To everyone who has thus far posted:

My test has been satisfying. Thank you!!

We have folks who are happy to view 3D pairs, and folks who are expert at taking and presenting them. I think I will produce more images to post in the pictures section. hoping them to be worthy of a look see in 2D or 3D.

Dave

I am aware of some excellent 3D stereo photographers on the Forum, but if they will tolerate a restatement of one way to view 3D stereo I want to include it with the first 3D post I have tried on the Forum....more as a test than anything else.

This 3D stereo image was taken yesterday ( March 28) from our dock. We live on a small lake in Washington State, and as you can see in the image, a log has drifted in during the winter and a sapling along the shore has fallen into the lake. Most of the dead stalks in the foreground will be cattails or tall lilies as spring arrives....which is just around the corner.

I have been taking 3D stereo photos for over 50 years! But it took one of our colleagues here (Scotty) to inspire me to take some more. And another (Dave) has already given me some new ideas.

The problem with 3D stereo is not in the taking, but in the viewing. And that reduces the audience, and thus the pleasures of sharing.

The taking of this pair was easy. Shoot one image and shift right (or left) and shoot another. Keep the camera level in both shots. Your shift should be about 4 to 6 inches horizontally so I just lean. If I wanted to exaggerate the 3D effect I might shift 8 to ten inches.

Post processing is with a terrific free program called Stereo Photo Maker. I can crop and align the photos with ease. I then mess with the resulting saved stereo pair in Photoshop to add my "magic," such as it is. You don't need Photoshop. I could do the whole basic post processing in the free Stereo Photo Maker.

That is the end of the easy part!! Now you have some decisions. How will people view your masterwork? Do you expect viewers to see it on a smart phone while in the mall, at home on a laptop or desktop, or with a 3D viewer? And do you want to use free viewing, mirror, anaglyph, etc.

All that is worth discussing, but for now I am cutting to my bottom line. I want you, the viewer to enjoy the image as you might any other photograph here, without concern for device or eyewear. So I am posting a side by side stereo pair which can be viewed "free view," which is to say with nothing but your two eyes (if you are one eyed, I have a different means, seriously).

Look at the stereo pair here. Bingo you see two 2D images. No problem. Enjoy either!! :) If you want to see a bigger image, download the dual image and just zoom in on one side. Nothing challenging yet....but I know, it isn't in 3D!! So far nothing lost, but also nothing gained.

Download the image. Cross your eyes while viewing it until there is a third central image in 3D!!

OK, lets assume that didn't work for maybe half of you. Then (I'm using Chrome in Windows 10) reduce the image pair to about 4 inches wide. I use the + and - keys. Now looking at the lake, cross your eyes slightly until a third image in 3D appears between them. Enlarge the images as you like. The smaller the distance you need to cross your eyes, the easier.

OK but about 20% of you are convinced you can't do it. Do this. With the screen around two feet from your nose and the lake images on the screen about 4 inches wide, put the tip if your index finger about 12-14 inches from your nose and point at the image. Focus your eyes on the tip of your finger, BUT note beyond your finger that now your view of the screen is cross-eyed, and a third image is formed between the two separate images of the lake. The middle image is in 3D! View it.

Now enlarge the size of the stereo pair on your screen (the + key on PC's) and soon the water will be on your lap along with some reeds. For almost everyone I have ever tried this with, the finger quickly becomes unnecessary.

Maybe you don't like lakes. I have included a second 3D shot taken with a two lens camera in southern Utah on a heavily overcast November day near the base of the Mexican Hat overlooking the San Juan River. This was the campsite of the Motormen of 1917 when driving their Maxwell to Monument Valley blazing the Monumental Highway, They spent the night in old Raplee's abandoned stone house in the trees below. The Native Americans warned him that the River flooded, but he didn't listen.

The image is flat and hard to decipher in 2D, but comes to life in 3D.

I want to observe that the first shot was taken with my point and shoot camera, hand held, and produced in a free program.....point being, if I can do it, so can anyone.

(Download)


(Download)

Thanks!! You have gotten me to want to dig out my hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 3D stereo shots taken over the past 50 years, using both dedicated 3D cameras and the two shot method you so capably demonstrated. I am fairly new here. I am going to now have to explore the Forum to see what has been, and is being, done in 3D. Thanks for the inspiration!!

Dave

I am no expert by any means but I have successfully converted 1000's of feet of my old 8mm and super 8mm movie film to digital. I have used various methods, including a dedicated Wolverine digital converter.

The dedicated Wolverine machine produced acceptable results quickly. Check the reel size it will accept before you buy! It uses a small 3.3 mp chip and the results are OK, but a bit grainy. I would consider it seriously if you want to convert your reels and don't own movie projectors and bulbs. Given your limited volume, you could sell it used on Ebay and recover some of the cost when you are finished with it.

I own both 8mm and super 8 projectors and bulbs, so I usually project my films and use my camera to video the movie. It works very well, but is more trouble than the dedicated converter.

If you do it with projectors, I have found a white non glossy wall or a mat white art board I can buy at a dollar store to be better than a screen. If you align the camera and the projector on the exact same axis you may get a hot spot in the center because the projector does not evenly distribute the light. If you put them a bit off axis you can correct the keystoning in a video editor. A room with some light is better than completely dark as some light reduces contrast usefully. And it is better to project and video a larger image because it reduced the hot spot effect.

As a side note, I have a rear projection device designed for movie conversion with frosted projection screen which I consider a waste of money. The center of the screen is far brighter than the edges, to the point of distraction.

And of course there are commercial services, but I have never used them.

I often put my old movies up on You Tube or Vimeo for friends and family, so if you want some examples of my results, I can guide you to them.

I own a Lumix fz1000, which is available in the price range you suggest and has a very good reputation. With a 1” chip and Leica lens it delivers a very good image for any photo setting I am likely to encounter, the EVF works for me, with or without my glasses on, and has a very usable zoom range from 25 to 400 equivalent.

I find the controls and menu quite intuitive. While I realize it is subjective, I am never frustrated with the controls when I need to change them while shooting (I’m 78, if that matters.)

I won’t try to review the camera here as there are many reviews elsewhere, but will try to answer questions from my experience if you ask. I recommend it for your consideration.

A very nice shot worthy of hanging. It has the appearance of pen and ink, and the line frame ads to the feeling of a quality ink drawing.

I recall in the 1950’s we argued whether photography was art. When you produce an image such as this with careful application of your tools to achieve the image you have in mind, it proves again that photography can readily be an art in the right hands.

Thanks for sharing

Dave

An excellent demonstration of “It isn’t the camera, it's the photographer.”

And a demonstration that the mundane and common place can be made beautiful and interesting in the eye of a talented photographer.

And as a personal recollection, my grandfather crossed that route in a horse and buggy in the late 1800’s. They had to place chocks behind the wheels on the grades to prevent the wagon rolling backward. He also mentioned a bear chained at a tavern. Did you see one? :)

Many exceptional images, and much sound counsel.

Dave

Absolutely beautiful!! Really great without evident manipulation. I was conveyed there in my mind. Very nice images! I especially enjoyed the one with the cleft drawing my eye to the structure but all were excellent. Aside from image quality, the selection of subjects made me itch to take a trip there. It has been too many years since I visited the Southwest.

Dave

ELNIKKOR,

I like that “regular chap” description because it neatly summarizes me as a photographer. The family and neighbors like my images, and I enjoy taking photos….and have for at least 70 years. And like other regular chaps, I had to think hard about spending $1000 for this particular camera. After all, you can easily buy fully as good a camera for half that, with half the reach.

And I asked if the camera was really practical, for two big reasons. (1) We regular chaps seldom take long telephotos, even if we dream we might. We take landscapes, groups, and maybe a portrait or two. (2) And regular chaps hate to lug a tripod to the beach, so what good is a long telephoto if all you can capture are blurred partial subjects because you can’t hold the thing still? After all, you are paying $500 of the $1000 for the extra 1500mm reach. You better be able to use it.

I finally pressed the order icon when I asked myself, will this camera allow me to take good and interesting images I would otherwise not be able to capture.

Well in a nutshell, I can. But not to take images of buildings 2 miles away, or the moon. That is a waste of time (for me, and in my opinion)….but it might have some entertainment value if you consider the camera a substitute for a telescope…..which it really is in many ways.

I have found the camera useful for the obvious….birds, water foul, and animals. And I live on a lake in a rural area, so I have them at hand. And it has been fun to capture dew drops on grass blades and apples far up in the tree, without knee pads or ladder. And an old wrecked car in a field behind a barb wire fence offers tons of neat images waiting to be captured without trespass or scratches.

And I want now to take a trip to Arizona this winter, and to a beach, in part because I want some unfamiliar plants and animals, and maybe Native American structures across a canyon to photograph. Wow! That means that this camera is driving other enjoyable objectives.

So when I say it will open doors, it does, and that is worth every cent of the cost.

Thanks for the come back….and I may borrow that “regular chap” moniker if you don’t have a copyright or trademark on it. :)

Dave

Haydon,

A spectacular image!!! Wish it were mine!

Help me here.

The 539mm focal length on a 1/ 2.3 chip is 3000mm in a 35 mm equivalent...as I understand Nikon and others who state lens equivalencies. I see it all the time. For example my Lumix fz1000 next to my armchair displays a maximum 146mm zoom on the lens rim, on a 1" chip and Panasonic describes it as a 400mm equivalent in a 35 mm. If I have too, I will learn the algorithm, but for now I will trust the "experts."

Obviously, the practice is to state a 35 mm equivalent when stating focal lengths so as to have a common measure for comparison. I know you know this, but some readers may not.

Which leads me back to your wonderful image. The specs you provided say the image was taken at a 882 mm 35mm equivalent, which would say that you were hand holding at less than one third of the focal length I was using. (3000/882) and at 8 times faster a shutter speed (500/60). Sharp as a tack, a prize winning image, which I would be proud to have shot myself, but not apples to apples. Am I wrong??

So let me slightly restate my experience. I have been able to consistently get very usable images with the Nikon P1000 handheld at the 35 mm focal length equivalent of 3000mm, at a 60th of a second!!! That is amazing, and quite significant because the lens has a maximum aperture of f8.0 at that focal length, and the small chip size (and all like it) produces too much noise at high ISO's. So this would be a sunlight only camera, or tripod bound, unless you could shoot as I have found possible at slow shutter speeds in low light.

Frankly I would use my burst method hint at any shutter speed below 500 or 1000 with any long zoom, simply because it is practically fail proof. And in most cases it creates a nice choice of images at no extra cost.

I should add that I am getting shutter speeds of 500 -1600 when the sun comes out so my hint is for those who are shooting in low light as in heavy overcast, as I get much of the fall and winter.

I have added for no better reason than to share and to test the forum upload feature, a handheld 3000mm (35mm equivalent) shot in light overcast at 360 shutter speed this afternoon, post processed of course. :)

Let me close by thanking you for responding and sharing your insights.

Dave

(Download)

MadMike,

I tried to upload a RAW file to the forum, but they have a 20mb file size limit.

If you like I can upload to my server site a few shots from around the yard and our lake, and list the links But you will need to cut and paste each URL, download the files, and then open each with Photoshop. Or if you don’t use Photoshop, you may have to download the free Nikon RAW converter and use it to view the RAW files, because not all editing software has created RAW conversion profiles this soon for the P1000.

Or maybe there is another way. I am new here.

Dave

Haydon,

Show me yours!! :)

In return for my effort to support my claim for you, please post one of your RAW files taken handheld at a 60th, ISO 200, f8.0, with your 3000mm lens (or cropped equivalent for your chip size and lens) along with brief lens and camera specs. We can do a side by side. It will be informative for many, including me. Thanks in advance!!! :)

I have uploaded one of mine to the first link below. But I’m not sure why the EXIF issue. If I want to spoof you, couldn’t I use a tripod, and timer or remote? Heck, I could use a free EXIF editor and claim I took the photo at a 10th of a second while on horseback at full gallop. :)

More seriously, look at the image at 100%, and maybe 1500% and see if you can spot any motion blur, in any direction. Look at the number on the boat. The blur which is there is uniformly distributed, not skewed. I see lens blur, but no motion blur. Do you agree? If not, educate me.

For the readers who do not want to download and open a RAW file, the second link is a jpg file from the RAW image. We are not talking great pictures here (!) but whether you can handhold a P1000 3000mm zoom at a very slow shutter speed. Heavy overcast, low contrast, a boat so far across the lake I can’t make it out clearly with my naked eyes.

The last jpg is post processed in Photoshop by an amateur….me!

Since the forum will not accept the full sized RAW file, I have provided links to my server for each image below.

Http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/americanroad/DSCN1495.NRW

http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/americanroad/EvidenceDSCN1495.jpg

http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/americanroad/Evidence2DSCN1495.jpg


You may have to cut and paste the URL if the forum is super security conscious. I am brand new here so I don't know


Dave

Many excellent and long reviews aside, the bottom line is that this camera will capture images no other can. It is first and foremost a destroyer of distance. You will see what you have never seen before, if a quarter mile away, or 10 yards.

I photographed birds, deer, dew drops, apples, and kid’s playing soccer with it this week. I use my other camera with the bigger chip for landscapes and portraits. I could use the P1000 for all, but I like the weight and crisp detail of my other camera.

And those are the essential differences. Weight and crisp detail. You won’t pocket this camera, but to be honest that has not been of the slightest concern. The weight doesn’t bother me and I am 78, so I am not a young buck. I rather like the heft, and I might add that many of the best photographs ever taken were from cameras that where several times larger.

The issue of crisp detail is another matter. A 1/ 2.3 chip and some lens softness at maximum telephoto make this a consumer camera, with a consumer price. The quality is as good as any 1/ 2.3 chip, and the lens at 3000mm will astound you, your friends, and anyone on the web. It will probably make you a winner at the county fair and most on line camera contests. But National Geographic may not be publishing most of your shots.

So if you want amazing images that will please you and 99% of your viewers, buy it. If you want better, spend $15,000 or more and buy a good fixed lens and big chip for the 1%. And don’t forget the cost of a mule to carry it.

Since this is mostly a helping and sharing site, let me add a tip. The 3000mm lens has a maximum aperture of f8.0 and for practical purposes you are pushing the tolerable noise level on a 1/ 2.3 chip at ISO 400, and maybe even ISO 200. And in the Northwest, where I live, much of the year it is overcast, which can be great for some photos, but hard on apertures and shutter speeds.

I found that I can handhold this camera at full telephoto (3000mm), as low as ISO 200, and a 60th of a second!!!! Aside from a good stance, and steady grip, I use bursts. On average, out of each 7 shot burst I will get 1 to 3 sharp images. I shoot RAW, review the photos, and select the sharp ones. It takes no longer to shoot a burst than a single image and I can do several in a row…..but the wait to transfer to the memory card is longer, so a fast SD card helps. This method has made possible shots at dusk in heavy overcast.

One other hint. If I have to use a higher ISO and noise becomes a problem (and it does at 800 and above) I mask the subject and remove the noise from the background where it is usually more noticeable. Then I may selectively sharpen the subject (eg bird, animal with fur). While the noise may still be evident on close inspection in feathers and fur, it is unnoticeable to the typical viewer.

One last observation. Most of my camera acquisitions add incrementally to my image creating capacity….less noise, a sharper lens, a larger aperture, faster focus, etc. This camera shifts the paradigm, disrupts the process, breaks through the ceiling…..you get the picture. Reach out and add a new dimension to your photography.

PS. I realize this sounds like a sales pitch!! But I vacillated about spending the money, and I am really pleased that I did! It can be tough to get an old man's juices flowing for this price!!! :)

I need megapixels because I am a lazy photographer and consistently need to crop. If lazy and crop don’t say it all…..I don’t compose a shot as carefully as I could, and so I do it in Photoshop. That means I need megapixels (and low noise).

I am not a bad photographer! I don’t need counseling ( :) ) I know what I am doing, and don’t plan to change. Most important, my work pleases me and gets as much praise as I want (need?).

So I might add to the discussion, how many megapixels you need depends in part on your photography process and perhaps your ego. So I buy as many as I need. :)

Please excuse my intended humor.