Photography Thread

Discussion in 'Art, Media & Photography' started by Eddie_uv777, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. Rook

    Rook Electrifying

    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Location:
    London
    The original 5D is a piece of shit hahaha

    If you want old and cheap full frame, Canon 1DS mkII's the way to go.
     
  2. Whammy

    Whammy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    367
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    Personally I think it's a good price for the quality of the camera you are getting.

    I used to have one before upgrading to the MKII. Gave it to my dad.

    Solid camera. I originally bought it so I could use my old lenses on a full frame digital. When I bought it there weren't too many full frame digital bodies that didn't cost an arm and a leg :lol:

    The obvious bad points of the camera.
    Screen is ridiculously hard to see in bright sunlight.
    No live view mode (or video).
    No super high ISO settings

    Random good points :lol:
    Solid, really solid. Don't know how many times I dropped it.
    Shutter sounds better than the MKII :lol:
    Grain/noise is nice.

    Here are some photos of mine taken with it from years ago.
    The B&W ones are 1600 or 3200 iso. Can't quite remember.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Whammy

    Whammy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    367
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
  4. ThePhilosopher

    ThePhilosopher Reason User

    Messages:
    3,222
    Likes Received:
    738
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Location:
    DC
    Fixed that one for you. :agreed:
     
  5. Tang

    Tang Master of Chihuahuas

    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    80
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
  6. fwd0120

    fwd0120 Bipedal Hominid

    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    113
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Location:
    Albany, Ga
    [​IMG]

    Not much, but I was just testing out the panorama on the cam of my new (old) Galaxy Ace II X.
     
  7. Philligan

    Philligan The White-Knuckler Contributor

    Messages:
    4,131
    Likes Received:
    489
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Location:
    Sarnia, ON, Canada
    Thanks guys. :yesway: I'm still kinda curious, but I just used a D700 tonight, and if I go full frame on the cheap I'm going 5D2. The 5DC still has actually decent ISO performance, but something more modern would be nice. On that note...

    Wedding #3 is down. I did this one with another girl I went to high school with. Did way, way better this time. She takes good girly bride portraits, but doesn't do well with guys at all, and really doesn't do party photos. I was kinda nervous working with someone new, but ended up totally stepping up and calling a bunch of shots, and I'm pretty proud of myself. And this is my first paid gig down, too. :yesway: I'll upload some decent photos when I get my cards back from her.
     
  8. Philligan

    Philligan The White-Knuckler Contributor

    Messages:
    4,131
    Likes Received:
    489
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Location:
    Sarnia, ON, Canada
    Annd of course I ended up shooting the club again. I'm too old for all these late nights. :lol:


    [​IMG]
     
  9. Philligan

    Philligan The White-Knuckler Contributor

    Messages:
    4,131
    Likes Received:
    489
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Location:
    Sarnia, ON, Canada
    And I officially got my first paycheque for taking photos. :)

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Tang

    Tang Master of Chihuahuas

    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    80
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    ^^ that's a nice feeling!

    For this shot, I recommend checking out the full size version. It's not at Sigma 35 levels of wide open sharpness but it's damn close! Check out those individual hairs on Sid's nose and the texture is his fur. Pentax knows how to make a killer prime!

    Oh yeah, it's the 43mm f/1.9 wide open.

    [​IMG]
    sid by nrrfed, on Flickr

    [​IMG]
    Sid 2 by nrrfed, on Flickr
     
  11. Rook

    Rook Electrifying

    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Location:
    London
    I don't have a dog in the Canikon fight, but I'm afraid I'm in the camp that felt that era of pro bodies went Canon's way haha.

    If I were buying a pro body now I'd go D4S, I prefer Nikon's prices and standard primes.
     
  12. pinky7

    pinky7 Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Location:
    St. louis, MO
  13. JeffFromMtl

    JeffFromMtl Уродливый, но честны

    Messages:
    3,122
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Location:
    成都, 中国
    I haven't had much of a chance to get out with my cameras lately, but I spent the day in Ottawa today and checked out the natural history museum. I also finished my roll of X-PRO Chrome 100 in my Horizon Perfekt and I've got 2 more exposures left on my roll of Fuji Provia 100 in my LC-A, so I'll have some analog shit to post fairly soon.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Philligan

    Philligan The White-Knuckler Contributor

    Messages:
    4,131
    Likes Received:
    489
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Location:
    Sarnia, ON, Canada
    Those are great. :yesway: I really dig the lighting on her face in the glasses one.
     
