davidfarquhar

I have the 20mm on an E-M5. Lovely

lens I shoot with it a lot. It is very small

and the combination is a real put in the

jacket pocket setup.

 

There are lots of 20 vs 25 threads on

flickr eg

http://www.flickr.com/groups/lumix-

pancake/discuss/72157635269579890/

 

It is slower to autofocus than my other

lenses (45, 60 12-50 all Olympus)

which is as reported on the net. Hunts

a little bit in low light and benefits from

use of a single focus point so the

camera is looking over a small area

 

Every now an then I toy with the idea of

getting the 25 but I would have to sell

my 20 to fund it and I would miss the

small size of it even though the image

quality is slightly better on the 25

 

Here's some photos I've shot with it,

much of my stream is private so you

don't get all the portraits of the kids but

wide open up close it makes a nice

head and shoulders shot

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/khaosprod

uctions/tags/lumixg20f17/

 

One other thing around the edges

because it's 20mm you get a bit of

stretching of images so avoid shooting

people around the edges of the frame

as they look a bit weird

Like Greg I use the retrospective 5

although I fit 3 spare lenses in it,

allowing me to choose from the 20, 45,

60 and a 12-50 at any one time. I find it

is a great bag to have the lenses

conveniently available. That's the bag

 

Strategy - I tend to start with the 20 or

the zoom as it is the most flexible, and

then treat the 45 and 60 macro as

special situation lenses, swapping to

them as required. For you a similar

strategy would be start with the 19mm.

Learn how to shoot panoramas with

your 19mm and stitch the photos

together later so you don't worry about

not having anything wider (primarily I

use the 12-50 as a 12/3.5 lens) and in

NYC there are plenty of opportunities

for wide angle shots. I use Hugin to

stitch - free and works reasonably well

 

Lens changing - practise. Get to almost

eyes closed technique, or at least not

looking except the last bit when

matching the red dots to align lens to

mount. I tend to pull the lens out with

my right hand and loosen the rear cap

while still in the bag. Then bring both

up to the camera and use my right

hand to remove the lens. This leaves

me with two lenses in one hand,

quickly swap the rear cap and put the

new lens on the camera. The beauty of

m4/3 is the small lens size and the

ability to hold two lenses in one hand

Indoors it might work ok, I've seen a

video a while back of someone using

the remote flashes indoors and he got

surprisingly good results. The trigger

flash signals seem to bounce around

the room quite well.

 

You could also rig up something to try

and reflect the signal, bit of cardboard

and tin foil at an angle just in front of

the receiver.

 

Just ideas unfortunately, I have the

version that rotates. Hopefully

someone will chime in with some

experience with this flash

1, yes with a half press of the shutter

button it will refocus. This is noticeable

on the final video so I usually edit out

the refocus. It is handy to not have to

stop videoing to refocus

 

2. I haven't had good experiences with

continuous focus. Similar to you. So I

rely on pre focussing or single AF

I bet the original poster has run a mile

after all these responses ;)

 

Bruce is right, the EOS M is the best

mirrorless camera for your EF lenses.

They can be fitted to other mirrorless

cameras with an adapter but I believe

you can't adjust aperture without

buying a very expensive adaptor

 

The M has mixed reviews so you

maybe better off with a Canon dSLR as

Bruce suggested

 

Both types of cameras have many

compelling advantages over the other

type. As with many things in life every

person will interpret these differently.

However given the information in the

original post I think a cheaper Canon

dSLR is the way to go. Perhaps go for

a second hand model from the last two

years - if you don't like it you could sell

it for roughly what you paid for it

Olympus OM-D has IBIS, with the 12-50mm kit zoom you get the wide angle you want, excellent image quality and built in viewfinder

 

Also the brand new Panasonic GH3 which will have better HD video quality, but no image stabilisation

 

Both are very good cameras and would be considered the "current best available" models from their respective manufacturers (not sure exactly when the GH3 starts to ship can't be long now)

I switched. Ditched a Canon 400d, 17-55 2.8, 70-300 and various primes. Absolutely loving it, don't miss the old gear very often

 

Be careful if you want telephoto and (implied) good continuous AF. I don't find the OM-D as good as my 400d for C-AF. However its single AF is so fast it almost makes up for it

 

