kari v

200%? I second the 1200dpi and no resizing suggestion.

I usually turn all "image enhancing" options off because they just make the scan worse. Clean scan + sharpening and levels in PS should do little miracles.

Manual focus is sometimes very good. Focus around the mic stand (or anything you like) and wait for the right moment. No worries about AF working or not or being slow, just take the shot. This way you're pretty much guaranteed to have at least a couple good pics with someone in proper focus and as you don't have to hunt the band members with AF you can actually see what's happening on the stage and ready yourself. Good hold of your camera reduces shake and improves framing.

Shooting a concert at f4? Yes... if it's outside in daytime.

 

I don't know how the light will be at the Trans Siberian Orchestra show but I seriously doubt that f4 is going to cut it if you want reasonable shutter times.

 

Andre: There's no point in having the guitarist's head in focus if your shutter speed is going to be something like 1/15sec. (Except with slow sync flash but that's a different story.)

Of course it may just be that I'm not accustomed to guitarists who "lean back a little" as I'm more interested in the metal/punk scene which you rarely shoot on a tripod. ;)

I wrote: "it could be interesting to try a fast prime with IS."

 

Which brings to mind: If the Pentax K10D successor has an enhanced IS I'm in.

I have the Tokina 17/3.5. Very nice for $100 used. :)

 

Of course that f1.4 IS was a joke, but it could be interesting to try a fast prime with IS.

Could have been eight... but still, out of 36 exposures not that bad.

There could very well be perfectly usable images. I opened my camera back in the summer. It was midday and I had Tmax3200 inside (just testing, it looked good). I lost only six frames if I remember correctly.

Adds to wish list: Canon 17/1.4 IS for $400.

Right...

Sounds familiar, Welcome to Joensuu, Finland.

Fast primes rock, that's why I don't put my camera away for the winter although I live some 1000km norther. :)

 

I agree with the others, your shot's fine. Pin sharp pictures of three year olds don't exist, they'd be scary.

"an example of what i'm talking about would be "kiev", a cheap camera with good lenses that are cheap."

 

Umm... then why don't you get Kiev/Hartblei/Arax 60? Lenses are supposed to be good and they're really cheap + available Zeiss Jena glass.

Rebel XTi with excellent lenses (except the Sigma). With the EF70-200 f4 L IS he'll be well set for any kind of shooting for a long time. If he really needs telephoto I see no logic in upgrading the body before the lens. Miracles do happen but cheap Sigma turning into a great lens when you change the camera body is too far fetched.

 

Of course 450D won't be as good as 40D.

Michael Kuhne: "I have read that T/S effects can be done at desk or laptop with PS or other programs."

 

I'd be interested in reading how you do a tilt in PS... ok, with multiple exposures and some considerable work perhaps.

18-55 f/3.5-5.6 or 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 will do just fine for starters. Shoot for a while and you'll see (literally) what you need.

 

Lee ricks: "Forget the prime for now. You will find the these two lenses are as sharp as you could wish. Most of the carping about the sacred 'primes' is from people who read MTF charts. They are people without rich inner lives and we don't like them very much."

 

They are also people who prefer f1.4 - 2 to f3.5 - 5.6...

 

Ok, yes, forget them for a while now, Sam, but perhaps some day you begin to feel that you're missing something with your f5.6 Mega-VR. Don't be a stranger in the prime land. ;)

I think dark viewfinder refers to use with R72 (or stronger) filter. It blocks visible light so it's kinda hard to see through it. ;)

David: You can see through a 25A filter, it's just deep red, I use it for ordinary b&w shooting. R72 filters cut off almost all visible light. (Both of these work for HIE too, which, by the way, is still available for some time if you want to try.)

 

Filter on dslr's mirror? I think you misunderstood something.

See the picture:

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4089/camera-hack-capture-invisible-light-with-your-sigma-sd14.html

"Pentacon 6 Zeiss lenses, but since wide angle on a Pentacon is usually 45mm, the situation is even worse in terms of angle of coverage."

 

I wonder how the 30mm Arsat fisheye would react to shift. ;)

Plastic lenses in a cap sounds really bad. If you want cheap shift-lens, you could try a medium format lens with a shift-adapter.

Home made filter. (Easy for film shooters.)

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-infrared-filter.html

 

Yes, Sigma mount is something I don't appreciate that much, but then again the cameras are cheap, picture quality is good and you can convert them back to visible light in a couple of minutes. For a hobbyist who isn't so concerned about lenses beyond, say a fast prime and the standard zoom, this is great.

Of course when you have $5000 in brand x lenses it makes sense to convert a brand x camera.

Some older p&s cameras are quite sensitive to IR. At the moment I'm testing my Konica-Minolta Z10 for IR-sensitivity. It looks promising. Here's a test shot with a (leaking) home made filter.

"HIE's lack of an anti-halation error give it a fairie look that you probably can't easily duplicate with digital IR."

 

Take an IR picture, adjust it either to false colour or b&w and apply some diffuse glow. While not the same as HIE, it looks good.

 

Google for tutorials and experiment.

A fast prime in the other camera body could be nice. Even one stop more really makes a difference when you're shooting dancers in changing light.

"have the IR blocking filter removed and replaced with a visible light blocking filter (about $250 from lifepixel)"

 

Really? Isn't it enough to remove the ir-filter and then use a 720nm (or more) visible light blocking filter on the lens? Those cost way less than $250.

 

Sigma SD10 and SD14 have the IR-filter mounted so that you can easily remove and replace it whenever you want - IR and visible light camera for the same price. SD10 sells for peanuts and SD14 kit can be had for 500 euros new. (Here in Finland at the moment, I don't know how the price is in the US.)

It can be surprisingly good. Even p&s cameras that generate horrible noise at ISO400 look quite ok in bright light.

 

I hope you didn't underexpose... that can be seriously visible.

"if you have the glass for a Nikon, why go looking at anything other than, maybe, the Nikon D300?"

 

the S5 pro takes Nikon glass, it's a D200 body...

 

I really don't understand what D80 is doing in that list.

Spooky.<div></div>