Studor13

Joined on Jun 12, 2012

Comments

Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

RPJG: Apart from the Rotaball and the steel reinforcement, this looks just like my BlackRapid - including the underarm strap that the BlackRapid also has. I guess there's only so much you can do with a camera strap.

Has anyone used both, and can comment on this one's effectiveness compared to the BR?

I have the Sun-sniper version 1 and BR Sport. SS-1 keeps slipping which I guess SS-2 has addressed. I almost never use SS-1 now for this reason.

Originally, I thought that there might me some merrit in this anti-theft metal strip. But think about it. There is no way that someone can sneak up from behind and cut say a BR strap, catch the camera before it falls to the ground and then run off without you noticing it.

SS-2 should be good but if BR is cheaper then that's what I would get.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 04:39 UTC
On article Looking Sharp: A focus stacking tutorial (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thermidor: I don't get it. Why would you want to have everything tack sharp and in focus? Nothing stands out in the frame when everything is sharp. There should be something in the frame that naturally draws the eye there.

@ Chris Williams: When I cook a steak, every atom doesn't need to be cooked equally.

Similarly, every pixel in an image doesn't need to be equally sharp.

By your logic, we need to focus stack for all the corners, centres and everywhere else.

Look, there are a multitude of ways to create an image.

But focus stacking 8, 10, 100 frames is beyond madness.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Heavenly bodies: Nikon D810 & D810A field test (111 comments in total)

Nebulosity. Cool word, very cool guy.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 10:40 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Comparing the 'before' and 'after' leaves me wondering what the point is? I like the 'before' result better, but obviously that is down to personal preference - more importantly, the effect is pretty minuscule.

I am just wondering if anyone has actually tried the method that I suggested.

I didn't just go to the “ Journal of Made up Facts”, Mr Fox.

You can read about it by a guy called Harold M. Merklinger:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

If you get down to page 74 you will find a photo where even at f8 and 20mm, the foreground is, as Dr Merklinger puts it, “...the detail of the wall by my left elbow is more than acceptably sharp.”

This means that for 16mm and f11/f8 (focus at infinity) whatever is in the foreground will be even sharper than something shot at 20mm and f8.

But hey, if people need to have their noses pressed to a print to appreciate how “sharp” an image is then you gotta do what you gotta do.

Incidentally, I run photo workshops and sell prints. I have never not sold a print because it wasn't deemed sharp enough. People buy my prints because they connect to the scene. It gives them some sort of meaning.

http://www.thelightinbohinj.com

Link | Posted on May 9, 2016 at 09:11 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Comparing the 'before' and 'after' leaves me wondering what the point is? I like the 'before' result better, but obviously that is down to personal preference - more importantly, the effect is pretty minuscule.

Believe me, everything is acceptably in focus.

What is acceptable to me may not be acceptably to you.

That is the only difference.

For landscapes with huge depth of field, the human brain/eye needs to see what is at infinity to be sharp.

The brain allows for what is 1 foot away to be slightly less sharp than what is at infinity.

I have done some tests with a whole bunch of lenses and have found that even at 35mm at f11 (with focus set to infinity), everything is adequately in focus down to 3 feet.

Put it this way. Print something and show people. I will bet that if viewed from an appropriate distance no one will be able to tell from your method to one where focus was simply set at infinity.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that people like you are passionate enough to go to the nth degree for “perfection”. But don't think that what you have found is some sort of Holy Grail.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Comparing the 'before' and 'after' leaves me wondering what the point is? I like the 'before' result better, but obviously that is down to personal preference - more importantly, the effect is pretty minuscule.

Or you could just set focus to infinity and shoot it at f11.

At 16mm anything and everything from one foot to infinity will be adequately in focus - in print!

Focus stacking 8 frames? You gotta be kidding me.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 17:22 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: The winning photo has a lot of noise, chromatic aberration and poor definition. The opposite of what is expected from a picture taken with a Zeiss lens...

Definitely, you do not need a Zeiss lens to win a Zeiss Photography Award top prize. Now, the student will receive Zeiss lenses worth €15,000 and may never win another Zeiss prize. Who knows?

@Frank

It's more than one photo. It's a series. Check it out on the ZEISS site before passing judgment.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Only two filters are necessary in this day and age: a polariser, and a multi-stop ND, because both let you create images that cannot be achieved in any other way. Arguably, an IR filter too, if you do IR photography.

