http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/ Share advice on all camera equipment topics en Wed, 22 May 2013 14:39:22 GMT vBulletin 60 http://cdn.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/images/misc/rss.png http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/ http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29301.htm Wed, 22 May 2013 00:28:05 GMT I've read (and tend to agree based on experience but without the actual data) that modern digital sensors have reached a point that they outresolve most film. Many people tend to forget that film grain is comparable to pixel count in the context of resolution/sharpness. I recently purchased a Nikon D7100 which is a 1.5 crop factor sensor at 24MP. I've had it all of three days now and have shot about 500 frames with it. But I've had the opportunity (without intentional testing) to compare results of shots of the exact same subject taken at different settings as the lighting significantly changed.

This morning on my way to work, I stopped by a local pond and shot some bird photos. I was shooting the D7100 w/300mm plus 1.4x TC so collectively a 420mm lens. If you pay attention to crop factors that's 630mm effective plus the camera has a function to shoot in 1.3 crop so effectively like shooting a 14MP full frame sensor with an 820mm lens. Using the ages old strategy of keeping a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length, I started the shoot at 1/800ss and as light increased moved progressively to 1/1250, 1/1600, and ultimately 1/2000. Wide open aperture at 5.6 the entire time and when I got to 1/1600 I also began to tweak my ISO a bit.

I do not have real steady hands but historically the conventional wisdom of using ss = 1/focal length has worked for me. But when I look at my results from this AM (admittedly I am a pixel peeper), the frames shot at 1/800 are unacceptably blurry, 1/1250 would be OK for small prints, 1/1600 are finally what I consider sharp. The ones shot at 1/2000 are so crisp that without sharpening they would display well on the web at the native resolution of the image. I assume the missing AA filter in the 7100 accounts for that last bit of improvement.

But the entire point of my post is that the conventional wisdom of ss = 1/focal length does not appear to do it any more for the high rez sensors that are now available.

Another of the conventional wisdoms that I would challenge is the ages old assertion that one can't go wrong investing in glass. While I agree that holds in most cases, I believe that camera bodies nowadays can make so much difference that they may provide more bang for the buck. Depending on what type of subjects one shoots and on skill level, less noise and higher resolution images may be more advantageous than high end glass.

Revisiting old paradigms may prove beneficial both to the quality of one's photography as well as to the bank account :) ]]> NorthernFocus http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29301.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29300.htm Wed, 22 May 2013 00:10:27 GMT Aside from the price, what's different about these two?

http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/canon-eo...-lens-18-55mm/

http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/canon-eo...-lens-18-55mm/

I ask since I seem to manage to screw up something as simple as an "i" on the end of "T3" so I figure I should consult some experts before making another foolish mistake. ]]> DDK http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29300.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29289.htm Tue, 21 May 2013 10:45:26 GMT hello freinds i am buying canon d600,do you have any suggestions on this. can i find a better DSLR in this range,if yes please suggest. and also... hello freinds i am buying canon d600,do you have any suggestions on this.
can i find a better DSLR in this range,if yes please suggest.
and also suggest the which lens would be more useful for me to take potraits. ]]> Anusha http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29289.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29272.htm Mon, 20 May 2013 15:19:19 GMT Highlight Tone Priority.

HTP is supposed to reduce exposure then push the shadows in processing. Well, I've had a brief play at lunchtime and it's still left me wondering. I did shoot three images with it on and some with it off against a severly afflicted scene lighting-wise (dark interior and bright daylight through the window) It certainly brought up the shadows to at least a full stop over a 'normal, expose for the highlight' frame withought blowing the highlights.

What I'm not convinced about is this: is the sensor adjusting to the scene on a per pixel basis as some models can on white balance in full auto or just moving the whole histogram to the right in relation to the exposure?

