, you
    have a crop sensor camera, with its wider selection of lenses.

    there are a few crop sensor lenses that might cover a full frame at
    certain focal lengths, but those are an exception and the quality at
    the edges isn't all that wonderful when doing so.
    Guest, Apr 14, 2014
  11. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    yes correct or perhaps I should have said strobe and/or 'disco' lighting.

    My problem with that is generally I'm watching a band with 3 or more members, depending on the song/track I know one of them might do something exra intresting so need to make sure that person(s) will be in reasonable focus should I wish to take the shot and not wait for something to focus or attempt to focus. This is especally true when framing the drummer and guitarist in a single shot.

    When I'm doing video I don't want it to keep focusing, I'd go for manual focusing unless the auto focusing is really good enough and even then I've heard the motor noise so would prefer a truely manual focus.

    For photographing gigs I still prefer my old film camera canon A1 to my G10as I've had far better pictures and found it easier to get what I want than with a new modern digital camera so far. (excluding video).
    I've tried a canon 550D and a fujifilm HS10, of which I hated the canons noisey (sound)when zooming and the slow of response of the HS10 but at least I could zoom in video without the motor noise coming through.

    In teh case of my G10 for photos I prefer the optical viewfinder even though it's really dim, I can still use both my eyes framing with my left eye and deciding when to trigger the shutter button by evaluting the scene using my right eye to decide when to take the shot.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 14, 2014
  12. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    like i said, what's there to photograph?

    if an empty ball field is your thing, that's great but it isn't for me.
    Guest, Apr 15, 2014
  14. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Together with fast lenses, yes.
    Not instead.[/QUOTE]

    yes instead. when i shot theatre with film, i *had* to have fast glass
    because film didn't go much past 800 and it wasn't particularly good at
    that speed.

    with digital, things are just starting to get warmed up at iso 1600 or
    3200, and 6400 is certainly usable in most cases, which means an f/4
    lens is not a handicap at all. f/2.8 is nice to have but it's certainly
    not critical.
    different issue. stabilization helps camera shake and opens up a world
    of new opportunities in how slow you can hand hold a camera. however,
    it won't help if the subject is moving, although it will if you pan to
    follow the subject.
    it's great to have.
    Guest, Apr 15, 2014
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    No, it doesnt change the DOF. It may change the definition, but not the DOF.[/QUOTE]

    it does, because depth of field is based on the circle of confusion,
    which if you enlarge the photo, will be bigger.
    then you might want to revisit it.
    Guest, Apr 15, 2014
  16. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I never scanned it, but I have a print of a photograph I took at the
    Olympic stadium in Munich that I like very much. There are no people
    in the shot.

    I regret not photographing "The Green Monster" at Fenway when I went
    to a game there. Or, the columns at the old Soldier Field in Chicago.
    God, how those columns let the cold wind from Lake Michigan blow
    Tony Cooper, Apr 15, 2014
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Not with the hyper-shallow DOF fetish still running.
    RichA, Apr 17, 2014
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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.