For me all the other benefits more than make up for that one issue

As already mentioned you may need to boost your ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed. With an XTI make sure you have a modern raw processor - I find the current version of Apple Aperture processes ISO 1600 on my XTI much better than it did several years ago, with less visible noise. I'm sure Lightroom has improved similarly. In addition a decent noise reduction program like Topaz Denoise will make a difference to those high ISO images. Any of those will set you back a lot less than a new lens, and if it gives you more confidence to use a higher ISO than normal it will be beneficial

 

 

Regarding the ISO 3200 hack - in my tests I found it similar to deliberately underexposing ISO 1600 by 1 stop and then pushing the exposure up inside Aperture. YMMV

 

David

Not a book so slightly off topic, but Dalantech's blog (No Cropping Zone) has some interesting articles on lighting as he experiments with a number of different ways to modify light in his macro photography

<p>I wouldn't delete anything, but then I'm always a bit paranoid. Best to take a big deep breath and have a poke around.</p>

<p>Firstly to find where a photo's real project is, you should be able to right click on it and choose "Show in Project". This should take you to the Project (yellow icon I think it looks a bit like a storage box) where the photo lives</p>

<p>Second to know what an icon is, right click and see what the Duplicate option says. if I right click a Smart Album it says "Duplicate Smart Album", ditto for Books (orange & white for me), and Albums (blue coloured book)</p>

<p>My guess is Aperture tried to help you out by setting up two nested folders called iPhoto Library -> Events, and put a Project under this for each event. The Album (blue icon) is just a container of pointers to the original images which are in the Colorado 2011 project. Not sure what the blue icon represents, perhaps you created a set of images in iPhoto, or a slideshow, or perhaps that was the last import you did? </p>

<p>Good luck, remember if you have a new Mac (using Lion) then Cmd-Shift-4 will take a screenshot you could upload it here for us to look at your library structure</p>

<p>The library is the highest level in the organisational hierarchy. As Peter says you can have more than one library, but in most cases you probably want to only have one. Think of it like the database of all your photos, or perhaps it is similar to the very top directory in your old file structure e.g. "My Photos"</p>

<p>The most important thing in Aperture is Projects. A Project is like an Event, or perhaps a group of events over a series of time (akin to a photo Project). As Peter said (it is worth repeating), a photo can only ever live in one Project. Drag it to another Project, it moves to that Project. Sort of like dragging a photo from one folder in your old file structure to another, it moves the photo.</p>

<p>Albums, Smart Albums, Books, Slideshows can contain lots of images from one or more projects. Think of them as containing virtual pointers to where the photo is. You can move the photo to another project and it won't change any album etc where the photo is also located, because the pointer just points to wherever the photo is. You can modify / edit the photo when you are viewing it in the Project, or in the album etc.</p>

<p>Folders help you organise your Projects, Albums, Smart Albums etc. Without them, you would just have a big long list of Project. Everyone has different ways to set up folders, the way I do it (may or may not work for you) is to have a General Photos folder. Under this is one folder for each year. Under this is one Project for each set of shooting - see this picture for an example<br>

I also have some other top level folders e.g. Other People's Photos, a folder to collect Smart Albums etc.</p>

<p>Inside a project or folder you can have albums, smart albums, books etc. So you might have a folder for 2012, in this a Project for this weekend's sports event. Under this you can create an album with your favourites, a book for printing etc. In this respect the Project is also acting like a folder - see the "Untitled Album" half way down the above picture</p>

<p>The nice (or confusing) thing about folders is they can also be setup underneath a Project to help organise all the different albums, books etc in that Project. I use this only rarely, usually with big projects such as my trip to New Zealand - see this photo<br>

I had several different books for this so I created a folder called Books in the Project. Under this I created a folder called Backups - every now and then I would duplicate the book and drag it into the Backups folder so I had multiple copies stored</p>

<p>One final thing to learn about for you is probably Smart Albums - these really help as you get to leverage the metadata about your photos to select photos dynamically. These will always have a "scope" - the set of photos they are searching. If you create a Smart Album in your 2012 folder, it will always look in the 2012 folder (and every project / album etc under it), perhaps pulling up your favourite (3*?) images, all your landscape images, everything you have applied keyword "dog" to, anything in a range of dates etc. Very powerful, and this means you don't have to worry too much about the finer details of setting up a project, because you can effectively subdivide the project up with Smart Albums - see the 15 or so I have under New Zealand holiday project above.</p>

<p>Hope that helps if you have any questions please ask</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>Putting aside the theoretical side of the DOF argument (I'm not an expert on this), I think the practical implications of the statement that a full frame sensor gives shallower DOF are worth mentioning. Looking at the lenses available to use, and shooting the equivalent field of view, the same aperture value on a full frame provides shallower DOF, something I hadn't known about until recently<br>