But graduated NDs are not necessary, Indeed, they nearly always produce unnatural results. For any landscape photo where you want to darken part of the image relative to others, you can simply take a bracketed exposure sequence, and merge as desired in Photoshop.

This approach lets you follow irregularities in the skyline (like mountains, buildings, trees) that an ND grad would artificially darken.

Brian

Unless I am mistaken these new filters are "very hard neutral density grads".

If you get the shot using your method then great for you.

But to suggest what "everyone should be doing in the first place" is a bit rich.

If ND grads reduce flare for you, again, good for you. Most of my photos of this type have no sun in the frame, so no flare issues here.

I have a bunch of grad NDs as well as a reverse grad ND. The only times I use them now is for doing time lapses.

For me this is the only advantage of using such filters.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 09:35 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Only two filters are necessary in this day and age: a polariser, and a multi-stop ND, because both let you create images that cannot be achieved in any other way. Arguably, an IR filter too, if you do IR photography.

But graduated NDs are not necessary, Indeed, they nearly always produce unnatural results. For any landscape photo where you want to darken part of the image relative to others, you can simply take a bracketed exposure sequence, and merge as desired in Photoshop.

This approach lets you follow irregularities in the skyline (like mountains, buildings, trees) that an ND grad would artificially darken.

Brian

@Digitalis32
If all you do is to shoot seascapes then yes.

But if you don't have a flat horizon and have objects of interest on one side you will get heavy shadowing on these things which will need PP to fix.

And with cameras like the D800 you very rarely need to bracket. You can just use Lightroom with their inbuilt grad/reverse grad ND filter and then brush in/out the shadowing on the sides.

It takes less than a minute. Far less than messing around with filters when the light is changing quickly or you are working in near darkness.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 05:12 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Much better, cheaper, easier and practical solution: Averaging several shots taken without any ND filters.
You easily adjust exposure and number of shots needed to acheive results that you can get from any ND filter that you may need. It also avoids some of inherent pitfall with extremely long exposures when using ND filters.

There are many situations where you need an ND filter for a specific effect.

The most obvious one is to give this milky look to water. If the shutter speed is faster than 1/50 sec at f22 what are you going to do if you want 1 to 30 seconds exposure time?

There are other examples that I can give but I am interested in how you would deal with the above?

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
In reply to:

sleibson: Yow! $175 for a filter. I've bought entire lenses that are less expensive.

@photominion

I don't have a Haida but do have a 5 stop Hoya ($50) and a 10 stop Heliopan ($100).

Even though the Hoya is 5 stops less dense, the Heliopan has less colour cast.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 07:46 UTC
In reply to:

sleibson: Yow! $175 for a filter. I've bought entire lenses that are less expensive.

A good 10 stop ND costs at least $100 so $175 for 15 stops is not really that expensive. Especially for the size.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Nikon shows off new D5, D500 and DL compacts (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: Olympus has just killed those 1'' sensor point and shoot like too expensive cameras with pen-F. D500 wont sell much although it is very good. Bec you have D7200 for birding. Pros wont use it for other purposes than birding. Pros will buy an extra D750 to carry to weddings instead of D500. If D500 was a fullframe it would sell enormously but it would kill D750. This is a show business to prove that I can do what Canon can do or cant do. For birding pros are changing to 3/4 systems, bec the long lenses are very small and you dont get neck disk hernia. Nikon has to produce a new mirrorless full frame, cheap and low weight around 1300 bucks to kill its rivals especially Sony.

You have no "real world" idea what your are talking about.

A wedding moves fast. There is no time to change lenses. For example, the bride gets in a carriage and you are a few feet away. You shoot with a wide angle lens one second and 5 seconds later you are shooting with a tele.

No one shoots an entire wedding (or anything else) that needs shallow depth of field 100% of the time.

My partner sometimes stay down inside the church close to the couple while I am up high way behind with the chorus shooting only with a long tele.

Don't make stupid comments unless you actually have first hand experience.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 07:30 UTC
In reply to:

ap356: I saw Nikon's own photo samples, which with nearly any camera look very good because the manufacturer creates them in controlled conditions, etc. But Nikon's don't impress at all. Same with actual samples from the J5.

I have been leaning towards the RX100 IV but the DL is more the control style that I prefer. Sadly it seems like the photos just don't compare.

@Biological_Viewfinder
"You see, the problem with RAW is that it's just a little bit better than JPEG and it never teaches you anything. JPEG forces you to learn photography, but with RAW you can always sort of wing it and just deal with mistakes later."

