Jump to content

rapyke

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    365

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rapyke

    Making photos look good? Please help.

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Hi Kelly welcome to photo.net and congratulations on your great Christmas gift! You're going to have a whole lot of fun with it I am sure. </p>

    <p>I think the reason the picture you link to is so appealing is because of the very shallow depth of field. Now, I am no technical wizard - there are many of them here on photo.net though, so I will not try to explain the science and engineering of depth of field ( try this article for that kind of help: <a href="../column/jonsienkiewicz/missing-pages-column/depth-of-field/">http://www.photo.net/column/jonsienkiewicz/missing-pages-column/depth-of-field/</a>). </p>

    <p>Instead, I would say that your camera likely came with the 18 - 55mm, <em><strong>f 3.5 - 5-6</strong></em> kit lens. It is the 'f' numbers that tell you how much control you will have over depth of field with any particular lens. Depth of field is simply how narrow or broad the band of focus is in an image. The pencil picture you have linked to is very narrowly focused on the brown and yellow pencils with the pencils closer to the viewer being blurry and those further away being blurry. This effect is often thought of as a <em>professional </em>look largely because simple or 'amateur' cameras and lenses do not have the same abilities as much more expensive lenses and cameras... equipment only 'professionals' or advanced hobbyists are normally willing to pay for in money and in time to learn how to use these tools....</p>

    <p>Simply, your lens could not likely take this picture. I looked at the EXIF data for the picture you point to and see that it was taken at a focal length (how long the lens is) of 50mm and an aperture of 1.8. So, I would guess, the photographer was using a 50mm, <em >f 1.8</em> lens. The lighting in the picture is unspectacular, probably a table lamp off to the side... </p>

    <p>A 50mm lens with what is called a fast aperture, is often thought of as a great portrait lens for crop sensor cameras because it allows you to get that control of 'focus' in the way that caught your eye here. Here is one example of extremely shallow depth of field (DoF) in action... if I did this insert thing properly.</p>

    <p><img src=" People of Colour alt="" /> </p>

    <p>I took it with a 50mm, f1.8 lens set at 1.8.</p>

    <p><img src=" People of Colour alt="" /></p>

    <p>This one was also taken with the same lens, but because the subject is further away, the effect of the shallow DoF is much reduced and far less obvious. </p>

    <p>But, don't despair! You <em>can</em> get your lens to do some of this in a different way... set your camera into aperture priority mode and set your aperture at the lowest number possible, then take pictures of things focusing at various distances (fences work well for this) until the effect appears.</p>

    <p>Experiment, take many, many pictures and have fun!</p>

    Which is the best digital body to use Olympus OM lenses?

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>I haven't used my Zuikos on a Canon body, but, IS will not improve the image quality of any shot other than those you wouldn't have been able to get at all due to low light or intentional/unintentional movement of the camera (panning, etc). Pixel peeping will quickly show much sharper images without the stabilizer if the camera was still, the light was good, etc.</p>

    <p>As for focusing manual lenses on a digital body... it is a learned skill. Godfrey DiGiorgi - a frequent poster here in the past and all round 4/3s guru has a great article about focusing manually on his website: <a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com/articles/01-manual_focus_practice.pdf">http://www.gdgphoto.com/articles/01-manual_focus_practice.pdf</a></p>

    <p>I would be interested to see comparison shots taken with the same lens on different sensors though... some of the technical reviews of Zuiko lenses on Canon full frame have not been good...</p>

    Camera for a kid WITH a viewfinder WITHOUT elmo/diego/princess

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>I agree (sadly) that viewfinders are likely to disappear from 95% of all cameras in the near future - Olympus for example, has already announced that they have released their last prism based viewfinder on the E-5... So, I didn't even try for a viewfinder on the cameras I got my kids for Christmas...</p>

    <p>Both cameras cost almost nothing, 12 megapixel P&S... one a Kodak Easy share and the other a Polaroid. I got them factory refurbished for less than $30.00 each. I figure at that price My 8 and 6 year-old kids can have a blast, get some printable pictures and I don't have to yell at them to be careful all the time....</p>

    <p>Light, composition and <strong>FUN </strong>are the first lessons I think.</p>

    Olympus classic lens for DSLR

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Wow, Michael, what a brilliant answer!</p>

    <p>All I can add is that I use heritage lenses almost exclusively on my e-620 and e-410 and love them. To my eye, they add <em>something </em>to the image that just isn't there with modern, tack-sharp optics - a certain life or individuality. That said, focusing on these cameras is a learned art and even though I have been practising for years now, there are still shots I lose because I didn't get it right...</p>

    <p>Like so much about this very technical art form, it all comes down to a matter of personal taste.</p>

    <p>Adapters are cheap, give your old glass a try and see how it feels...</p>

    I want to carry E-420 under my clothes in frost. Cautions?