For example Canon 7D with Sigma 30mm @ f/1.4, 10feet subject distance, DOF = 1.82ft<br>

To get the same field of view on the Canon 5D I could use the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens, and at the same subject distance of 10feet the DOF is only 1.02ft (I know I should compare with a 48mm lens = 30 x 1.6 would give 1.11ft, but this doesn't exist in Canon's line up)<br>

So trying to get some equivalence in field of view I end up with shallow DOF being more easily achievable on the full frame camera.<br>

Take the f/2.8 zooms as well (17-55 on crop, 24-70 on FF), you end up with a similar result<br>

7d @ 50mm, f/2.8 - DOF = 1.29ft<br>

5d @ 80mm, f/2.8 - DOF = 0.79ft<br>

I'm not too bothered by the reasons behind this, but the practical implications are useful to reflect on - for example you could buy a 5D and 24-105 f/4 lens which would wide open give you similar DOF to using one of the f/2.8 zooms on the 7D (also used wide open), assuming you are shooting similar field of view e.g. using focal length 1.6 times longer on the 5d. However you would have a more flexible zoom range, L quality build on the 5D option<br>

I'm sure the theory behind this has little to do with the sensor size, but I think sometimes we should worry more about practise than theory<br>

Yakim - great cartoon, hadn't seen that before</p>

<p>Your approach makes sense. As a New Zealander I have always recommended people spend a significant time on each island (there is still plenty to see on the North Island on your next trip). I'm from the North Isaland so my southern geography isn't great, I do remember a lovely train trip from Christchurch up to Arthurs Pass with a return bus journey if you want a break from driving<br>

If you do get up to the top of the South Island then Abel Tasman national park is nice, worth doing a boat trip there. There is a set on my Flickr account here with some photos and a link to the company we used which I would recommend as a small local operator</p>

<p>Good responses above, a couple of other things I thought about</p>

<ol>

<li>When the light is low like a concert, you may find only the central focus point is able to focus in that light, so set it as the focus point, and lock focus & recompose for easier focussing. If you use your manual focus lenses this wouldn't be a problem</li>

<li>Have a think about the composition you want in the photos (stage, full body, upper half of body), and where you will be allowed to stand and how far back this will be from the band. Work out at home what focal length you need based on this.</li>

<li>Don't be afraid to push the XTI (I think that's the same as my 400D) to ISO 1600, check out some noise reduction software if you haven't already got some. I use Topaz Denoise, I think they have a fully featured 30 day trial which should be long enough to edit your photos after the concert. You'll probably then buy it, makes a big difference on the ISO 1600 files from that camera</li>

</ol>

<p>Hope those help, here's a set I took last year with a Sigma 30mm 1.4. I was in front of the stage which helped a lot<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/khaosproductions/sets/72157625540305130</p>

<p>One other thing to watch in an airshow is the exposure, especially if the sky is a bit cloudy, so mostly white. In this case your camera may under expose slightly, trying to get the whole photo to be middle grey. I generally dial in about +1 or + 1.5 stops of exposure compensation for whitish skies, and maybe +0.5 for blue skies. This seems to work for my 400D. On a 60D you may not have that problem.</p>

<p>Only issue is you have to remember to take it off if you get a wonderful Mustang flying along with trees in the background like the great shot above, I've found my camera exposes fine with something in the background</p>

<p>Y to turn on / off the Viewer Metadata display.<br>

While displayed, shift-Y to switch between Viewer-Basic and Viewer-Expanded display<br>

To customise the two views, go out of Full Screen, choose View-Metadata Display-Customize, they are the top two options in the drop down menu at the top<br>

Hope that helps<br>

David</p>

<p>Regarding the Sigma 30mm and its autofocus, I find in tricky / low light conditions it can be quite hard work. I ran some tests on it and it was noticeably worse than my 17-55 2.8 in moderate / low indoor light. It missed focus far more often than the Canon zoom. It is a nice lens to have if you are prepared to accept this, but I would think if you are using it for paid gigs you might want a higher success rate from autofocus, especially at f1.4 where there is very little margin for error.</p>

<p>Although I don't have this combination, I've just bought a 17-55 IS for my old 400D. The difference compared with kit lens is immense, so I'd be suggesting the lens here as well</p>