  15. Whammy

    Whammy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    367
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    Starting to feel the appeal for the Fuji cameras.
    I've always appreciated the cameras but I've always wanted a Leica M camera because of their layout and lens options. Unless I win the lotto I'll never be investing in that range :lol:

    But yeah the Fuji cameras are starting to look damn appealing.
    I'm just itching for a digital body with an analog style manual control layout.

    Silly question about the APS-C coming up. I've only ever owned full frame digital bodies and 35mm film cameras so I've never had to deal with the whole crop factor thingy.
    Just want to make sure I understand what's happening. Let's take the 23mm for example...
    On the APS-C it will have the field of view and reach similar to a 35mm on full frame, but it will still retain the compression characteristic for a 23mm lens rather than a 35mm lens? Correct?
    And although it has the field of view of a 35mm lens does it have the same reach? I'd imagine it does.

    And one thing I'm also a bit confused about.
    I have a 40mm f1.4 lens from a half frame film camera. So the lens was designed to project the image on only half a frame 24mm x 18mm rather than the full 36mm x 24mm.
    What does this 40mm lens translate to on a APS-C sensor? :scratch:
    If I compare the 40mm on the half frame with a lens on a full frame it would be similar to my 55mm. The 55mm is a bite wider.
    My full frame 40mm f2 lens is a lot wider than the 40mm f1.4 on the half frame.


    On a unrelated note.
    I'm getting married in a few days. We're just getting married in a registry office, nothing big or fancy. In fact the only person we know that will be there is our baby son :lol:
    Issues with getting all family members over at the same time so we're going to throw a big party next year when both our families can make it.
    Anyways I digress :lol:
    We decided last minute yesterday to take a photo for the family. Just one photo.
    I took the photo myself. Before we headed out I made up a homemade reflector with tinfoil and cardboard to reflect some sunlight back towards us. Worked better than I thought considering the materials. First time using a reflector of any kind.
    The focus was manual. Wide open on the 85mm.
    The baby was in a buggy just outside of the frame. I just managed to keep the remote out of the frame haha.
    The sun ended up disappearing after this photo (this was the first photo taken). I tried to take more but the lighting just wasn't the same so although the pose isn't ideal we're happy enough with it.

    [​IMG]

    EDIT:
    Awesome processing Jeff.
     
  16. Philligan

    Philligan The White-Knuckler Contributor

    Messages:
    4,131
    Likes Received:
    489
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Location:
    Sarnia, ON, Canada
    That's a great looking photo man, I'd love to see more like staged portraits from you. And congrats. :)

    In regards to your first question - yes. 23mm will have the same reach/field of view as a 35mm, but it'll still look like a 23mm lens. After having used full frame for a few nights' worth of shooting, I wish I'd gotten a used 5D2 instead of my 70D. :lol: IMHO, everything looks better about them. You get the wider field of view (which I dig) with less distortion and stuff. I love shooting wide (my 17-50 locks down at 17mm, and I mostly just leave it locked), so with a full frame, I can use a longer lens to get the same wide view with less giant noses and stuff.

    I've only used a full frame a few times, so when I do I'm still surprised by how good photos look. But since you're used to full frame, I'd say try out an APS-C before you buy one - you might not notice it, but if you do you might not like it.

    Regarding the 40mm, I have no idea - that went way over my head. :lol:

    So I'm not pumping a ton of money into a small camera. I've got a dozen weddings lined up this year with Dan (and I'm basically his permanent second/assistant), the girl I shot with on Saturday offered me a job (which I basically turned down because I couldn't balance her and Dan with my part-time job, and still can't afford to quit my job), and I had four people ask me for business cards on Saturday (which I don't have :lol:). I have a wedding to pay for, which limits my budget even further, but any serious money I sink into camera gear is going towards a working setup, at least until I have a second body, better glass, and more lighting equipment. If I could afford a Fuji, I'd be getting a 5D2.

