Thread: photography and cameras Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029396

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I can't find the old thread where I was once a frequent contributor so have started a new one.

I still have my Nikon DS3100 but son seems to have taken it over. He did a Nursery workshop by Tim Coulson, now basically a wedding photographer down here. His workshops were highly sought after and people raved about what they had learnt.

My eldest son is a Fuji fan. He bought the first model just after I bought the Nikon when I did not know about the Fuji.

I have been experimenting all morning with his fairly new second Fuji, an XT1. I am very tempted to buy one. This morning I used the 35 mm lens which is really 52mm. I will swap this afternoon to the 23 mm (35mm). There are other lenses to try and a useful macro lens too.

It is easy to use and the results are brilliant. Reviews are very favourable. Not cheap. His outfit with spare batteries, bag and several lenses was well over AUD$4000. I can't spend that much but will get two lenses not five. I can already feel how much I enjoyed using the Nikon and am looking forward to the. Not exactly depressed, but black dog has been nipping at my heels for too long and this is exciting me.

Any comments?

[ 08. March 2015, 00:29: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The Fuji is, by all accounts, an excellent camera. If you got the XT1, Metabones make an adaptor which allows the use of Nikon lenses. Then you could borrow from either son, extending your range of lenses at no cost. And find loads of used Nikon lenses in the cheap.
That is the beauty of the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Another Fuji Fan checking in - I had [still have] an HS25 and then got an HS50 which is brilliant. I have deliberately avoided interchangeable lenses as I would then obsess about different lenses for different situations and would drive my bank manager to distraction! I got a great set of filters last year and have had enormous fun trying different effects - and still have lots of filters to go. I am actively considering getting a ring flash for macro work, I can get one fairly cheaply online here.


[edited to cohere]

[ 08. March 2015, 08:28: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Thanks for your opinions. Son has had a Fuji for several years and has now bought his second. I had forgotten the ability to change lenses. I will probably buy the 23 mm and perhaps the macro lens. I gave his camera to play with for a few says and I will give him a shopping list to show his contact. Spare battery, memory card etc all need purchasing.

He will be in London for several weeks soon as well as in Strasbourg and Frankfurt. I may give him an idea of anything else I fancy and how much I am prepared to pay. He is not long back from a similar trip with his wife where they bought things duty free.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
My pocket camera is also a little Fuji, quite a cheap one, too. it is okay for snaps and has quite a few features that were high-end a decade ago - technology is just amazing!

Tell your son to be careful in Duty Free, some places overprice things way above high street prices and certainly above online prices, I think the motto is Caveat Emptor. But there are also some great bargains to be had.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
thanks for the warning. He is an experienced traveller,well used to tricks used.

He is a canny shopper and explores lots of options.
 

---

Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :
 
Another Fuji owner here. My partner and I each have an S5700, bought in 2007. They've done us proud!
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I have been reading reviews online and overwhelmingly, these are positive. Not always 100%, but one reviewer may find things differently to another. Generally, the overall tone is great.

I have been trying out the lenses son left with me. I think this afternoon may be the time to switch to manual from automatic. I was quite used to fully manual on Nikon DS3100, but have had so little access to that lately that I may have forgotten tricks of the trade.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have a Nikon D3200 which I will need to experiment with before the 20th for the eclipse. I've got a solar filter for the run up to totality, and not much time then to fiddle. Before then, I've got the Aurora. I've downloaded some instructions for that, and there's a video setting on the camera which might be good, as well. I've also got a cheap extension to fit on the 52 mm screw to give a wider field for that, as well. (True wide-angle was beyond my budget.)
I was hoping for a number of eclipse and aurora geeks on this trip who know what they are doing. I'm not sure, from the people I've seen so far, that there will be. They don't look as if they would slot into an astronomy society seamlessly. Might be wrong though.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Most people have probably worked out that I'm a professional silly bugger, and thus is the case with my photography. My "serious" tools are a Canon G10 and a Nikon D200 (note the age of each...), but I also collect elderly and vintage cameras, the older and odder the better, and what is more I try to use them. I currently have close to eighty cameras, thirty-odd being box cameras (or thirty odd box cameras, I don't mind how you parse that!), and have probably managed to use sixty or so at least once. The oldest I have is circa 1909, the oldest that I can regularly use dates to 1911.

Here's some pictures of them. Some I've passed on, sold, etc, but mostly if it's in that set I still have it. Yes, I'm a squirrel!

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Lovely collection that is. I have a difficult enough time restraining myself buying new kit that I cannot allow for the collecting of old. But your link does remind me of a local camera shop I frequent. I have a nerdgasm every time I walk into it.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Son did some wheeling and dealing today and now has my new camera at his place charging battery, updating firmware etc. No idea of cost but probably more than I contemplated. Fuji xt1, 35 (52) lens and a macro. I tried out his lenses and agonised over the 35 mm. I really liked the 23 mm (35) as well, but decided on 35 mm.

He leaves for London on Tuesday but I think he has everything now at a good price.

Am looking forward to tomorrow. He will bring it over.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Very exciting! I am photo geek enough to be very excited for someone else getting new kit.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Thanks. I am excited too. Quite different to Nikon so it will be another time of learning. I probably would have bought the Fuji when it was first brought out, but it was after I bought the Nikon. Last year was a fairly rotten year all round and I am looking forward to getting out a bit with the new camera even if it is only on the roof garden here. That will be a struggle in itself. Several flights of steps as lift does not go all the way to top.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
My son and his wife arrived yesterday needing breakfast but carrying all sorts of goodies for me. He had paired purchasing camera for me with a big zoom lens purchase for himself and had seen one of the top directors of a large store here where he has bought two Fuj cameras already. One for himself and one for wife. He got a very good deal indeed. I bought the 35 mm lens and the macro, the body . Also bought a super fast memory card.

