Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dave.m
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 next>>
Sep 25, 2022 10:23:05   #
jerryc41 wrote:
1. Attach the camera to the tripod.
2. Grip it firmly and make sure it is attached securely.

On YouTube last night, I watched a pro photographer demonstrate how a D750 and a 24-70mm lens fell from the tripod, bounced onto the rocks, and landed in a stream. Although the screw on the Arca-Swiss plate was tight, the camera wasn't firmly seated in the plate. The camera and lens were insured, but still, you don't want that to happen.


On an amazing winter photo trip to Iceland, we visited the ice beach (very large ice lumps, some the size of small cars in many cases.)

Our local photo guide warned us that when we find the 'ideal spot' 1) NEVER put your camera bag down unless it is well above the damp line and 2) look behind you and be CERTAIN you have an unobstructed grab and run out line as every few waves a large wave will possibly swamp you (caps were his emphasis!)

We all followed his advice and had no problems apart from wet feet in one or two cases. While leaving we passed a Chinese group who obviously didn't have such good advice. One photographer was suddenly engulfed up to his thighs, turned and ran - straight into an ice lump. Camera a tripod went flying and ended up completely submerged, as did the photographer and his complete camera bag which was almost washed out to sea. Not only ruined his day/ week/ month, but the entire group had to leave v. quickly to get him back to the hotel to avoid hypothermia.

Thank goodness for helpful local expertise
Go to
Sep 25, 2022 10:09:46   #
Manglesphoto wrote:
Nothing is fool proof!! I have seen and had a lever locks get caught on something and let go, of course there is the lever lock with lock pin. but it don't lock unless the lever is firmly seated. anything can happen any time and the price really don't have that much to do with it.
I personally like the thumb screw lock which I use but I constantly check to make sure it has not come loose.


Its impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious!
Go to
Sep 13, 2022 12:21:28   #
Longshadow wrote:

Just more stuff for them to keep track of and/or loose......
I suppose they are going on the premise that people will put the lens in the lens box and place that in a plain box for shipping.


Obviously - wouldn't want to damage that lens box now would you
Go to
Sep 13, 2022 08:06:39   #
Longshadow wrote:
I get rid of the boxes for everything after all appears well with the device.

I wouldn't care if I bought a used item and it didn't come with the original box, as long as the unit was packaged safely for shipping. (If it did come in the box, I'd throw the box away anyway....)
I don't need 50+ empty boxes in the garage, attic, or basement.)

As for re-selling - Are people going to say "That's a fine looking box!"?
Or will they say "That's a fine looking lens."....
I get rid of the boxes for everything after all ap... (show quote)


I agee with you wholeheartely about the 'value' a box adds to a used item - but unfortuantely that is not the case with p/x with a shop in UK. For a reason i too can't fathom, camera kit sells or p/xs for a better price if boxed.
Go to
Aug 13, 2022 11:57:22   #
Barn Owl wrote:
suntouched, The lens sounds "iffy" for outdoor work. Wish B&H offered an L lens kit like the 18-150 with the R7. Thanks for your response.


iffy in what way? Sure, it is not as robust or weather proofed as an L lens, and yes you can get an L -the RF 24-105 but it is FF and 2 or 3x the size and weight. Another excellent FF frame lens alternative is the 24-240 - a really excellent x10 zoom walkabout lens for FF and cropped, but again, much larger and heavier (and not an L)

Of course any FF RF lens will happily work with the R7, and results will be excellent as only using the centre portion of the lens - but will always be bigger and heavier than a cropped body lens.

Are there any EF-S L lenses? If not, then it would imply they are also iffy for outdoor work?

Definitely not trying to start a heated exchange here, but for me the 18-150 is fit for purpose - a very compact, light weight, walkabout lens that gives excellent results with the R7 when travelling light or wanting to be less conspicuous. The downside is it adds noticeably to the cost if the buyer does not want or need that function, and adds frustration when the only way to buy is with it.
Go to
Aug 12, 2022 05:50:14   #
dave.m wrote:
And here is a bang-up-date review of the actual RF lens which also is very favourable

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-S-18-150mm-F3-5-6-3-IS-STM-Lens.aspx


oops! didn't see that amphoto1 had already listed this link
Go to
Aug 12, 2022 05:41:03   #
Barn Owl wrote:
dave.m, Really appreciate all the time and details you provided to me. I am just cautious about buying a kit lens that is being "forced" on R7 customers. From your real-life use of the lens, it sounds like something considered as a positive.


And here is a bang-up-date review of the actual RF lens which also is very favourable

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-S-18-150mm-F3-5-6-3-IS-STM-Lens.aspx
Go to
Aug 11, 2022 07:11:25   #
Barn Owl wrote:
Presently, the only way I can see for customers to buy the Canon R7 from B&H is as a kit: Canon EOS R7 Mirrorless Camera with 18-150mm Lens. Any UHH have ratings for the lens? I do not understand why the EOS R7 can's be purchased for $1500 without the kit. Your in-hand experience with the R7 would be appreciated as well.


I have the R7 with the 18-150 lens and am very happy with both - but my requirements may be different from yours. I have a full frame RF kit and wanted a) a small backup body when i travel b) a compact camera setup when I'm travelling light. The R7 with 18-150 fits that need really well.

As to the quality of the lens, it is the same lens that is supplied with the EF-M system, just with a different mount (I can confirm as I had one with the M50 I p/x'd for the R7.) So search for EF-M 18-150 reviews and you'll be able to pick your preferred reviewer. PCmag (and others) rate it excellent 4*
( https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/canon-ef-m-18-150mm-f35-63-is-stm )

I fully agree and together the R7 and lens make a great compact combo. I'm looking forward to other EF-M lenses to be released as RF-S - especially the 11-22 WA zoom and 22mm f2. Collectively they make a really compact wide range kit.

Incidentally, the RF100-400 lens + 18-150 RF-S make a great pairing givine 18-400 (29-640 FF equivalent) which all fits in a small shoulder camera bag. If like me you have the x1.4 extender for your FF kit, although not mentioned at all by Canon it works a treat with the RF 100-400 full range (unlike the RF150-500L) giving me 18-560 potential (29-896 FF equivalent!!) and with IBS, a reasonable shutter speed, and a little care, I can actually hand hold at long zooms.

So getting back to the original question: for me the extra cost for the 180-150 when bought as a kit is a bargain if you want a compact, 8x zoom/ walkabout lens
Go to
Apr 8, 2022 07:27:07   #
The original OP asked a question that was either unclear or which is of direct interest. Within the first page it degenerated into insults, and a scan of this thread reveals 4 pages of comments and less than a handful trying to answer the original post.

Over the years I have watched this forum degerate into personal bias, ego trips, cryptic sniping, riteous indignation about full frame vs. cropped, mirrorless vs dslr, evf vs. optical and the list goes on.

- all of which is often self-indulgent bull, often intended not to help, but justify their purchasing and photo decision.

David Bailey, probably the most famous fashion and pop culture photographer of his time in UK, had no such pretensions arguing that he only used a camera to create his pictures because painting took too long. inderectly confirming his view he also did a photo shoot with Bruce Webber in Harlem in 2013 on a mobile phone (sensor prob about 8mp, fixed focus, fixed aperture) https://www.vice.com/en/article/vdpmvj/david-bailey-and-bruce-webbers-great-cell-phone-photography-experiment

So here's what Canon say https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/eospedia/crop-factor.html - which effectivly states (as in an earlier post with images) - a lens charactristincs (FL, aperture, IQ) are not changed on a full or cropped body. The cropped body uses the centre portion of the maximum image circle; in so doing it is using the typically sharpest part of the lens; AND if the pixel count of the cropped sensor is the same as the full frame (eg both are 30Mp say) AND they are viewed at the same physical size (screen or print) the cropped sensor image will look enlarged. Obviously pixel size and low ambient lighting would have potential effect on the IQ but the resulting image appearance will be as if with a longer lens.

So you trolls, feel free to have a go and slag this email as with some sadness and much disappointment at the continuing demise of a once great website, signing off for the last time so won't view your bitching
Go to
Dec 24, 2021 08:07:09   #
katherineivey wrote:
I just got a new Dell laptop with 3456x2160 native display and Windows 11. Just looking at my wallpaper photo, which I took myself, it seems to display a bit over-saturated and it was also too bright. The colors look good. I adjusted the brightness down a bit, but am unsure whether to calibrate it. When I started to calibrate using the Windows tool, I got a warning that changing it might prevent it from displaying the full gamut of colors. What do you UHH peeps recommend?


sense a growing amount of sniping on UHH over recent months - a great shame as I always regarded it as a refreshing place to ask questions and get answers.

So to the original question, and touching on some points already raised: a number of years ago I was highy frustrated by the differences I saw between my laptop/ desktop screens and printed results on my Canon photo printer. I finally invested in a Colormunki for calibrating screens and printer. The results on screens were and are excellent - both look visually alike. The printer, not so much. Before, the laptop looked cold (I now know that some laptops and almost all phones use a blue colour cast so it looks 'whiter than white' (remeber that soap powder advert!)

For the printed imager compared to a screen view a lot more than colour differences are at play - a screen can display a lot more of the colour spectrum (be it sRGB or adbobe RGB); contrast ratio of a screen way outshines a print etc. This article started me on the right track https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/why-dont-my-prints-match-my-screen/ . And for the printer I finally used a professional profiling service for the 4 or 5 papers I use

On screens there is plenty of evidence that blue white can cause headaches and tiredness, so much so that Samsung that I know of have a blue light filter option on their phones. When I first used it the screen looked decidedly in the 'hint of brown' spectum but now I'm used to it I much prefer it to the 'ice blue'.

So - irrespective of who else views your images and on what, perhaps calibration will at least make your screens consistent, and if you print, calibration (and the same colour space throughoit your workflow) across your screens and prints will at least satisfy your aesthetic preferences (and may have eyesight benefits if one of the screens is on the blue side.)
Go to
Dec 12, 2021 07:32:28   #
Architect1776 wrote:
I see the letters "acoarst" used a lot here.
As far as I can tell it is a meaningless jumble of letters.
I did Google this but it is not a word.
http://www.anagramwords.com/21/scrabble-definition/acoarst

Is acoarst some odd and obscure photographic term?


I remember when I was a mature student 50 years ago and with a good friend K.L., who was a HK Chinese, listening to the local lads with their own jargonised language. He asked what they were saying, to which I replied 'no idea' and then, why do they talk like that, and again I said 'no idea'. He was just starting to get into using local slang and said 'does than mean they are a bunch of Plix?' When I stopped laughing I replied 'probably' . Great times, which would probably lead to a caution from the thought police today
Go to
Oct 12, 2021 17:02:15   #
lsimpkins wrote:
Your configuration is excellent for post production. I might add that the XPS also comes in 13" versions and that Costco usually has a good deal on one or two variants.


And a cracking good laptop the xps 13 is. Lightweight, small bulk, great performance and battery lasts ages . Also usb C charger. I've had one for over a year and use it for travel (obviously) but the performance is so good, and the screen res sufficiently high it drives a 1900x1200 24" Eizo Adobe RGB screen without problems, and I am seriously considering selling my 17" Dell laptop and using this for home and travel.

It runs lightroom easily (and if I used it as main and travel laptop would add photoshop)

Mine had a small SSD originally which I replaced with a 512GB but would replace with a 1TB now. 512 is fine for travel but a 1GB would be preferable for main usage. Not a big job but if you are unfamiliar with dismantling compact electronics get a tech to do it.

If you need more interfaces, get the Anker USB C powerexpand 7+1 - 100w usb c chargethrough and 4k HDMI as well as the usual usb/ SD card
Go to
Jun 16, 2021 06:45:30   #
mikegreenwald wrote:
I agree.
I use the M1 MacBook when traveling, adding a BenQ 27" monitor at home before printing (home or outside lab). While modern screens are quite stable, I still find calibration to be essential.
An external SSD drive is needed both for backup and because the maximum available memory on the M1 MacBook is limited.


Can't comment on Macbook as haven't used one, but totally on external quality monitor
Go to
Jun 16, 2021 06:43:01   #
I have used Macs and PCs quite happily for photo processing. As mentioned above processor speed and memory can have quite an impact on performance when you are actually working. Given that, if you are happy with a pad (other than it has problems with transfer) then I suggest a top end, high performance pc / mac may be overkill? So look at the specs for the software you intend to use. I would suggest don't go for the minimum spec but something in the middle.
I use a 17" Dell with i7 processor and 16GB of memory as my main system, but when I travel I use a Dell inspiron with i5 and 8GB. Both have SSDs, and to be honest when processing with lightroom and sometime photoshop I can't see much difference in performance. To be fair I am typically processing no more than 4 or 5 images simultaneously (ie for a stitching image, or HDR) and my largest images are 30mpx raw. If I was processing large image stacks with 50mpx RAW then things might need upgrading.

What does make a huge difference is that with either laptop, when at home I use a colour corrected, high res, 24" Eizo monitor (and a separate keyboard. The monitor is the dig thing particularly if you work in colour. I cannot comment on Macs as I don't have a late model but with PCs in general the on-board graphics card - which can seldom if ever be upgraded - and the screen itself and not great for photo processing in my experience.

If I could only have one system I would go for the inspiron 14" - super compact and lightweight for travel, but more than satisfactory performance for my amateur processing. I would have a larger colour corrected screen so I could have about 24" for the image, and space on the sides for photoshop menus.

I would suggest if your pad is adequate (other than losing images) a mid range PC or MAC laptop will more than meet your needs. Once you narrow it down, check if the on board graphics card will drive a bigger, preferable colour corrected monitor.
Go to
May 3, 2021 15:07:39   #
tom hughes wrote:
Yes on the tripod. Very windy in Iceland. Filters needed in July. You will have 20 22 hours of daylight. You will also have to deal with tourists. July and August Iceland’s busiest months.


re number of tourists - pre covid iceland had 2+M tourists a year in a country with a population of about 1/3M! So in any given month on average the tourist turnover is about 50% of the population - and at peak times it really shows. At one of the most amazing waterfall locations I have ever seen there were queues of tourists snaking up to the railings to take their photos for a minute or 2 then move off for the next.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.