Jump to content

mike_hitchen

Members
  • Posts

    1,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

2 Followers

  1. <p>That lens is a real bargain.<br> I rarely shoot at f1.8 but to do the maths, using the sunny f16 rule, f1.8 at ISO 200 would need a shutter speed of 1/12,000 on a bright cloudless day. Knock that back to 1/3,000 in the shade or on merely 'good' open light .<br> Maybe instead of a ND, my first choice would be a polariser which itself acts like a 2-stop ND and in those conditions you probably need one anyway. </p>
  2. <p>For moon shots the poorer pixel quality of the E-PL1 will not really so much an issue because the moon is quite bright which will reduce visible noise but for other situations I would recommend the Sony wholeheartedly even where cropping is needed.<br> I photograph small birds a lot (particularly the elusive kingfisher) and even my E-M5 does not stand up to cropping as well as my Canon 7D (original version) despite the pixel count advantage.<br> I agree with Stephen regards the moon - it is bright enough to get shutter speeds that will obviate the need for tracking gear but I would not recommend doing it without a tripod. </p> <p> </p>
  3. <p>There are so many links in the digital chain it could be anything. </p> <p>Some old photos I took with my 30D 6-7 years ago started showing the same sort of pattern, but oddly when I opened them with Canon DPP and not Lightroom they were OK. So maybe in some cases it is the sidecar file that is corrupted and not the file itself.<br> Perhaps it is worth opening them with a different program?</p>
  4. <p>This guy does incredibly detailed analyses of cameras with a specific interest in astrophotography and he reckons the 6D is the best of the bunch/ Maybe in time he will do the 5DS/R</p> <p>http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-6d/index.html</p> <p> </p>
  5. <p>I successfully use the Tamron teleconverter on my 100-400LIS and 70-200F4LIS so I have no doubt it would work on the 80-200 as well. The Tamron does not have the front protrusion like the Canon tc does and it is that protrusion that makes the Canon tc incompatible with some of their lenses.</p> <p>I have no problem with it reporting the aperture even when on the 100-400 it takes the aperture to f8.</p>
  6. <p>Often the focus point itself is larger than the little square you see in the viewfinder so it can be hit-and-miss even when you think you are on target.<br> With practice, manual focus can be quick enough for most situations (think of all those wonderful wildlife shots before AF was invented) so perhaps it is worth practising it - most MFT cameras now have magnified view in manual focus though if your camera has focus peaking that is even better.</p>
  7. <p>I have seen quite a few of his video reviews and I find his real-world-needs approach a welcome change from the data-driven stuff a lot of reviews give.</p>
  8. <p>My technique leaves a lot to be desired but I would say that the E-M5 (original) IBIS gives me about 2 stops advantage over my Canon rig. If your handhold technique is so good I think you could expect at least one stop over what you are getting.<br> The real advantage that I see with IBIS ofer the Canon in-lens IS is that the witht he Olympus IBIS it is almost instantaneous whereas with the Canon I need to give it half a second or so to kick in and be fully effective which means 'snap shots' are more successful. </p>
  9. <p>Thank you for your quick replies!<br> <br />Andrew - LR is set up to back up and optimise each time I exit LR and I have done the occasional optimisation so I don't think this has been the issue. <br> I have also de-activated the 'quick develop' module which gives a small improvement<br> On looking at the folder structure I see that LR is in the 'Program Files' folder instead of 'Programs Files (x86)' - will this make a difference (I think the former is the location for 64-bit programs so would be correct)?</p> <p>Jeff - my latptop has just died so I am looking for a laptop with USB3 capability anyway so hopefully that will help. </p> <p>Do you think SSD would give an improvement? </p>
  10. <p>My current set-up is that I use my laptop for everyday management of my pictures and my desktop for detailed editing. So to make the images transferable I download my pictures to an extrenal HDD which I can then take to my desktop when needed. My workflow is:</p> <ul> <li>LR 5 on my laptop and desktop.</li> <li>LR5 to download the memory card to the 'working' external HDD with a parallel copy to a second (download backup) external HDD which is only used to recover photos where necessary.</li> <li>Sort/delete/basic editing on the laptop </li> <li>Each time I close LR it is automatic back-up to the same external HDD as the photos.</li> <li>FWIW, I also do weekly incremental and monthly full backups of the working HDD to a third HDD.</li> </ul> <p>So my question is this. To date, when I open LR5 I use 'select catalog' and choose the latest catalog from the external HDD so I know I am using the latest one. After many moons of doing this I have just realised (d'uh) that by opening the 'latest catalog' from the external HDD, what this means is that I have no version of the catalog on either the laptop disc nor the Desktop disc. <br> Given that I have a back-up routine, would you say this is a problem? I can't see why it should be.<br> <br />The reason I have started to look at this in more detail is that LR can be slow to open images and can have a long thinking time during processing and I have wondered if this is because it is having to access the catalog (now approaching 40,000 images) on the exernal HDD (all USB ports are USB2), and if the catalog was on the computer drive it would be much quicker.<br> If this is correct, I would anticipate the following change to my workflow:</p> <ul> <li>copy the catalog from the external HDD to the computer drive using Windows Explorer</li> <li>Fire up LR and select the catalog just copied onto the computer hard drive and work of that catalog with the images still on the external HDD</li> <li>when I have finished back up the catalog to the external HDD as I currently do so it can be copied to whichever computer I use next</li> </ul> <p>So would this be the correct way to do it?<br> Is there any other reason LR could be slow to open or process images? My laptop is i3 processor with 6GB RAM and my desktop i5 processor with 8GB RAM. Neither used to be as slow as this which is why I am thinking it is the catalog size as much as anything.</p> <p>Any help is appreciated, and thank you for your time.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...