There were quite a few goodies in the box which were added despite good prices on the big items. A couple of extra batteries and a lot more.

I am now planning a quiet Monday, sitting down exploring the lot. It was like a lucky dip.

[ 15. March 2015, 21:58: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I had not wanted to post again without someone posting before me. However a week has passed. I have been playing with camera and exploring settings. After a couple of days with everything on auto, I became bored. With a digital, it is easy enough to erase anything truly horrible without paying for developing. So I took a deep breath and launched out. There have been some very good shots, at first more good luck than good management. Some very poor, and quite a few more than passable. Have just spent a grey morning adjusting ISO and shutter speeds and comparing results.

I love the viewfinder on the Fuji and am enjoying this lens. Very clear shots, unless I do something stupid.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I was going to ask. Very glad the camera is working out for you.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
There was an ubergeek on the trip, who gave us extensive advice on the photographing of aurora and eclipses. I have some very good aurora pics, though some do not look quite so good when magnified, and some lousy eclipse ones. I found switching between reacting spectacles, eclipse viewers, and trying to adjust the camera completely beyond me, as I couldn't focus on the screen of the camera either to focus the image or to read the settings. One of the diners at the table I had been plonked on had a simpler camera, no tripod and no remote, and had some brilliant pictures. Grr.

For the benefit of anyone thinking about a Nikon - the zoom lenses do not have an infinity indication, and actually seem to focus on the sky a smidgen in from the extreme focus position. This isn't a problem in normal situations, but by comparison with what I have done in 1999 with film and old-fashioned telephoto lenses, where the end of the turn was infinity, it was disappointing.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Glad you liked the Fuji, Loth, I find my HS50 great to use.

We have been away this last week and one afternoon was spent in a garden/park and found the manual focus invaluable for some of the distance shots of one flower among many - the HS50 has a feature which lights up the edges [as seen through the viewfinder] when in sharp focus - I have no idea how this is achieved but I like it. Haven't downloaded any yet as I was too knackered yesterday but am hoping for some decent results when I do it later today.
 

---

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
Do any other spectacle wearers struggle with manual focus through a viewfinder? I can use it for things that are reasonably close up if I have a fair amount of time but I have had to discard several photographs that were otherwise really good because the focus that looked fine through the viewfinder turns out to be off once on a larger screen.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by To The Pain:
Do any other spectacle wearers struggle with manual focus through a viewfinder? I can use it for things that are reasonably close up if I have a fair amount of time but I have had to discard several photographs that were otherwise really good because the focus that looked fine through the viewfinder turns out to be off once on a larger screen.

---

There could be several explanations, some of which might be fixable.
First question: What camera do you have? (Model and brand)
 

---

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
My camera is a a Canon 1100D and I've generally been using it with the kit lens or more recently with the 50mm Canon lens.

I do take a lot of pictures of people dancing, which generally means they are moving fairly fast but indoors at night and often in fairly low light - is it just that my eyes (+specs) have a greater depth of field than a lens on a wide aperture?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I think you've almost solved the case.
to:dr version is motion blur.
It is very likely that, at the exact instant your finger presses the shutter release, your subject is in focus. The problem is, in those conditions, the shutter speed will be too slow to freeze the movement and you will have motion blur.
An external flash can help. As can a lens with a greater aperture, but they tend to be expensive. Edited to add few lenses will be faster than the f1.8 50mm. So the flash or a new camera.

[ 31. March 2015, 16:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Regarding DOF:

When you are looking through an optical viewfinder on an SLR such as your camera, you are seeing the shallowest depth of field your lens is capable of. The lens will be at its maximum aperture to let in more light. If your aperture is set to a smaller size, the camera closes it down just before opening the shutter. So, if it looks like you have sufficient DOF, you likely do.
------------
One problem with photography lies in understanding the difference between how our brains record an image and how a camera does.
They both record the world inaccurately, but in different ways. Matching what we think we saw with the camera's limitations is the trick.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Weather has been unpleasant for much of the last few days. Tonight was much better and I was out on the balcony, experimenting with settings for night photos without flash. On the whole, I am happy with what I got. A couple of rubbishy ones which I trashed, some others I cropped.
 

---

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
Thanks lilBudda,

I shall look into flash - I much prefer photographs without, but I'm sure with a little practice I'll be able to get things looking natural.

I have had some luck with people doing repetitive figures - focus on them the first time and wait for them to come through again - and I've set a specific focus point so I can control the autofocus a bit better. And christmas added a tripod and remote to my camera toys, so perhaps a complete absence of camera shoogle will help with the slow shutter speeds.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Motion blur is the subject's movement relative to yours. So a tripod might be helpful.
An antidote to motion blur is to pan the camera with the subject. The tripod should help eliminate vertical motion and reduce the blur. This will only help so much. So set the ISO as high as you can befor too much image degradation occurs and shoot with manual exposure or aperture priority (A) set to the widest aperture.
And regarding the flash, you might want to experiment with flash exposure compensation. Lowering the output of the flash to the point of adding light, but reducing the objectionable look.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I have found a flash diffuser to be a great asset - and a cheap one, too.
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
To The Pain, I did a load of dance photography last year and it's tough! Often drab low lighting, boring interiors and fast movement. Here's what I learnt (much of which lilBuddha covered)...

First, to help identify why your figures are out of focus it might help to look at the backgrounds, especially the floor. There are three options.

#1. If the background is blurred everywhere (near and far) then you've probably got camera shake - you're not holding it steady enough for the shutter speed. Solutions include using a tripod; developing your technique for hand-holding; image stabilisation in the lens; using a wider angle lens + moving closer; using a faster shutter speed (via higher ISO or aperture).

If the background is in focus at one point, you've not got camera shake so a tripod won't help. Now the question is: are the figures about the same distance from you as the in-focus background?