If it's the latter then it's just what we do anyway (jpeg shooters) but if it's the former which I suspect it might be judging by the shadows then it is of real, practical use. I'll have the camera on 'P' for professional at the next wedding then ... :)

Any tecchies around here with in depth knowledge they'd like to share? ]]> SteveF http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29272.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29271.htm Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:36 GMT I've just read an interesting paper which shows the colors that a couple of camera sensor can detect. We are accustomed to CEI XYZ diagrams and, separately, sensor spectral response curves. It is also possible to find software that can display the colours in your image on a XYZ diagram, but this is the first time I've seen all three data types shown together in one document:



It is seen that sensors capture wavelengths way outside any known wide gamut. Fortunately for us, the camera manufacturers know all about this and thoughtful filter out all the extra stuff both optically and in software - some would say to excess ;-)

I've put the source article up on my site (warning - geeky stuff):

http://kronometric.org/phot/gamut/Ca...ysisGamuts.pdf
. ]]> xpatUSA http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29271.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29263.htm Mon, 20 May 2013 05:28:20 GMT I bought last week the Fuji XF1 camera, sort of a little sister to my FujiX100, and Panasonic E M5...... The Fuji X100 is at present in a Fuji... I bought last week the Fuji XF1 camera, sort of a little sister to my FujiX100, and Panasonic E M5......

The Fuji X100 is at present in a Fuji hospital to get her " Sticky Aperture Blades " fixed :(

I am wondering have other members bought the Fuji XF1 too, and are happy with the camera ?

I am happy with it, as I wanted a small camera who will live in my handbag, and I bought the camera in red, my very first camera other than black, the camera also came as a bonus with a matching red case, looks sexy......

Griddi....... ]]> just me http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29263.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29256.htm Sun, 19 May 2013 22:24:40 GMT I've been trying to research full frame sensors vs crop frame sensors, the so called "crop factor / magnification factor," resolution, cropping. :eek:The problem I'm having is that I am running into conflicting information and opinions... :confused:

To summarize what I want to know: For photography where having good reach is important (wildlife photography), what is really the difference between having a 1.6 crop factor sensor vs having a full frame sensor and cropping the photo in post processing? While I am aware that generally a full frame sensor will have better image quality / lower noise, I think a huge factor that needs to be considered is actually resolution / number / size of pixels, and what it really looks like when cropped.

I've read, the crop factor is really just basically showing a cropped portion of what would be captured on a full frame sensor, so you are not really getting the magnification that you think you are, you are instead getting a pre-cropped image. In these next statements, I'm not claiming that I am correct or that what I am saying is accurate, I am only stating what seems logical to me... The thing about that which doesn't make sense to me is that, you have a large amount of pixels packed into that smaller area, so it really is not like a crop of a full frame sensor because you have the higher resolution within that area. And so when they say a full frame sensor could be cropped to get the same image quality or better as a crop frame sensor, it would seem to me that you'd need the equivalent resolution of pixels for that cropped area. It doesn't seem to me that most full frame sensors have enough resolution/pixels to allow a cropped image of the same resolution that you would get with a crop sensor. To come down to a specific example, though not to limit the discussion, imagine I am comparing my Canon 7D 1.6 crop to a full frame 5d Mark III. I just can't imagine being able to crop a full frame image from the 5D down to what I'd get with the 7D and have the cropped image have enough resolution to equal out. :confused:

Additionally, I've read that the larger pixels in a full frame sensor don't carry as much fine detail when you crop down, so the cropping of a full frame sensor would not have the same apparent resolution as a crop sensor image of the same apparent magnification.

Once again, this is all just what I've read and my own thoughts on what it seems to indicate, but I don't claim to know if it's accurate, so I'm asking this question to get input from people with experience and better information then me. I really want top image quality, but I also need as much reach / as little cropping as possible, or at least for a cropped image to have high enough resolution and quality. Thanks for any input or help! ]]> flyingSquirrel http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29256.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29247.htm Sun, 19 May 2013 15:43:48 GMT Would love to hear some recommendations for a tripod for wildlife photography. Would love to hear some recommendations for a tripod for wildlife photography. ]]> bakravitz http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29247.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29246.htm Sun, 19 May 2013 15:21:33 GMT For the 1 system. http://www.gizmag.com/nikon-32mm-lens/27558/ For the 1 system.

