dan_south
Members-
Posts
5,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
dan_south started following glen_parker4
-
sunilmendiratta started following dan_south
-
tom_poteet started following dan_south
-
dan_south started following david_henderson
-
Fuji announces its new Medium Format addition!
dan_south replied to donbright's topic in Medium Format
<blockquote> <p>"A 50mp print is a 50mp print provided the pixels are big enough that the noise level isn't overwhelming."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame? Do 12 MP cell phones compete head to head with the Nikon D3?<br> <br> Have you worked with files from the Pentax 645Z or the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras that use 50 MP sensors? Can you confirm first hand that these cameras offer no image quality gain over the Canon 5DS R? Perhaps you can post some 100 percent crops showing your test results.</p> -
Electronic viewfinders and age-related vision issues
dan_south replied to dan_south's topic in Mirrorless Digital Cameras
<p>Thanks for all of the responses!</p> -
<blockquote> <p>"It seems as though HDR and enhanced color saturation images look better on screen than more naturalistic images, which tend to appear "drab" by comparison."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> HDR images can look completely natural, or they can make a normal landscape look like a photograph of an alien planet. It depends on how the files are processed and/or what presets were applied.<br> <br> Which looks "better" is a matter of individual taste. I don't care for the hyper-processed HDR look, but if you like it, that's fine. It's difficult to suggest settings, because I don't know exactly what look you want. I would guess that you start by trying different Lightroom presets for your camera and tweaking the contrast slider, but that's only a starting point.<br> <br> HDR landscapes, as you call them, do not need a separate category, because the concept of HDR is not new in landscape photography. Historically, HDR-like effects were be created in the black and white dark room or with the use of special "graduated" filters. In recent years, HDR software has added a convenient way of achieving a similar result. But the HDR concept has been around for a long time.<br> </p>
-
<p>I am at an age where I can no longer focus on close objects without the use of reading glasses. I wear contact lenses that set my eyes to focus at infinity; I wear the "readers" over my contacts.</p> <p>The power of my reading correction has changed over time. Currently, I'm using a +2.0 adjustment in order to read text at a normal reading distance of 14-20 inches. I use the same glasses to read the LCD on the back of my digital cameras.</p> <p>Will this condition hamper my ability to use a camera with an electronic viewfinder? </p> <p>I already adjust the viewfinder diopters on my SLRs. Will a similar amount of diopter correction enable me to see an EVF clearly, or do EVFs require a different level of correction?</p> <p>Do EVFs place different demands (different than OVFs) on the eye's ability to focus, i.e. as though you are looking at a television screen that's less than an inch from your eye?</p> <p>Thank you very much in advance!</p>
-
What Lens Would Be a Good Choice for D610 Landscape Photography
dan_south replied to diane_madura's topic in Nikon
<p>The f/1.8 prime lenses that Nikon has been producing for the last couple of years are small, lightweight, and extremely sharp.</p> <p>24mm, 35mm, and 85mm would make a nice, easy to carry kit, although other focal lengths are available.</p> <p>I use the 24-70 f/2.8 (2007 version) and 70-200 f/2.8 VR II for landscapes, but they are HEAVY and EXPENSIVE, and the 24-70 isn't as sharp as prime lenses (but it is sharper than other mid-range zooms). I picked up the 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 recently, and I have been very impressed with both of them.</p> <p>I would stay away from PC-E lenses unless you absolutely need (and understand) what they can do for you. </p> -
"What Are You Going To Do With That Photo?"