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Personally, I have always carried my E-410 and E-620 inside my open winter jacket - protected, somewhat warm and somewhat cold. I actually buy my winter jackets to accommodate this. To keep me warm, I wear a wind-proof fleece or a down vest.</p>

    <p>When I get home/back to the indoors, I turn off the camera and don't touch it again until the next day. I have followed the proceedure to temperatures of -40 without any problems. I expect the plastic bag trick works, I am just never that organized.</p>

    <p>My E-410 has nearly 100,000 exposures on it and I have never left it home because of weather... </p>

    Another "Should I switch" question

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>Thanks to everyone! I love photo.net!</p>

    <p>I must say I really am stuck in making this decision... the cute bodies might sway me, but I think they might be a bit distracting when street shooting... too bad, the robot version is so... tempting (!?) ;-)</p>

    <p>The one big lesson I have truly learned now, on a gut level, is that digital bodies are the disposable bits ($/€ 1000.00+ disposable cameras... oh my). I still have my Oly E-410 - the entry level DSLR that I bought to 'try' digital and I still haul it out for use on those nasty winter days when I really need a <em>disposable </em>camera just in case the unthinkable happens... But, it really has got old in just three years. Technology moves so quickly in this world.</p>

    <p>So, that leaves me with a certain freedom of choice I guess. It is all down to optics. The K7 and K5 appear to offer the best set of features for me right now: weather sealed, smallish, in-body IS and most of all, the ability to use virtually the entire line of heritage glass...</p>

    <p>When I hunt around in the murky world of used optics I keep seeing wonderful old Pentax optics at a fraction of the cost of Nikon or Canon or even Olympus lenses. And then I look back to the cameras and the manufacturer's commitment to their old lenses and Pentax keeps popping up as the brand with the strongest real-life support. Canon, Nikon and Olympus have all stranded lines of optics. I suppose Pentax might ultimately do the same one day because of tech change, but so far, they seem to actually consider their customers needs and interests when it comes to optics...</p>

    <p>High ISO performance... I agree that 'other' brands have a real edge there, but, I am coming from Olympus... High ISO issues have always plagued the 4/3 line. Personally, I am old enough to remember when high ISO meant 400 speed film, so I learned how to get pictures without the ability of film to see in the dark. I will ignore the issue until the time comes when it proves to be a real-life problem in <em>my </em>photography. Food, general studio work and street shooting do not demand ultra high ISO... the first two because you have control over the lighting and street because it is the picture that matters, not its technical perfection. I don't 'do' weddings or sports, so, ISO is a lower level concern.</p>

    <p>Someone asked about which Oly lenses I had that I would lose sleep over... My favourites are my 28mm f 2.0, my 50s (I own all versions), my 55mm f 1.2 and even my 35mm f 2.8 (so sharp you can shave with it). I do not enjoy zooms even though I can see places for them and use them when appropriate. Pentax's concentration on primes may actually be the final tipping point for me.</p>

    <p>Someone else mentioned occasionally needing rentals. I live in Sweden and the cost of renting a medium format digital body for one day, from the one place in the country that rents them, is so stupidly high I could buy a full frame DSLR and a couple of lenses... a good argument with the wife that :-) Seriously though, I have a cupboard full of film gear so that should solve any super high resolution issues for the foreseeable future.</p>

    <p>I will lurk and think for a while yet.</p>

    <p>Thank you <em><strong>all </strong></em>for your fabulous replies!</p>

    <p>Red... maybe a red camera... Nah...</p>

    <p> </p>

    Another "Should I switch" question

    in Pentax

    Posted

    <p>Hello there!</p>

    <p>I am an Olympus user (OM2, E-410 & E-620 & an extensive collection of lenses), but not for much longer and I need advice about where to place my photographic loyalty.</p>

    <p>Some of you may have heard that Olympus, along with the release of its new flagship camera the E-5, has announced that it will make no more traditional DSLRs - the optical viewfinder will not be used again. So, like the 1970s, they are choosing to abandon their <em>serious </em>photography customers in favour of the consumer side of things. They promise to have some camera that will use their high end optics, but all will be electronic. So, I am leaving Olympus, but where to go?</p>

    <p>Logically, I should switch to Canon as I can continue to use many of my OM lenses on Canon EOS bodies... But I am not happy with that choice for no good, logical reason. In my film days, I used Nikon so there is some rationale for shifting there... again, not happy with that for no good reason that I can think of. I am simply <em>big two</em> resistant.</p>

    <p>Pentax though... ah... my first love in photography... a Spotmatic - my first SLR...</p>

    <p>But, emotion can cost a LOT, so, I would appreciate any help I can get in finding some logical answers to the question, <em>Why Pentax?</em></p>

    <p>I am an amateur-slowly-turning-semi-pro fine art/street photographer who sometimes shoots food for local restaurants, does some studio work, though you won't see it on my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sweron/">flickr pages</a>... and I am not rich. I figure selling my Oly gear would get me enough for a K7 two lens kit (sale prices on the way with the release of the K5...) and then could slowly start replacing my heritage primes and maybe even get some of the lovely looking new primes from Pentax.</p>

    <p>Is Pentax the way to go, or should I just bite the bullet and go Canikon?</p>

    <p> </p>

    Signature for exhibition prints

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>Your copyright lasts for much longer than 2 years (most places in the world). It starts the instant you record the image. Personally, I note the copyright on the information tag that goes with the picture. When I sell a print I ask the customer if they want a visible signature or if I should put it on the back...</p>
×
×
  • Create New...