This is not really true because it's impossible to define "just a little bit better".

If your hightlights have blown in the JPEG they are gone. In RAW they are not (all gone). But you need to have a very good understanding of your camera's metering as well as the amount of highlights you are going to get back in the RAW file.

So, whether you shoot JPEG or RAW you still need to know what you are doing. You don't learn less just because you shoot RAW. Nor do you learn more just because you shoot JPEG.

People need to learn when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot RAW.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 16:48 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Nikon shows off new D5, D500 and DL compacts (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: Olympus has just killed those 1'' sensor point and shoot like too expensive cameras with pen-F. D500 wont sell much although it is very good. Bec you have D7200 for birding. Pros wont use it for other purposes than birding. Pros will buy an extra D750 to carry to weddings instead of D500. If D500 was a fullframe it would sell enormously but it would kill D750. This is a show business to prove that I can do what Canon can do or cant do. For birding pros are changing to 3/4 systems, bec the long lenses are very small and you dont get neck disk hernia. Nikon has to produce a new mirrorless full frame, cheap and low weight around 1300 bucks to kill its rivals especially Sony.

What do you know what “pros” will and will not do?

I currently cover weddings with a D600+70-200mm II and D800+16-35mm f4. I also use the 105mm f2 DC for portraits.

My D600 is up for sale because I want to use the D500 with the 70-200.

How many pros do you actually know?

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 10:50 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Hands-on with Nikon DL compacts (319 comments in total)
In reply to:

p5freak: I dont understand these cameras. Why didnt Nikon make just those lenses for its 1 series bodys, and release the body as V4 ? Also, why didnt they make a 50-500, instead of 24-500, which would a perfect addon to the 18-50 ? That way you could cover 18-500 without compromise in image quality.

@p5freak

Your problem and people like you is that you have no idea about lens design. Not that I know a whole lot more.

But it's not possible to design an 18-50mm f1.8-2.8 for the 1 system to be as compact as that for a fixed/built-in as in the DL18-50.

Go and check out the 6.7-13mm (18-35mm equiv) or the super compact 11-27mm and you will see that both are still longer than the lens on the DL18-50.

And neither are nowhere near as fast!

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

GSD_ZA: Good work Nikon! In the world of compacts there's no longer a space for anything other than premium quality. iPhones have taken over the "consumer" end of the market, and that's just fine.

@beenthere

Do you seriously think that Nikon read Thom last weekend and all of a sudden came out with 3 new cameras yesterday?

It takes years to come up with a road map and then some to get a prototype before the actual announcement.

If Thom is whom Nikon is reading, how is it that he is the one guy who never even gets a prototype?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

Dames01: "Unfortunately, the ring around the lens barrel of the DL24-85 is not customizable (same goes for the other DL's). It can only be used for manual focusing."

That is really disappointing... :-( would have been nice to be able to use to set the Aperture, Shutter speed, etc.

Not sure if I understand your question.

Basically, you just touch one of the buttons and the LCD goes into 10x magnification. So, one hand holds the camera and the other fine tunes the focus.

Of course, if you have the camera on a tripod you have both hands free.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

Dames01: "Unfortunately, the ring around the lens barrel of the DL24-85 is not customizable (same goes for the other DL's). It can only be used for manual focusing."

That is really disappointing... :-( would have been nice to be able to use to set the Aperture, Shutter speed, etc.

@ozturert

You would be surprised how much easier it is to manual focus by just using the LCD.

Nikon is not exactly stupid, you know. They have this thing called 10x magnification which allows you to see pretty clearly on the LCD what is and is not in focus.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: There it is again: No Viewfinder, No purchase. Got it, Nikon?

By the by, it always fascinates me that the new cameras are proudly presented how _others_ see them, not you, the photographer and user. I am interested in the outlook of the back side and of the top side rather. This is what I will see while using the device. Of course, in the vague understanding of physics, no LCD display will be able to compete with the energy of the sun light. The sun is bigger, and will always win. We need a viewfinder, or "the device" is not "a camera". I will not be plugging in some external contraptions for $200, which can get lost. Ridiculous.

@ThomasH

Nikon will be very happy when you and all the other "No view finder, blah blah blah" go and buy a Sony and get off this forum.

Let the rest of us buy what we want.

Oh, in case you are seriously thick, there is a view finder on the DLs. Two are optional and one is built-in!

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:14 UTC
Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »