Posts for: advocate1982
Jun 4, 2017 08:34:42 #
stevec32 wrote:
Its a lighting thing, not a camera thing. Just pick a position that gives you a dark background while the subject is well lit. Expose for the subject.I get the small aperture but I don't get how the background be comes so black. I guess there is no trick but to keep doing what I've been doing. Thanks.
Jun 1, 2017 16:24:29 #
Having learned photography where ASA 25 was normal, and ASA64 was considered high speed. And I look back at the images that were captured within those limitations, And having been a newspaper photographer for years, shooting everything from homeless to leaders of countries under every condition imaginable. I think this quest for low light performance has moved beyond the realm of necessary and into the really, what are you taking photos of that you have to worry about focusing in light that isn't even bright enough for you to see the subject. I cannot find the file, but I know that I did a portrait of a teacher that was only illuminated by the glow of his laptop screen. That was done on a D300 and while it could have been better, was more than good enough to get the job done.
So just what is it that you are photographing where you need better low light performance? And don't tell me weddings because I have photographed hundreds of those on 100 ISO film. Don't tell me hockey games, because again I've shot more than my share of minor hockey in rinks that could pass for the dark hole of Calcutta with film, a D70s, a D200, and a D300. I still shoot with the D200 and the D300 and I cannot think of anything that I haven't been able to photography because the light was too low.
The question you have to ask yourself. Do you really need the better low light performance. Or are you just thinking it would be a good reason for a new camera? Because in the end, everything you purchase, from the Toilet paper you use in the bathroom, to the house you live in, are bought for emotional reasons, and then you use logic to justify those reasons.
So just what is it that you are photographing where you need better low light performance? And don't tell me weddings because I have photographed hundreds of those on 100 ISO film. Don't tell me hockey games, because again I've shot more than my share of minor hockey in rinks that could pass for the dark hole of Calcutta with film, a D70s, a D200, and a D300. I still shoot with the D200 and the D300 and I cannot think of anything that I haven't been able to photography because the light was too low.
The question you have to ask yourself. Do you really need the better low light performance. Or are you just thinking it would be a good reason for a new camera? Because in the end, everything you purchase, from the Toilet paper you use in the bathroom, to the house you live in, are bought for emotional reasons, and then you use logic to justify those reasons.
Jun 1, 2017 10:51:21 #
The biggest difference between the 610 and the 750 is size. The 610 is built on the same body as the 7000 and smaller cameras are built on. The 750 is built on the same body as the D300/500/800.
Jun 1, 2017 10:46:22 #
If the clarity/focus is camera based, then yes an upgrade would be warranted. But the 153 focus points won't improve your focus if the problem is the lens. Which is the most likely cause of focus problems.
May 31, 2017 09:51:22 #
waegwan wrote:
I wasn't being sarcastic, The auto settings on my camera don't turn out very well, if you have a camera that does I'd like to know. I'll probably buy one. Thanks
You would need to replace the finger on the shutter button.
May 31, 2017 04:38:07 #
waegwan wrote:
Really? May I ask what model of camera you use and what do you typically photograph? On my camera even shots of family and friends at an outing is noticeably better with manual settings.
Only in your mind. All the exposure modes will give you the same results. End of story.
May 30, 2017 07:21:18 #
lngroller wrote:
I was gonna say, Top of my list would be, don't take advice from someone who spends more time writing/lecturing/doing seminars than actually photographing. Also, don't let a list dictate what pleases you or your client.
May 29, 2017 17:11:59 #
Bike guy wrote:
Not to get too far off topic. But poverty is a state of mind. I've seen families that are far below the poverty level that don't consider themselves to be poor, or in poverty. I've seem people that make over $100,000 a year think they are living in poverty because they don't have X or Y or whatever.The homeless are a disgrace? You really believe that homeless people are in dire straits because of tattoos, booze, etc?
Oh yes, Ben Carson, calls "poverty a state of mind".
Get real!
Oh yes, Ben Carson, calls "poverty a state of mind".
Get real!
May 29, 2017 15:42:31 #
Wingpilot wrote:
Well, yes, but I guess it boils down to an individual's level of (expected) involvement and commitment. Of course, it does involve the budget, too. I'd love to go FF, but can't afford it. But if one is willing to commit to FF all the way, then a FF camera will work just as well for a beginner as would a crop sensor camera. I guess my point was that full frame cameras aren't necessarily reserved just for advanced amateurs and professionals.
As long as you have money to burn - then nothing stopping somebody starting into photography from spending $30,000 on a Hasselblad and a Phase 1 back either. Not a practical solution, but hey why not go all the way.
May 29, 2017 15:40:30 #
mwsilvers wrote:
Simple. You wouldn't shoot auto if you wanted control over what the final results looked like, rather than give up that control to a camera that has no idea what your intent is for any given photo. In short, auto mode is essentially using your camera as a point and shoot, which won't give you the best from it and will limit your photography.
Manual gives you absolutely no more control than any of the auto modes. Thinking that is does is nothing more than an urban myth that was spread by those that couldn't make a living taking photos and so decided that they would teach newbies instead. The only thing that manual does, is put you into the technical right brained side and out of the left brained creative side.
May 29, 2017 12:54:18 #
Wingpilot wrote:
I've been reading this thread with interest and fi... (show quote)
The whole idea of not needing full frame for an amateur is simply the cost difference between entry level crop sensor and entry level full frame. Its like using a sledge hammer to drive a tack. It's can be done, but its overkill, and if like most amatuers, all of those extra features, weight etc. will mean that the camera sits on the shelf seldom being used.
May 29, 2017 10:53:42 #
ole sarg wrote:
Been there, done that, from more than 20 miles away.Canon's are the best a 155 mm one can take out a big building!
May 29, 2017 10:49:09 #
Kissel vonKeister wrote:
fancy name for not having level horizons and vertical verticals.I'm behind the curve here. I don't know what a dutch angle is. I may have done it, but not most of these things.
May 29, 2017 10:27:09 #
DebAnn wrote:
You're not alone in asking this type of question but I wish you all would stop. You will not get the correct answer on this blog. Nikon users will tell you Nikon and Canon users will tell you Canon. Enough said.
actually you will see a lot that use one or the other that suggest the best way to pick, is to go to the store and pick up all of the camera and pick the one that feels best. That is how I picked a Nikon FTn as my first camera, it just fit my hand better, and the controls fit under my fingers better. My cousin picked a Canon F1 for exactly the same reason. To this day a Canon feels awkward in my hands, and a Nikon feels awkward in my cousins' hand, and its been that way for neigh on 50 years.
May 29, 2017 09:17:32 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Why would you do that?I the camera's meter in Aperture priority, then transfer them to manual mode.