Posts for: rehess
Mar 22, 2018 20:35:18 #
Pentax; Wasabi, Watson; positive
Mar 22, 2018 19:40:29 #
Tom Daniels wrote:
I would rather give that kind of money to the homeless sister who has been saving lives in Philadelphia for years.
Mar 22, 2018 17:39:31 #
TriX wrote:
Then a full frame body is the solution. Not cheap, but not that much more than a fast high-end zoom. Used 5D3s were going for ~$1600, but now that Canon has reduced the new price to $1999, they may be even less expensive, and compared to a $1,100 - $1,500 zoom, a viable alternative.
I agree totally. Just about two years ago, I noticed some pictures of March Madness taken at ISO=8000 with a Canon 1Dxii.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-380030-1.html
Of course, that is out of the budget of most of us, but these days I would recommend spending money on a more capable body rather than a larger aperture lens, which brings both more weight and thinner DOF with it.
Mar 22, 2018 16:32:28 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Row, I have done two small weddings at City Hall.
You can do almost anything you want there.
It would be hard to cause a disturbance there!! LoL
The building is huge and mostly well lit by natural Light.
You can do almost anything you want there.
It would be hard to cause a disturbance there!! LoL
The building is huge and mostly well lit by natural Light.
With a modern camera, do you even need flash??
Mar 22, 2018 15:53:43 #
billnikon wrote:
Tamron manufacturing tolerances are not as good as Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Never have been, never will be. You get what you pay for.
All lenses with" lots of zoom" require very heavy engineering {read $$$$$}, or compromises or both.
Mar 22, 2018 13:10:16 #
I have some new information, so I am updating this thread rather than spread information around by creating a new one.
The most recent Pentax cameras {K-70, KP, K-1ii} contain an 'accelerator' chip which is said to have a role in Noise Reduction; at a CP+ interview, the Pentax representative said this chip comes between the sensor and the processor, so whatever this chip does, apparently that is applied to the "raw" data. I believe Sony is doing something similar, but the circuitry may consist of an 'active' layer added to the sensor itself.
The most recent Pentax cameras {K-70, KP, K-1ii} contain an 'accelerator' chip which is said to have a role in Noise Reduction; at a CP+ interview, the Pentax representative said this chip comes between the sensor and the processor, so whatever this chip does, apparently that is applied to the "raw" data. I believe Sony is doing something similar, but the circuitry may consist of an 'active' layer added to the sensor itself.
Mar 22, 2018 12:28:23 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
You must have missed my earlier post saying that Art vs. Real is a false dichotomy. NO photograph is real. Photographs can only give the illusion of looking "real". But photographs which strive to look like the eye sees things can be art just as much as photographs which are manipulated to look quite different that the eye sees things.
No, that is where we disagree. An image captured using certain techniques provides a reliable record of what was true at that moment - that is a good working definition of "real".
Mar 22, 2018 11:29:49 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Your premise leads to the ridiculous conclusion that neither slides or JPEGs can ever be art. Unless the camera is on full auto, it is not automated, a human makes all the decisions about camera settings which determine what the images will look like, not to mention the camera and lens chosen, filters, etc. And it's only predicable if the photographer has a lot of experience using those settings.
I'm not interested in spending the next page arguing definitions; the OP began by dividing between 'art' and 'real', so I was following that lead and using 'art' as short for 'not real'. If you want to allow things to be both, that is fine with me - but my interest is in preserving 'real' .... if it is 'art' also, that is fine with me.
The important thing is that automation preserves reality. Shadow recovery is not creating or deleting something new; it is simply doing a better job of recording what should have been in the image all along. Noise Reduction is eliminating something which should not have been in the image all along. Automation doesn't paint the Golden Gate bridge green or add a rubber duckie to the scene, but human-directed art can do those kinds of things.
Mar 22, 2018 10:58:51 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Even with slides, a human decided what film to use and what camera settings to use. With JPEGS, there are many settings to use to determine what the JPEG will look like.
But it is all automated, totally predictable, no human intervention once the shutter has been pressed
Mar 22, 2018 10:19:25 #
rickdickey wrote:
Welcome to UHH. As you can see from the discussion... (show quote)
When a photographer would show slides to a railfan group, he was asked to use original slides only - that way they knew that only predictable automation had controlled the processing; same with JPEG. Sorry, you get 'art' only when humans get involved in the processing.
Mar 22, 2018 09:45:49 #
The most important thing is coverage. In 2006 my parents financed a Nikon Coolpix, to get me into digital photography, including an 'extended' warranty, but it turned out to 'extend' the existing warranty in time only. Six months later, I was visiting them, sleeping in the basement, when the basement flooded, and by a cruel joke the camera got wet .... not covered by the 'warranty', and I would be back to film-only for another year. Make sure accident are covered if that is your area of concern.
Mar 21, 2018 20:44:35 #
Jim-Pops wrote:
I was shooting quite a few picture yesterday while... (show quote)
I've read through this entire thread several times, and I still don't understand what the camera does to "crop" a 'raw' file - is this different from "putting into crop mode", i.e., eliminating some of the sensor - making it act like a D500??
Mar 21, 2018 17:06:15 #
ff
Pentax made an {aborted} effort with an in-lens motor {it also had an in-lens battery}, but both Pentax and Nikon spent way too much effort on in-body motor. IMHO.
Architect1776 wrote:
The AF motor was in the lens as they did for the E... (show quote)
Pentax made an {aborted} effort with an in-lens motor {it also had an in-lens battery}, but both Pentax and Nikon spent way too much effort on in-body motor. IMHO.
Mar 21, 2018 15:33:29 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Look on the camera, its printed on the lens.
I don't know about this camera, but camera manufacturers sometimes print "35mm equivalent", rather than actual range, on the lens .... thereby confusing the uninformed.
Mar 21, 2018 15:06:46 #
Peterff wrote:
Yes!!But wait! Doesn't that depend upon the intent?
Peterff wrote:
It looks familiar, even 'right', to someone who was actually there.How does one define correct?
In 2014, my wife {my best critic} and I went to the Madrigal Dinner put on by the college where she works; I took my Canon Elph with me. Partway through the dinner, she leaned over and whispered "Those pictures don't look right." Further whispered conversation established that the 'set designers' had worked to make a student lounge look and feel like a medieval banquet hall, including candle light ambiance ..... and the Automatic White Balance of the Elph had undone that, giving the room a pure sunlit feeling. Shortly thereafter, I purchased a Pentax Q-7, and the next year I used their 'candle light' scene; she was pleased.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-427395-1.html
Bob is an artist who works hard to create images with 'wow' factor. Having been to the American Southwest, those pictures feel too saturated to me. But he is creating art, and he does an excellent job of that.
added: the Artist and the Documentarian should be able to co-exist in peace!!