dan_south replied to Tim_Lookingbill's topic in Casual Photo Conversations
<p>I don't hear those questions anymore. Photo taking has become so ubiquitous that people no longer give it much thought. Either that, or maybe I finally look as though I know what I'm doing.</p> -
<p>I have found micro fine-tuning to be very helpful on some cameras and lenses and completely unnecessary on others.</p> <p>If you'd like to try it, mount your camera on a solid tripod and shoot repeated frames at a stationary, planar subject (like a page from a magazine taped to a wall).</p> <p>Make sure that your camera is NOT in Live View mode, or it will be using contrast detection autofocus. Micro fine tuning has no effect on contrast detection autofocus.</p> <p>Go to the AF fine tuning menu on your camera and take three shots each at -20, -15, -10, -5, 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20. Be sure to use a cable release and, if your camera features it, mirror lockup.</p> <p>Put the fine tuning setting back to 0. Load the images onto your computer and review them carefully. I recommend that you use the software that came with the camera so you have access to all of the fine tuning information in the application.</p> <p>If the sharpest images are at 0, fine tuning isn't necessary. If the sharpest images are elsewhere on the spectrum, repeat the exercise and take multiple shots at every setting in that range, not just incrementing by fives.</p>
-
<p>My advice to someone starting out in landscape photography would be to forget about filters for now. Learn how to recognize good lighting (quality and direction). Learn how to compose well. Learn about depth of field and focus. Get a solid tripod and learn about camera stability and creating sharp images.</p> <p>All of these things are more important than any filter that you can place over your lenses.</p> <p>I use neutral density and graduated neutral density filters for landscape work. But these are not of much value until they can be coupled with an understanding of the elements listed above.</p>
-
<blockquote> <p>Use 1.4 lenses and move up to the D810. Problem solved.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> How does that solve the problem if the composition requires an f-stop of 5.6? Or 11?</p>
-
<p>Planning to buy one? No. Considering the possibility? Yes.</p> <p>I like the handling of the 5D series. The 5DII was one of my favorite cameras ever. I have some concerns about the 5DS®, but until production models are tested, I don't know how serious these issues will be.</p> <p>For instance, Canon's shadow noise is problematic when compared with the clean DR of the competition. More resolution equals more detail, but if you blow the prints up, the noise becomes even more noticeable. </p> <p>Also, for a while I shot the 7D side by side with the 5DII. The 7D images were always softer even though the MP was nearly equivalent. I suspect that the small pixel pitch puts more strain on lenses. So, I'm not sure how much extra detail the 5DS will really deliver. I'm sure that it will beat the 5DIII, but will it exceed the D810 that I'm using currently?</p> <p>A thought on file size:</p> <blockquote> <p>Working with big files can get tedious.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This will vary widely depending on your workflow. My 2009 iMac processes 36.3 MP Nikon files just fine in Lightroom. Other workflows might be less forgiving.</p>
-
<p>There is always going to be some noise, even if you're shooting as low as ISO 400. You can shoot at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher depending on the final usage and the amount of processing that you're willing to do.</p> <p>If you print 4x6 or upload small JPEG files to the web, the noise won't be very noticeable. If you plan to make a large print or upload a full resolution file, then the noise in an unprocessed file will be visible. </p> <p>Can you reduce the effect of the noise? In most cases, yes, you can reduce it substantially.</p> <p>If you shoot in raw format, you can use Lightroom or other software to reduce the amount and effect of the noise in the image. If you prefer to shoot JPEG and skip post processing (e.g. if you are on a publishing deadline), the camera's built in High ISO Noise Reduction feature will be a big help. Do everything that you can to avoid underexposure.</p> <p>I have a friend (Canon guy) who shoots at or above ISO 12,800 regularly. He sells and publishes lots of photos. If Canon can do it... ;-)</p>
-
<p>Three grand...choke! gasp! For a lens that distorts everything and doesn't accept filters. Wow!</p>
-
<p>For stability you need quality tripod legs of the proper size for your camera and lenses. Gizto is historically the expert in this area, but other companies offer nice solutions, as well.</p> <p>However, I have found the tripod to camera interface to be even more critical. I attach custom L-brackets and lens plates from Really Right Stuff to all of my gear. The camera or lens mounts to the tripod head with the stability of a good vice. This level of stability helps at critical shutter speeds.</p>
-
<p>Perhaps the bigger news it that after many, many years, Canon finally designed an answer to Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8G wide-angle zoom. If you have three grand to drop on a wide angle zoom that distorts everything and doesn't accept filters, your dream lens has arrived. :-)</p>
-
<p>I own Canon lenses and have used 5D bodies extensively, but I'm not in a rush to run out and buy their new 50MP body. The poor dynamic range of their sensors results in noise in the shadows all too often. At higher resolution, that's going to be even more annoying. Plus, I don't like the 5DS's limitation of 1/200th flash sync. I prefer to work at 1/250 for the added sharpness, and my Nikon bodies give me that capability.</p> <p>My 5D Mark III collects dust in the closet, because I prefer the clean output of the D810 and 800E for MOST applications. I still think the Canon's autofocus is better than anything that Nikon has ever designed; it works very well for events in dark spaces. But for any other application, I grab my Nikons.</p> <p>I love resolution (I've shot a lot of 4x5 film). If Nikon and Sony come up with a sensor with more pixels than 36.3M, I would be interested in evaluating it. But the D800E and D810 are such amazing bodies. It's likely that they'll be my workhorses for years to come. And I won't have to spend all of my post processing time trying to remove ugly noise from the shadows.</p>