#2. If so, then you've focused OK. Any blurring is probably due to movement blur - the subjects are moving. The solutions include panning the camera; flash; using a faster shutter speed (higher ISO or aperture). A tripod or image stabilisation won't help here.

#3. If the figures aren't the same distance as the in-focus bit of background, you've missed focus. Solutions include using manual focus and focusing on one spot; using a smaller aperture or wider angle lens to increase depth of field; using higher spec gear. (Not an option usually, I know...)

Indoors dance is hard, and very demanding of camera gear and photographers. My suggestion is to use a wide lens (not the 50mm - the kit lens at its wide angle would be better), get as close as possible and have fun with the blurring - it can give your photos a lot of energy. Depending on the context, moving amongst the dancers can be brilliant. Burst mode is useful, letting you take a lot of photos and delete 95%.

Flash can be great too, especially combined with motion blur (slow sync flash). Set the camera to "second curtain flash" for best effect. But get as close as you possibly can!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Good suggestion WW.

Hiro's Leap, a minor quibble.
The kit lens will be much slower than the 50mm and might negate the extra depth of field.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I woke this morning with a type of migraine and haven't felt very bright all day. I changed lens on Fuji from 35 mm to 60 mm macro.

Turned camera on, tried similar settings to last night. Nothing. Changed ISO and shutter speed. Nothing. Refitted lens to make sure it was on properly. Read instruction book.

Then noticed lens cap was still on. Removed that and all was well.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Been there and done that, Lothlorien. The great thing with any sort of through the lens camera is that you can't miss it for very long - in theory at least

I was in a rush yesterday so here is a link to the sort of thing I'm talking about. Cost about GBP2, not sure about other currencies but it don't cost much and is a doddle to use.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
am tempting myself with the idea of a 90mm or 100mm 2.8 lens as a treat with my work bonus.
the dilemma is
- the 90mm 2.8 tamron (pentax fit) is £300
- the 100mm (water resisitant) Pentax 2.8 is ~£410

is it worth the extra £100 for the extra 10mm and "pentax"ness ?
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Is it a 90mm Tamron lens, or the 90mm SP Macro? If the latter, it's a bit of a legend.

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What exactly is Pentaxness?
The Tamron 90mm macro, at least the older versions, have been a lens prefered over other lenses for macro work. I've a Tamron 120mm macro and it is fantastic.

BTW, not sure about Pentax, but "Macro" is misused to the point of meaningless. The Tamron is true macro.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
pentaxness - as in it is a lens manufactured by Pentax, to fit a pentax camera
Pentax 100mm lens
Tamron lens
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Never been one for brand loyalty. I prefer to buy the best I can for the money spent.
I would buy the Tamron.
But it depends on what you want to do. The Tamron is true macro, 1:1 reproduction. The Pentax is 1:2.3.* If you wish to do close-up photography, the Tamron is a clear winner.
The Pentax has a minor advantage for portrait photography.

*For those who do not know how macro works, think of it as 1/1=1 and 1/2.3=.4. The Tamron will make very close images seem larger.

[ 02. April 2015, 16:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
where did you get the 1:2.3 from ?
the item description says true macro (1:1) and so does at least one of the reviews
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hiro's Leap, a minor quibble.
The kit lens will be much slower than the 50mm and might negate the extra depth of field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
where did you get the 1:2.3 from ?
the item description says true macro (1:1) and so does at least one of the reviews

---

My bad, WK, you are correct.
My macro lens is the Tamron 120mm. I purchased it instead of the Tamron 90mm to gain a bit of working distance for the same 1:1 reproduction. The 120 is a brilliant piece of kit, but I still wonder if the 90 might not have been better. But then I'd wonder also if I'd made the reverse decision.
I've read a few reviews since, and the Pentax rates very well.
So, I'm not so certain which I would buy anymore.
And I'm pretty sure this is not helpful to your decision.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
no problem, just wasn't sure if I was missing a technical trick somewhere.
can't imaging i need weather resistance, or the extra 10mm reach to justify the increased cost of the Pentax lens, especially when there seeems to be so much good feedback about the Tamron one

watch this space....
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
A friend suggested I buy a wide angle lens for Nikon DSLR 3100. Instead I bought a Tamron zoom, 18-270 mm, f3.5-6.3.

I used it a lot and was very happy with the lens and the pictures I took. I don't know if my son, to whom I gave the camera and lenses has actually used the zoom.

What I did find was that it was prone to lens creep because of its weight. Anything other than camera held so lens was perfectly horizontal resulted in lens sliding gently in or out. I used to focus, then put a finger on lens as I took photos to hold it steady. Great results, but the creep was annoying.
 

---

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
Now I want to try out that 'second curtain flash' - looks like a flash effect I could have fun with.

I took my camera, tripod and remote away for the weekend over the Easter weekend and it's weird adjusting back to using a zoom, but we had great fun taking long-exposure moonlight shots around 10pm. There are a couple up on my blog (please ignore waffly nonsense!) and I introduced my girlfriend to the notion of using a torch during a long exposure shot - she nearly managed to write her whole name backwards in the air over 12 seconds!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, a comment on the prime v. zoom. I use zooms much more often due to practicality. I primarily shoot landscapes and as they don't move and sharpness is key, one might think a prime would be optimal. But I've found the zooms essential. They give me a freedom to adapt and a creative variation not possible without carrying half a dozen lenses. And sometimes moving to another spot is simply not possible.
I have found this in shooting events as well. The shot can happen now and no chance to move. A simple twist of the wrist and I don't have to.
Given infinite time, infinite space to move and a lens Sherpa, I'd have all primes. But for practicality, I use zooms.
This is for me, and my shooting and in no way is meant to criticise anyone else's methods or experience.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
I love the "moon over the bay" shot, TTP !
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Being almost 10 years since my 35mm SLR died on me, surviving in the meantime on a compact digital, I'm back into having a half-decent camera. Last weekend I was out viewing the blossoms (hanami as they say around here - making the whole act of seeing trees in bloom into an excuse for a party), and got really frustrated that the compact wouldn't let me focus on things close up (like branches loaded with blossom) and if I could get something to focus close up didn't have the depth of field I wanted.