    Having said all that, after the next wedding, I'm ordering an EOS M (yeah :lol:). I found a kit with the $250 22mm F2 for $399, so I'm getting the body for $150. I've read a bunch of articles and watched a bunch of videos, and with the firmware update the AF has apparently gotten to Fuji speeds, which is fine. My only complaint is the lack of an EVF, but oh well. It's a pocketable P&S body with the 7D sensor that I can easily adapt my existing Canon glass to, with the same RAW files and menus that I'm already used to. That would be the perfect camera for throwing in my pocket before a night out, and that plus the adapter and the 10-18 STM would be the perfect small travel rig. Anyway, Dawn and I decided on it, so I'll probably be ordering it in a couple weeks.
     
    Whammy likes this.
  17. Tang

    Tang Master of Chihuahuas

    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    80
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
  18. Rook

    Rook Electrifying

    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Location:
    London
    Nopenopenopenope.

    This looking like other lenses thing is something I battled of for a long time but have long since worked through the math of it and corroborated my conclusion both with my own experience and by talking to similar hocus-pocus free photographers. So my opening statement is:

    "focal length" as a metric is, on it's own, entirely meaningless. The only things that dictate the 'look' of a lens are angle of view and subject distance. The further your subject, the greater the compression, and a narrower field of view means they fill more of the frame.

    Focal length only comes into play with f-stops because this roughly describes your total transmission and depth of field.

    So if you have a 23mm lens of a half frame (1.5x crop), you get the field of view of a 35mm lens and thus it'll 'look' like a 35mm lens. What remains however, the f-stop is still relative to that 23, so you get the depth of field of a 23mm (though increased because of the narrower field of view, I'll come back to this) and a transmission of roughly T1.4 (it's usually a little higher).

    As for depth of field, in theory you get the same depth of field as a 23mm 1.4 on full frame, however depth of field is rather an idiosyncratic measurement. All sorts of things affect depth of field that most people don't even think about - print size, viewing distance, pixel size and so on. In actual fact, because your proportional print size (sensor size compared to viewing size) has increased, your depth of field decreases - if you print a photo from a full frame and a photo from an APS-C both with a 23 1.4, the depth of field on the APC image will appear smaller.

    A good approximation is to apply the crop factor to the f number. So a 23mm gives a 35mm field of view with the depth of field (1.4) similar to around an f/2.

    Your 40mm is stated as a 135, so it's a 60mm equivalent with a depth of field comparable to an f/2.

    Size of frame does not affect 'distortion', only a lens or if you mean perspective distortion - subject distance. In fact, if you use a 17mm lens on a cropped sensor you get less perspective distortion because you have to be further from your subject. The same framing on a full frame would increase perspective distortion because the relative distance from say your subject's nose to their ear increases relative to the distance from the subject's nose to the image plane. I.e. With a wider (full frame) field of view, the subject's nose is say 24cm from the lens and his ear 12cm from his nose, his nose is 1.5x further from the camera than the lens, thus n/1.5 times the size. With a narrower field of view (half frame), you have to step back to get the same framing. Say you're now 48cm away, his nose is still 12cm from his ear. The relative distance from nose to ear is now 1.25x distance from nose to camera, this his ear is now only n/1.25 times the size I.e less disproportionate.

    There's a lot of hoohaa mumbo jumbo flying around about APSC, the fact is Canikon just make their APSC cameras not as good as their APS cameras and use marketing magic to make you think it's because of the sensor size, it isn't. Full frame has it's advantages, but those are things like resolution and similarly the ability to trade off for bigger pixels for better noise performance but most APS makers do not use significantly bigger pixels, only really on the brick sh!thouse pro bodies, and while people say you can get 'wider lenses', I have a 10mm that's a 15mm 135 equivalent which is about as wide as is possible for a rectilinear lens.

    Congrats on the marriage!

    Also, Phil, try an EOS M before you buy, I couldn't get over how awful the focusing was. It was unusable for me. It certainly isn't fuji speeds. Not out of the well lot studio/shop anyway, I've used one in a venue (I mostly shoot in studios and at soundchecks and sound desks) and it was literally unusable. If you're using it in ok light you'll be fine.
     
    Whammy likes this.
  19. Philligan

    Philligan The White-Knuckler Contributor

    Messages:
    4,131
    Likes Received:
    489
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Location:
    Sarnia, ON, Canada
    Did you try it before the firmware update, or after?
     
  20. Rook

    Rook Electrifying

    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Location:
    London
    Both.
     

Share This Page