<p>For those of you who criticise anyone thinking of mRAW on the grounds of cheap hard drives, don't forget about the cost of processing the images. My 4 year old iMac is bearable with my 10mp 400D images in Aperture, and I'm really dreading the thought of upgrading to an 18mp or higher camera if my 400D breaks. Hard drives might only be $100, but a new decent iMac is a lot more, especially if you've just bought a camera. I would love for mRAW to be good enough to use (I don't need 18mp for most pictures), but what I've read on the net suggests its not</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. To explain what I meant by the first point consider this example (my use of some terminlogy might have been wrong)<br>

- Photo A - taken with 400D and 70-300 @ 300mm. This will generate a 10mp image, size 3888 x 2592<br>

- Photo B - taken with 7D and 70-200 @ 200mm. This will generate an 18mp image, size 5184 x 3456, but this image will show more of the subject because of the smaller zoom. If I crop this image to 2/3 size it will be 3456 x 2304 (8mp approx). This will now have the same view of the subject as Photo A</p>

<p>My question - is Photo B likely to be better than (or at least as good as) Photo A because its taken with a better lens (f4L rather than the slightly weaker 70-300), and the 7D pixies are 3 years newer and better behaved than those in the 400D?</p>

<p>I know I'll gain in many areas if I move up to 7D (see below for some), and also gain in the 70-200 range by using an f4L lens (IQ / shutter speed). So my query is will I still be better off (or no worse off) at focal lengths over 200. </p>

<p>One of my main reasons for considering the change is the 70-300 is soft up to f8 (have tested mine to show this), and I'm thinking about shooting more sports / action, especially over winter where the light is often poor in the UK. So the ability to shoot at f4 and gain shutter speed would be most welcome. As always in photography its about compromises and working out which is best. I doubt I can afford a 70-300 L lens, or the IS version of the 70-200 f4. Hence looking at the 70-200 f4L</p>

<p>7d is being considered over the 400D for improvement in high ISO, AF speeds & burst speed. And that rear dial, oh how I miss the rear dial I had many years ago on my EOS 5. Whilst 5D would give me the first point, I also want some of the features of the 7D that it doesn't have, and my budget is more suited to the 7D</p>

<p>Thanks. I'd thought of the 1.4 TC as well, but that might be a couple of years away. Still I think it will be a fun couple of years :)</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I currently have a 400D with a 70-300IS and a few other lenses. I'm planning to upgrade to a 7D next year, and am also thinking about moving from the 70-300IS over to the similarly priced 70-200 f4L. I'm wondering if I will miss the extra reach of my current lens, or the IS. </p>

<p>My current thinking is I won't because<br>

a) If I shoot the 70-200 on a 7D I could crop it to give the same field of view as I would have had with the 300 on the 400D, and because of the better quality lens / body the resulting picture will be as good as what I would have had in the past, and<br>

b) The 70-300 is 1/2 - 1 stops slower than the 70-200, probably around 2 stops slower to get reasonable image quality, and the 7D is at least 1 stop faster than the 400D (i.e. I can double the ISO and get similar or better image quality), thats 3 stops in total which is the advantage that the IS would have given me</p>

<p>Combine that with the ability to take sharp sports images at f4 (with better shutter speeds), then it makes sense to change lenses as well<br>

Does that logic sound OK? Thanks</p>

Rang Warehouse Express - they had one left, got a batch yesterday! Arrives tomorrow before 10.30am, so will be able to take it on holiday :)

 

Thanks for you help guys

 

David

just over 5 weeks ago i ordered a canon 10d from Jessops in the UK.

It still hasn't arrived, and I'm going on holiday in 2 days, and it

doesn't look like I'll get it before then. When I ring Jessops they

say they are waiting for a delivery from Canon, and once they get

this I will get the camera

 

From reading various forums I understand there is a bit of a long

lead time for a 10D in the UK, but this is getting really long. Does

anyone know how long I can expect to wait? Anyone got any advice on

speeding it up?

 

David

I am planning to go to Scotland after Christmas to spend a week in

the Highlands, taking as many photos as I can during this time. I've

done most of my photography with colour print film up to now, but I'm

interested in trying out slides. Does anyone have any suggestions

for a good slide film for taking landscape photographs, especially

for someone not used to using slides.

 

Also, its likely to be snowing a lot up there. Are there any special

tricks / tips for photographin landscapes in snow? Does this depend

on whether you use print or slide film? From some of the other

threads in this forum I picked up that overexposing by 1 - 2 stops

may be a good idea.