So, I did some research, couldn't find a local specialist camera shop, but did find a Currys-PC World type place with cameras a couple of miles away. Went for a walk on Saturday, and came back with an Olympus OM-D E-M10, with a 14-42mm and a 40-150mm lens. At 25% less than the cheapest online deal I'd seen in the UK as well

Another hanami on Sunday, and a walk up to the top of the local hill, and I'm very pleased with it.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Very nice Alan - I've just looked it up and it looks a great camera. Enjoy!

[WW wanders off muttering I don't need a DSLR, I don't need a DSLR...]
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
That's a fantastic little camera. I love micro four thirds - small and light enough to throw in a bag without thinking twice, but still feels like an slr.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
My new Fuji is also mirrorless. I am enjoying exploring capabilities.

I have been pleased with the ones taken at night without flash use. ISO can go to a much higher number than many other cameras without producing a grainy photo.

[ 14. April 2015, 05:20: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I love my Fuifilm HS50 but the thing that really appeals to me about the Olympus that Alan bought is the weight! Mine weighs in at 800+ grammes whereas thew Olympus weighs in at under half that - by the end of a day's walk that is significant.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
There is some serious lightness being built into modern cameras - the last time I was in a camera shop I picked up a new Nikon DSLR and nearly smacked myself in the face with it! It was sooo light! Nikons should be like this, I thought it was a dummy until I turned it on and took a pic...

Adrian
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The top of the range pro cameras still have some serious heft.
Dropping the prism and mirror box will reduce that a bit. But to have the same level of rugged will always be heavier than the consumer versions.

[ 17. April 2015, 18:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I love my Canon 60D but sometimes need a smaller, lighter camera so ...

I have just ordered a second hand Canon PowerShot SX30 IS - £75, including postage.

Sounds good!

I came first last week in a competition at Camera Club, not bad out of 150 photos **pride**


 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Well done Boogie!

I saw in a review in one of the Indian photo-mags that some of the upmarket cameras now have titanium frames/bodies! Serious strength and serious lightness!

Fun day yesterday when we went to friends for lunch over the other side of the river. The younger of their two kids is 10 years old and was desperate to have a go with the camera and after a little bit of instruction about the half-press/full-press thingy and the always keep the wrist loop on he was off and shows a really good eye. Next time I'll talk to him about the rule of thirds and show him some of the programme features. My big Fuji weighs almost as much as he does - he is quite a small ten year old and looked strange with this big clunky camera around his neck!
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Canon kit woman joining the discussion. I like the heaviness of my camera (a 1000D), and my shaky hands like heavier cameras too. I tend to use a tripod with a remote.

I have only one prime lens (50mm), but it gets a workout when I'm doing pictures of people - very fast, copes with low light well, and takes wonderfully crisp pictures.

I've just bought my first off-camera flash last week, so I'm a bit overexcited at the moment, not that I'd share any photos I've taken in the last few days.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I had some very peculiar results the other night, photographing the crescent Moon and Venus, using timed exposure via a remote. That was OK, but I decided it would be interesting to use the flash during the exposure to light up a tree in the foreground. I know I've seen shots where people have done that sort of thing. But not like what I got.
I was shooting through an open French window - so there was no glass between the camera and the target, though the lens was roughly level with the window to the right.
I got a crazy blur of colours (deep blue to brownish) overlying the sky and the tree and the houses behind the tree, rather like some of the Hubble nebula pics, plus a circular transparent blob at the lower left. This was repeated on successive attempts, (I think with both my lenses).
There was nothing reflective nearby. The houses are some way off, and have very small windows, below the line I was aiming.
Thinking there might be light leaking inside the newish Nikon D3200 (I used to have a Zenith film SLR which did that sort of thing when not in its cover), I tried using the flash with the lens cap on. Total blackness. So not that.
I have found that I do get odd effects when shooting the Moon with the UV filter on, reflections which are visible in the screen on the back of the camera, and I have not tested the flash yet with the filter off in exactly the same direction. It seemed like much too much light bouncing around for that, though.
It didn't do it last night when I shot the Moon, now approaching half, with Jupiter, but they were much higher in the sky.
I'm somewhat bemused.

[ 27. April 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I had fun last night taking photos f this balloon on top of McDonalds outside my apartment. I fiddled with settings but like this the best. Click to enlarge. No flash.

the mother ship has landed.

ISO 800 f2 1/180 35 mm lens Fuji XT1 ISO can go quite high on this camera without graininess. I am really enjoying experimenting.

[ 27. April 2015, 23:59: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
PennyS,

I've found that, instead of flash, shoot a slow speed shot to get the tree exposed and a faster shot to get the moon. Then combine them in the computer. You could also try a diffuser. A thin, white sheet might work. There is no glass between you and the tree, but how far out the window are you? If you are still in the room, it is possible some of the surfaces are reflecting back in.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Double post to talk about my new baby arrived from Japan today. I have the original M and it is a brilliant camera.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
PennyS,

I've found that, instead of flash, shoot a slow speed shot to get the tree exposed and a faster shot to get the moon. Then combine them in the computer. You could also try a diffuser. A thin, white sheet might work. There is no glass between you and the tree, but how far out the window are you? If you are still in the room, it is possible some of the surfaces are reflecting back in.

---

The tripod legs were level with the window frame - I couldn't get them further out, obviously. It's possible the front of the lesser lens was about an inch behind the level of the glass. The longer one would not have been, I think. It was in the middle of the door space. There is a small flush balcony grille below.

Curiously, I wasn't able to reproduce the exact effect when I tried. However, that was with the Moon a bit further around, closer to Jupiter than Venus, so it wasn't a exact reproduction of what I did before. And I am a little reluctant to keep on flashing towards my neighbours.