http://www.gizmag.com/nikon-32mm-lens/27558/ ]]> Andrew1 http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29246.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29231.htm Sat, 18 May 2013 21:05:06 GMT I have an opportunity to pick up the Nikon AF-S 200-400 at a very good price or purchase the new AF-S 80-400 (I currently own an older one AF... I have an opportunity to pick up the Nikon AF-S 200-400 at a very good price or purchase the new AF-S 80-400 (I currently own an older one AF version).
Im using this on the D800. I heard the new 80-400 has been redesigned for the D800 is that true?

I currently own the Nikon AF-S 24-70, AF-S 300, AF 80-400 (selling) and the TC 20 E III Teleconverter.

Thanks you guys and gals have been a great source of info and support.

Bernie ]]> bakravitz http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29231.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29211.htm Fri, 17 May 2013 15:29:32 GMT Hi, I am moving all of my stuff to my new 64 bit computer (Win7). The Color Munki driver disk will not install, nor will the downloaded version... Hi,

I am moving all of my stuff to my new 64 bit computer (Win7). The Color Munki driver disk will not install, nor will the downloaded version from the X-rite site. The computer freezes and need a hard reboot! Anyone come across this before?

Thanks for any assistance,

Dave ]]> davidedric http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29211.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29208.htm Fri, 17 May 2013 11:22:23 GMT Another question on my team/group planning.
I was thinking of getting brave & using my speedlights on manual for consistent exposures, as the position of them won't change relative to the subjects once I'm set-up.
I am googling Mr Guy's book, but in the meantime, can anyone answer when you use manual flash settings,ie full or 1/2 etc - do you always have to manually set the zoom distance as well? ]]> wilgk http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29208.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29181.htm Thu, 16 May 2013 10:13:50 GMT Hi all, after seeing some great photos in the people & pets forum "Hard Rain" i rekindled my idea for photos in the rain, and was wandering if there is weather proofing gear like a rain coat for a camera? Or is there a way of making one? ]]> allenlennon http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29181.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29177.htm Wed, 15 May 2013 23:17:30 GMT Hello everybody A dear friend of mine decided to buy a reflex to shoot videos in a big project between the university, a group of directors and... Hello everybody
A dear friend of mine decided to buy a reflex to shoot videos in a big project between the university, a group of directors and photographers. He's gonna use it in sets with metrical refers and proper light positions, on a tripod or a steadycam, everything in controlled conditions.
His budget is about 1200€, and he has to buy lens also.
I'm a nikon user, and i don't have a camera that shoots videos, and rarely used some models for holyday videos or so.
So i went to see on some reviews and advices found in italy's nikon forum. A lot of people sudgested me the 4/3 Panasonic gh2 modified, because the gh3 is out of budget. i also looked to sony alpha77 and it seems to be only a little bit less good as the panasonic. About nikon, he only found a pair of models of d300s with those money, and it's only 720p. otherwise the D7100 seems to be as good as the alpha77, but i think it's too much expensive (even if he has three nikkor from '70s).
The specs i've seen are a bit strange to me, because i do not really know anything about video and 4/3 systems. the problem is that i hardly believe that a 4/3 model has better quality than most of the DX DSLRs, even better, according to reviews, than some Fullframes as the old 5DmII.
I hope some people here can help me understand how is possible that a 4/3 camera has better video quality than an advanced DSLR.
And also, of course, i'm looking for advices about video quality in general, mostly about canon cameras that seem to be the most quality for money around.
thanks everybody
Lorenzo ]]> lorenzobix http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29177.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29171.htm Wed, 15 May 2013 18:08:59 GMT I had the opportunity to try out a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 lens yesterday. Image:... I had the opportunity to try out a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 lens yesterday.



I have to admit I'm impressed.

It would mostly be used for landscape so the barrel distortion doesn't worry me but It's impresively sharp right into the corners at f/11 and very little vignetting that I can see. ]]> Wayland http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread29171.htm