Robin Smith

The original shot is very nice, but I agree with Dustin. He probably used a small tripod on the sidewalk and stopped down. As a result he could use a slow ISO. He probably pushed the shadows a bit, but no big deal. As with most pleasing shots of this type the light is the thing, uncontrolled by the photographer. People do like cars of this type. I do too, and it is a good shot. The presence of the leaves is also a happy addition.

My assumption is that Canon will fill in the range of RF lenses with lower priced non-L lenses, as they have started to do. The issue I see is that they are so behind the Sony E Mount, it will take them many years to do so, and, of course they have to license the mount to third party makers. Canon have been canny in the past in order to come out on top, but whether this policy will work out in the long run this time will be interesting to see. It was interesting that Sony licensed their mount early on, which I always found strange given that they had bought Minolta/Kyocera, so had plenty of optical know-how, but I assume it is working out for them.

Well, of course, that means you actually do have a dog in the fight for the reason you state. The 24-h news cycle has a lot to answer for.

You have to ensure that the film is actually winding onto the spool. The QL system is excellent, but even it sometimes cannot pick up the film sprockets. Job#1 is to do what NHSN says with any film camera. Another thing you can do is to wind on a frame with the back open to check it is taking the film. You'll only lose one shot and probably not even that.

I go to the KEH traveling buying events. These I have found to be just fine. although the mail-in option has always been fine for me too. When you have them face to face they are more candid, such as "we have so many of these we don't need more", "we can't sell these", or "I'm going to lowball you on this". It's useful to know. They may be more reticent saying these things in an email. "Ridiculous lowball" quotes are quite common for s/h gear in general, but you have to consider that they have no reason to highball items when they know how well they sell. I buy from them frequently. I suspect their throughput is much greater than Roberts, so they may well know what they are talking about in terms of demand. I've had bad experiences in the past with Adorama, so I have never gone back. B&H is excellent although their secondhand buying is lowball even by KEH's standards in my experience. Roberts are good, but I have never sold them anything. My more usual reaction to private sales of camera gear is that people charge too much and are way too concerned about how much they paid for the item originally.

Barry, how can you know? The ones I frequent in addition to this seem much the same. The young ones with money buy everything that is going and change systems frequently, and then move on to something else. The wealthy retired ones practice "art" with a capital A (and buy everything to support their Art) and the rest muddle along. If Photonet is a bit different it is because there are few detailed pixel-peeping discussions and recondite discussions of camera specs ad nauseam. This might mean the members are older (and realize that those discussions are not really all that important), or they are poorer so simply don't want to spend money on stuff and therefore don't need to discuss it. There are a lot of good photographers who upload pictures, but very few of these people seem to be present on the forums. I think that the absence of exhausting tech talk is what largely sets this site apart. The presence of film and classic camera forums also maintains the balance. As we all probably know by now, "youth" are embracing retro, so what was once "ludditery" is now trendy.

Too expensive, results will be similar to a 6DII. Will you need fancy AF? Have to use an adapter to shoot your EF lenses. I agree with Ken. Canon are getting $$$. I am sure it is a good camera (is there a bad one?)

I never use this feature myself. When I had the 6D I found it used a lot of power. I liked the 6D very much otherwise, in fact I preferred it for general use to the 5DIV.

My impression (only from reading reviews, I have neither) is that the two are very similar performance-wise. Maybe this was a case where Sigma have learnt there is little point in having a lens with the same specs in different categories without one version being substantially better optically than the other.

Well, my feeling about the new posters is that they will find out how useless it is once they accumulate a portfolio with more than a page's worth of images

I don't agree with the Mike's assessment of the site members at all. It seems little different from other general photo sites in the mix of new and old timers. If you look at the photos being posted to the site I think it does not support the idea this is a film based forum. More experienced photographers tend to be older, and when retired have more time to waste posting on forums, obviously. I agree with Nick D in what is needed for the site from my perspective.

I make it a point to never worry about missed opportunities. Every day millions of great shots are missed by me. In general though, yes if you see something take it, if not don't worry about it. It may not have worked out so well anyway. Many shots you think will be great turn out to be disappointing and vice versa, of course.

I preferred the M6TTLs too, but everything retro is cool these days and the M6 mirrors the M2-M4 dial.

Got to say that the robustness of the CL r/f focusing is not great. I found it went out of alignment rather too easily. Such a pity as a very nice camera otherwise. I basically agree with NHSN, to adjust it yourself accurately is not easy. Wish I could be more helpful.

Meter on the face + a stop. Hope the lights don't change much (probably won't if the band is not famous). Colored lights will be very dim. Wait for white light, Shoot those in the light (poor drummers). Shoot with wide open aperture, hold camera steady. A film like XP2 has a very wide latitude (50-800) so can take over and underexposure nicely. Keep metering and trim exposures to match, some stage lighting can be very bright, so if you are shooting a 3200 film you may get overexposure if not careful. Experience only goes so far, as each venue is different. Try to get close so you don't have to use a long lens (camera shake issues).

That's because nothing is happening. It's been the same for the last 2 weeks as far as I can see.

Wrong forum

FWIW, I think the photos look pretty good, even if they are not quire what you were expecting. Agree about the factory reset. As a film camera shooter I was always using M, with digital I am 90% of the time on A. I think this is just the way it works best, using exposure compensation as required.

Still no albums, no way to search for photos, scrolling through an individual's photos doesn't work. Everyone whose name starts with R has an R avatar etc etc. Login is poor, menu is poor for users and browsers. So much work and we are already almost a month in.

I'd agree that complexity is an issue with digital, because they have such tremendous capabilities. The ability to assign only the functions you use to a dedicated menu for you, which is available on most current cameras is a good way to relegate the never or rarely used functions to invisibility, but it does take some time and experience before you know what you might want to use and what is pointless for you.

I assume that super white might be whiter than arctic white which may be somewhat warmer, but this is a guess. If you ever try to match whites when painting a wall, it can be difficult. I agree though you can make your background the "right kind" of white using the color balance tools, so you can pick colder or warmer whites.

Lightroom and other software have film profiles that, particularly with color, may help you to emulate film from the 80s etc, such as Kodachrome. You can also mimic light leaks and other issues. Black and white film emulations are found too, although these I find may be a bit too subtle to come over on the web. Of course you can't emulate the past really unless you have solid clues that say it to the observer, such as old cars, fashions, objects from the period etc etc.

Speaking for myself, my background in film does mean I don't run and shoot like I might if I had always worked with digital. I was always an economical shooter using film, and this habit has been carried over to digital. I think this is artistically not the best. Experimenting is usually good and now there is no penalty in taking more shots it may pay you to do so. I fight against my instinctive caution all the time.

I feel the same way as Mickey. I probably won't leave PN, but I won't post any photos and will transfer mine to Flickr. No one will care about this to be honest, but PN was a good way to display photos and I really don't understand how it can be taking so long. Have the album tags for photos been lost for example? There's no way I'm reconstuting all my shots here when there are many other sites that I know will work better.

Yes it is currently way too opaque to find albums/galleries/photos. It needs to be prominent under someone's profile. I suspect and hope this will be changed in due course.