The neighbours' windows facing me are about 50 metres away, and there are, I see in daylight, a number of satellite dishes on houses at right angles to me, all aimed roughly in my direction and roughly level with the camera.

I got told off for stacking my eclipse exposures in the computer by an astronomical purist!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Purists, bah!
Do whatever you need to get the result you desire. Never tried photo stacking. For the moon, I use two layers, one exposed for the moon and one exposed for the rest. I then clip the moon from its best exposure and paste in onto the other. It is a little more involved than that, because the overexposed moon creates a bigger spot than the properly exposed, but that is the beguiling off it.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I suppose it depends on whether it is supposed to be science or art. I have done that sort of thing with a shot of the full Moon over Cirencester church seen from the Roman road to Gloucester, where I couldn't take it at the time I saw it, and cut and pasted to reproduce it.
I don't think I'd have got the tree without flash, though, at the time I was doing it. A bit dark. If I'd pushed the ISO up, it would have been a bit grainy.
Tests tonight.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You can get a lot of detail in the dark using a tripod and long exposure. It doesn't need high ISO for something still like a tree trunk. Moon shots need very short exposure (1\100s).
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I know that - it's been very difficult, even with the thin crescent, to get a decent exposure for both the Moon and either Venus or Jupiter. Probably needs photo-editing.

A bit of a nuisance this evening - there's low cloud, or it would be worth going out to find a decent horizon and look for Mercury. I have that on film. (My early attempts included negative colour film, and trying desperately to tell the young guys in the photographers that the very small black speck was what I wanted to show up on the print! They were very rude in a way that they thought I wouldn't notice, as though they knew more than I did.)
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Beautifully clear this evening, and I managed to get some shots of Mercury - not at its brightest, though. I had to go out to be sure of having a clear line of sight. I might have had a gap in the trees in the right place, but I couldn't be sure, and didn't want to waste the clear sky. So the flash testing is going to wait.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot.
Whilst driving away from taking photos; I heard, then saw, something fall of the roof of my car and hit the road. Pieces going in multiple directions.
It was a lens that I had placed there whilst putting my kit in the car. I was going about 25mph when it fell.
I spun the car around and prayed. The pieces I had seen flying off were the front lens cap and the rear lens cap. Aside from a nasty gash in the plastic coating near the base, the lens appeared fine. No rattling, smooth operation of zoom and focus rings. I placed it on the camera body and it works as if nothing had happened.
Built like a tank. Though I do not intend on putting it through any more tests.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Ouch! Lens covers cost a lot less to replace than a lens.

I am glad it is ok.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm glad lens covers aren't too expensive. Not yet with the new camera, but on a couple of occasions with the old one 10-15 years ago I dropped a lens cap on a mountain somewhere. Climbing back down 100m or so to look among the rocks for the lost cap didn't seem worth it (after the first time I made sure I had a spare in the camera case - fortunately two of the three lenses I had used the same size cap, so only needed two spares ... so long as I didn't drop two caps on the same trip).
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
images from 1800's Burma and India for those who can make the trip.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I thought I'd lost my lens cap the other night when trying to photograph Mercury, which is being a thorough pain at the moment. I loaded the camera, with cap (I thought), attached to the tripod, onto the back seat of the car when we set off for the nearby church car park which has a good western horizon, and went to take it off and pocket it, only to not find it. After some unsatisfactory exposing, I searched the back seat, in the dark, moved the car to illuminate the area in the headlights, nothing. We went home where I turned all the likely spots upside down, and I went for a last look in the car, with a torch. It was lying on the doorsill, where it had been kept in place by the door. Fortunately - if it had dropped out on the way back, I'd never have found it.

Last night I was very much more careful, but only succeeded in getting the sort of picture which would be of interest if no-one had photographed Mercury before, that will just show that I had seen it. Not as clear as through binoculars. I wasn't using a long lens, as I wanted Venus in the shot, too. Very grainy and blurry, despite focussing on Venus first, which has to be at infinity, using the zoom on the LCD screen to get the best image of that. ISO 800, f4 and various exposure times. Film was better. Though I have to say, naked eye wasn't that good - I couldn't pick it out at all. Nasty spot I had to use, beside a road, with a lot of traffic, as the church car park was already occupied by people more interested in Venus than astronomy.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
In order to brighten things up a bit I've started a colour-themed photographic project with the aim of photographing some predominantly yellow things (while avoiding lots of flower shots).

It's enjoyable focusing on a colour theme, yellow is a cheery sort of colour and spring is a good time to start. Interestingly, perhaps, most times you see yellow artifacts around, they are usually notices or industrial equipment. (Which I haven't taken pictures of but does make it more of a challenge.)

Meanwhile here's a selection of portraits of Indian people that appeared in yesterday's Daily Mail. I was particularly struck by the first one with those amber eyes.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Another evening not observing Mercury. The farmer came out to make sure I wasn't up to unspeakable practices like last night's car, but said nothing after I wished him good evening.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
My faithful Canon Powershot SX220 compact camera has now developed two horrendous and uncleanable splodges on the inside of the lens, so I guess I'm looking at buying a new one.

I'm looking for something that offers manual controls, as presets are annoying, but doesn't break the bank. I don't mind an older model and I've been very happy with Canon. It should fit easily into a pocket or handbag. Any suggestions/recommendations?
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Might a G-series do the job? I'm still using a G10.

AG

(also currently awaiting delivery of an Ilford Advocate)
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I am enjoying the Canon Powershot SX260 HS. It's been replaced by the SX270, so can be found at half the original price. It's small enough to fit in a pocket, has the manual, AV and TV controls (probably has others, but I ignore them), and 20x zoom. I chose this one to replace the chunkier version I managed to lose as it came very well reviewed.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If it is compact you want, and price is a concern, I would highly recommend the original Sony RX100. It has a much larger sensor than the typical pocket camera but still fits in a pocket.
Fantastic images and good depth of field control.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
That's an extremely good point, the lack of control over depth of field in anything but macro mode of the G10 drives me potty.

AG
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Well, I love my Canon PowerShot SX30 IS - I took it to Lindisfarne and got some super shots. I am now saving up for an SX60 instead of a zoom lens for my DSLR.

I really prefer shooting in RAW and the SX60 has this function
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I am enjoying the Canon Powershot SX260 HS. It's been replaced by the SX270, so can be found at half the original price. It's small enough to fit in a pocket, has the manual, AV and TV controls (probably has others, but I ignore them), and 20x zoom. I chose this one to replace the chunkier version I managed to lose as it came very well reviewed.

---

I'd been looking at that last night and thinking this would be a good one to have. It's on offer at the moment as well and fits into my budget at under £100.

[ 19. May 2015, 10:57: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Another second hand option is a micro four thirds camera with kit lens. I use the Panasonic G5. The image quality is in a different league to most compacts and it's insanely cheap on eBay - less than £150 used, including lens. Four years ago it was £600.

OK, it's not pocketable, but it's very light. In a bag I barely notice it.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I now own a Canon Powershot SX280, which was on clearance (and not from Amazon). Looking good so far, and it has manual mode, 20x zoom and the ability to take pictures in sepia

I do wish they'd give you an actual manual though - it seems it's all on CD which is a bit of a pain if you're out somewhere. What I thought was a small thick manual turned out to be one of those annoying multilingual introductions, where you get 9 pages in your own language telling you how to press the On button, followed by 100pp saying the same thing in every other language they could think of. But that's my only gripe.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Canon's menu system is really easy to work out, though. My one complaint about my RX100 is that Sony's menus are shite. Truly designed by an engineer who hates camera users.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Apparently this camera is capable of using wifi to send pictures to my smartphone or television. It also has GPS.

We really have come a long way since the days when cameras just took photographs.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Apparently this camera is capable of using wifi to send pictures to my smartphone or television. It also has GPS.

We really have come a long way since the days when cameras just took photographs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
I do wish they'd give you an actual manual though - it seems it's all on CD which is a bit of a pain if you're out somewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just because I've got around to putting them up in accessible places, the Canon PowerShot SX270HS is a nice toy - long exposure night shot of St Paul's - that one was using the TV setting and a convenient wall - only cropped to change the aspect to 8:5, a moon shot using the M settings, which has been cropped square but no more, plus a macro of English bluebells using the Av setting, again minimal cropping (partial leaf leading out of the right hand frame and some of the brighter sky through the trees above).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But that is a brilliant image, Ck. I think the cropping really works. Your timing is fantastic, the range of pose and the broad tonal values of what they are wearing really adds interest to what would have been a static shot. Much as I love the St. Paul's image, this one is more iconic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
that level of perfection stops convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
that level of perfection stops convincing.

---

Yes. In street photography a bit of rawness is part of the appeal.

I'd maybe crop a tiny fraction more off the top to lose that sliver of clutter top right. Or possibly crop a bit less to reveal more clutter, depending what was up there. But I'd definitely not mess around with perspective.

It's an intriguing image. I like the gentle rhythm of activity. Men #3, #5, #8 engrossed on their phones. The only interaction is in the symmetry of #2 and #4, and even then their attention seems to be on #3's phone. #8's leg echoes the white steps nicely. #1 is the most disconnected, but for me, it's him that ties the image together. The others look like they can't be bothered to chat, but he seems to be actively distancing himself.

The panoramic format suits it. You can't read the photo all at once and need to move your eye along gradually. It's an image that rewards that sort of slow attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Most people have probably worked out that I'm a professional silly bugger, and thus is the case with my photography. My "serious" tools are a Canon G10 and a Nikon D200 (note the age of each...), but I also collect elderly and vintage cameras, the older and odder the better, and what is more I try to use them. I currently have close to eighty cameras, thirty-odd being box cameras (or thirty odd box cameras, I don't mind how you parse that!), and have probably managed to use sixty or so at least once. The oldest I have is circa 1909, the oldest that I can regularly use dates to 1911.

Here's some pictures of them. Some I've passed on, sold, etc, but mostly if it's in that set I still have it. Yes, I'm a squirrel!

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I am a terrible photographer, by the way, but I could become a great camera collector.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

And, returning to base about 11.45, when all had gone quiet, I was told the next day "It was much better after midnight!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
...but, sadly, no viewfinder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
I have sinned.

I have just spent money on two lenses for one of my collectables.

I should be saving money.

BUGGER!

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Hatless, here's the Werra as it runs through Witzenhausen - taken years before I'd heard of the camera!

I have a Werra 1 as well, I'm very fond of them.

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

The separate lens cap doodah has a wristlet of elastic, and a sticky pad to attach to the centre of the cap. This means that, except when actually taking pictures, the wristlet will be dangling down, or require to be fixed round the lens or something, so that it doesn't enable what it is intended to prevent.
Fixing to the strap would also mean that when the other lens is on the camera, the cap cannot be on the lens. (My telephoto lens isn't 52mm. My old one was - didn't think of that when upgrading.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

Incidentally, a more practised photographer on board informed me that it is possible to set a DSLR so that infinity is, in fact, at the furthest position of the lens rotation, like a film lens, instead of at some unspecified or unidentified point somewhere just short of the furthest position. There was no time to tell me how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

The separate lens cap doodah has a wristlet of elastic, and a sticky pad to attach to the centre of the cap. This means that, except when actually taking pictures, the wristlet will be dangling down, or require to be fixed round the lens or something, so that it doesn't enable what it is intended to prevent.
Fixing to the strap would also mean that when the other lens is on the camera, the cap cannot be on the lens. (My telephoto lens isn't 52mm. My old one was - didn't think of that when upgrading.)

---

maybe I'm missing something here.
Are you saying you want to use the same cap for different lenses ?
I would have thought that you would use 1 cap per lens, and the idea of the cap being fixed to a strap which fits onto the lens seems a good one to me.

like this ? cap strap

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

lilbuddha - I will check out my "Nikon 3200 for Dummies" and the camera manual to see if that AF setting can be done. The problem applies both with the 18-55 lens that came with the camera, and the 55 - 300 lens I bought for it. But there is no problem using auto-focus, it is only with manual that problem is there - and with some of the photography I do, AF is no use. With live view, things are easier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Thank you. I have bookmarked that page. I have also planned to use a fine point tippex pen to mark the lenses, neither of which has that useful focus with depth of field information on it at all*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Thank you. I have bookmarked that page. I have also planned to use a fine point tippex pen to mark the lenses, neither of which has that useful focus with depth of field information on it at all*.

---

I don't understand why lens manufacturers have dropped this...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
]I don't understand why lens manufacturers have dropped this -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
because they are expecting people to just use AF on the camera ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Thank you. I have bookmarked that page. I have also planned to use a fine point tippex pen to mark the lenses, neither of which has that useful focus with depth of field information on it at all*.

---

I don't understand why lens manufacturers have dropped this - it makes so much difference in terms of getting the focus right, especially for landscapes.

Back in the 1930s better Kodaks would come with a rather lovely, and easy to use, depth of field calulator.

Only problem was that on the Retina range the cameras were so small it had to fit on the bottom... very counter-intuitive!

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
]I don't understand why lens manufacturers have dropped this -

---

because they are expecting people to just use AF on the camera ?
My "nifty fifty" 50mm 1.8 lens has no markings on it at all, because you can set the aperture using the camera, and use auto focus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I have spent the large part of today searching for my lightning photos, and found only one, now on Flickr It was taken on the 3rd March, at 22:38, with an aperture of f22, ISO 400 and exposure of 30 sec - according to the camera, there was "no flash" - hee hee. I used f22 because of the long exposure necessary to increase the chance of catching a strike, and ended the exposure once the lightning had occurred.

What is odd is that I was sure I had caught an earlier storm on video, which I was going to run through and select frames from, but there is no trace of that. I've been through every SD card, every computer, and the gadget which plugs into my router that I copy everything on to. (Not sure what it is , but it doesn't call itself a hard drive and uses a ethernet connection, not a USB one.) If it wasn't that I have also lost a shot of a stormy swimming pool on the morning of the total eclipse, I would think I had dreamed it.

We have a warning of possible outbursts tomorrow in the afternoon, so I may have more practice then.

---

I don't know why I put March - it was July! As can be clearly seen in the EXIF info.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A wasted day, it has turned out. Having, with much rejoicing, found my lightning videos, and then with much more searching, the editing software, and installed it. I have found that on two of the videos there is only one visible bolt, and that a loop barely at the top of the screen, the rest being vivid sheet lightning, and the third cannot be opened in the editing software at all. It has a very vivid flash, which interrupted the music which was on in my room at the time, so it may have interfered with the camera as well. (The music, which I cannot, to my shame, identify, was beautiful church music with a range of voices, very tranquil, and an interesting counterpoint to what was going on outside. If anyone knows what was being transmitted at 20 past 8 in the evening on 25th July last year, that would be very helpful!)
 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Someone here might be able to give advice?

My work involves littles people who move fast + the necessity to take photos of same.

Sadly we are not allowed to bring in our own kit for this, having to use the cameras that are supplied. Which are old point and shoot, used by many people every day and all having SUCH a time delay between action and result that after five months in post i am still looking at images of disappearing feet and the odd finger.

What can i possibly do to improve my images?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Panning shots, so you follow the movement. See if you can find a sports setting. Set the ISO as high as possible - although that will add its own blur.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Alternatively, see if there is a possibility of using a cable release, and put the camera on a tripod or otherwise steady surface. Put it so that the children are further from the camera, so that they run across the shot area. Watch the children, not through the viewfinder, and take shots as they are crossing the view. Sports setting would be good as well. Then you can crop the mobile children and enlarge the section to frame them better and show evidence of what they were doing.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
My big camera has recently become a bit sticky to touch - I don't really fancy using a damp cloth, although will if told it is appropriate - how about a cloth dampened with lens cleaner [presumably isopropyl alcohol]? The camera itself is coated in a sort of rubber effect for good grip.

Or any other bright ideas?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I've read that some use isopropyl alcohol, lightly applied with a cloth can clean the sticky residue. I've also heard a very careful application of talc can do so as well.
 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Penny....well yes, in an ideal world!

 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I was just thinking what I would have tried. I did take quite a lot of shots of children over the years, using film back in the day, in the playground and on Sports Day, so movement would have been going on. It would have been with my own camera, quite a simple one. I used the school Agfa digital later, again a compact. Sports matches come to mind. No tripods or cable releases or sports setting or multiple shots involved. But definitely distance from the targets.
The requirement for evidence nowadays is a bit of a bind, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've read that some use isopropyl alcohol, lightly applied with a cloth can clean the sticky residue. I've also heard a very careful application of talc can do so as well.

---

Suddenly, in the shower, it occurred to me that steristrips, or whatever they are called where you are, would be the ideal thing! And this morning I have to go to get some tablets from the pharmacy so it looks like killing two birds with one stone.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Confused, I must admit, ww. Do you mean to cover over the stickiness instead of removing it?
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
No, by steristrips I mean those little one inch square wipes impregnated with isopropyl alcohol - that I can't find anywhere here but will try in the city tomorrow. Meanwhile I have some wet wipe type things for my specs that are helping a bit.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Oh, thought you meant these.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
This is the problem of the 93[?] different forms of English there are in the world!

The wipes for glasses are slowly doing the trick showing that this is a job I need to tackle more regularly.

Youngest great-niece visited yesterday with her mum and mum's sister so the camera was out and clicking away but, solely through my own stupidity, I managed to delete half the shots I had taken.



Thankfully I still had the .exe file for Recuva™ file recovery software so I was able to do a recovery later and I got them all back. It's not a program I use much but I'm glad it was still there in my software folder.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

The wipes for glasses are slowly doing the trick showing that this is a job I need to tackle more regularly.

---

quote:

---

This is the problem of the 93[?] different forms of English there are in the world!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, thought you meant these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

The wipes for glasses are slowly doing the trick showing that this is a job I need to tackle more regularly.

---

I shall do you the courtesy of assuming good hygiene and suggest that the stickiness is the fault of deteriorating material, rather than accumulated grime...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Update on earlier mentions about my lens cap. After many attempts at escape, it has finally done it, by allowing itself to be slightly knocked as I got out of the lift on the cruise ship I have been on, and then aiming infallibly for the slot between the lift floor and the deck. I have dropped a request in at the reception desk for anyone going to the foot of the shaft to keep an eye out for it, ordered a couple from ebay (with leashes), found a branch of Jessops where I bought another (with leash) and allowed myself to buy an alternative fixing from the woman who did not seem to know it was included. I'm not sure what to attach the leash to. If I fix it to the camera, it will prevent lens changing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Thanks for the article, Sandemaniac, that was helpful. So is there a "sharpening" setting on my camera? I couldn't find anything like that in the owner's manual. Or is it just the conversion to JPEG at the time of recording that does all the sharpening the camera is programmed to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Ariel mentioned, many cameras in the past came with a similar lens. This is because with 35mm film, and the "full frame" digital equivalent, it is considered a normal focal length. Meaning the image looks natural, with no distortions or magnification.
However, your camera has a cropped sensor making the 55mm more comparable to an 82mm. Excellent close range portrait lens focal length.
I am such a geek, I am excited by your purchase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Hmm. The reviews online suggest there must be (and I suspect that jpeg does add some), but I can't see where. It might be an idea to try to get a guide to the camera written by a user rather than the manual eg the Magic Lantern series - I got more out of my first digital camera with five minutes with a Magic lantern guide than five years with the manual!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What kind of lens would be more appropriate for that than the 55mm?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Telephoto sunset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, regarding lenses. As you have a k-mount on that camera, you have one of the broadest range of available lenses. You can use older, manual focus lenses that are massively cheap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Do they have to be Pentax lenses? I've heard lenses are not interchangeable between camera brands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Apparently [unsharpness is] an artefact of digital sensors - in focus and sharp aren't the same thing it seems. Yes, I thought that too, for a long while. Take a photo of something polished metal and compare with and without sharpening is all I can say - that's what convinced me, something that will make the effect leap out at you.

Have a look at this and see if it helps - I gather the Cambridge in Colour tutorials are pretty good all round.

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe I have misrepresented my lens. It is an 18-55 zoom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Telephoto sunset.

---

There's a giant penis rock at the end of that peninsula. Just sayin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
(who could tell you the difference between sharpness and acutance, but you probably have a life)

---

Go on, I'll think about it next time I'm in the darkroom!

Mousethief, if you like sunsets, you should challenge yourself to try to find things that the late sun is lighting, or things that look good against the sunset (or, as you say, look like a dick ) Here's some examples of fun stuff against a sunset.

AG
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
(who could tell you the difference between sharpness and acutance, but you probably have a life)

---

Go on, I'll think about it next time I'm in the darkroom!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Mousethief, if you like sunsets, you should challenge yourself to try to find things that the late sun is lighting, or things that look good against the sunset (or, as you say, look like a dick ) Here's some examples of fun stuff against a sunset.

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...this is part of the 'K' series of mounts, which have been around since Noah was a lad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fly, you fools!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...this is part of the 'K' series of mounts, which have been around since Noah was a lad

---

Ahem - some of us - well, at least one of us - remember the good old days when Pentax used a screw mount and their lenses were compatible with Zenit film SLR cameras - the only sort of camera available, of course, in those far off days. And yes, Moses was a friend of mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:

another proviso about using old lenses - check for those which have an "A" (auto) setting on the aperture ring, allowing you to set the aperture in camera.
I don't know if the newer Pentax models such as your 500 are more forgiving and allow Manual lens-based settings, but my K-10D refuses to work with older lenses which don't have an A-setting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:

another proviso about using old lenses - check for those which have an "A" (auto) setting on the aperture ring, allowing you to set the aperture in camera.
I don't know if the newer Pentax models such as your 500 are more forgiving and allow Manual lens-based settings, but my K-10D refuses to work with older lenses which don't have an A-setting

---

Hmmm, I wonder, does it have a 'shoot with no lens' setting?
My mirrorless have this and I use it with extension tubes that have no electronic contacts to communicate with the camera.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

Part of the problem is that I can't see the camera close up any more without reading glasses, so getting the right settings is more fiddly than it used to be, and I can't always tell whether a picture is in focus or not.

---

quote:

---

Zenit B

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
should I need an excuse ?

---

quote:

---

How long should one keep a digital body ?

---

quote:

---

Is it wrong to want the Live View and huge ISO numbers which everyone else seems to have at their disposal nowadays ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I've only just started to playing with ISO numbers, but was advised not to go too high by Pete Lawrence, a photographer who works with the BBC's Sky at Night programme, when taking the Aurora, as doing so increases noise - even at 800, the camera was taking time out to reduce noise automatically between shots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
looking for an excuse to move on from my aging Pentax K-10D to either a K-30 or a K-50

should I need an excuse ?
How long should one keep a digital body ?
Is it wrong to want the Live View and huge ISO numbers which everyone else seems to have at their disposal nowadays ?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0