Photographer's Corner - equipment

Nikon rumors posted rumored specs yesterday, FWIW...

I was going to wait until the 7200 was available for purchase, then look for 7100 discounts, but I recently realized the 7000 would more than meet my needs, especially since I'm going to use a 18-200 zoom exclusively. Then, Amazon lowered their price to $484, and that made the deal. I'm replacing a D50, so most anything will be an improvement.

I'm looking at this purchase to give me time to see if I'm going to get serious about photography again, enough to consider going to FX.
 
Walt34 said:
Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.
Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts exactly. Well, that and I can [-]afford[/-] justify the cost of a top-of-the-line ASP-C camera which matches (or exceeds) all the other features of the "full frame" professional camera.
 
On Comparing Cameras and Sensors - https://photographylife.com/on-comparing-cameras-and-sensors

Interesting article... and this insight:

Comparing always leaves somebody grossly unhappy, especially if it does not favor a bias. But the best camera in fact is the one you have with you, ready to shoot. Learning photography and shooting discipline goes a long way towards a “better camera”, and offers much more satisfaction, usually ;)

Mastering new ways of shooting also goes a long mile towards “a better camera” – less noise, more dynamic range, better landscapes and macro. It all starts with a tripod, and a good one. Focus stacking, panoramas, blending HDR exposures (just to mention few obvious techniques) help to get more from the camera.
Click to expand...
 
Walt34 said:
Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But, keep in mind that with Micro 4/3 cameras many of the prime lenses are f/1.7 and the better zooms are now f/2.8. Not bad at all for low light photography. Or when higher shutter speeds are needed.
 
Walt34 said:
Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.
Click to expand...

Don't assume flash will solve all low light problems. I don't think it's that helpful at very wide angles, it can cause nasty reflection close up, and most importantly, lots of indoor locations don't allow flash.

It totally depends on what you shoot, of course, but for me flash is mostly useless, and many situations a tripod/monopod not an option, so I rely on good low light performance.
 
RonBoyd said:
Those are my thoughts exactly. Well, that and I can [-]afford[/-] justify the cost of a top-of-the-line ASP-C camera which matches (or exceeds) all the other features of the "full frame" professional camera.
Click to expand...

Except for being able to shoot at 16mm? Or even wider? To me that's been the only point of full frame.
 
audreyh1 said:
Except for being able to shoot at 16mm? Or even wider? To me that's been the only point of full frame.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said earlier about the "up-close and far-away" issue. However, since Photoshop makes creating a panorama so easy and quick, it is not the issue it used to be. Nevertheless, with my walking-around-lens (a Tamron 16-300mm) it is an irritant (occasionally) that the 16mm captures only what a 26mm lens on a FF camera can -- particularly when lining up the second shot is difficult or the scene is moving. On the other hand, the 300mm end is the same as a 486mm. So maybe it balances... certainly the cost of that 10mm difference weighs heavily in favor of the APS-C.
 
Last edited:
RonBoyd said:
This is a (very) lengthy treatise on sensor size (and I suggest you don't trudge through it all) but #4 will dispute your contention.

https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence
Click to expand...

This is a discussion of equivalent focal length and does nothing to dispute a contention that larger sensor size provides better IQ. Yes there are differences working with a larger sensor (depth of field the one that took the most getting used to for me) but that is a different discussion.
 
Mr. Paul said:
This is a discussion of equivalent focal length and does nothing to dispute a contention that larger sensor size provides better IQ. Yes there are differences working with a larger sensor (depth of field the one that took the most getting used to for me) but that is a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Okay, you got me.

However, when I looked up the Equivalency data in my above post I used Ken Rockwell's website. I noticed he had an review on the Canon 7D Mark II .

Way down at the bottom he includes eleven versions of the same shot -- ranging from ISO 100 to ISO 51,200.

The absolutely awesome lesson here is that even at the completely insane ISO of 51,200, it still looks fine for online use. The biggest issue is that the shadows are not quite as dark and contrasty as at the almost as insane ISO of 25,600, but if you need ISO 51,200 for some project, go for it:
Click to expand...
What you'll see here, like all digital cameras today, is that noise isn't the problem at high ISOs. Noise reduction does a great job of smearing-over the noise, which also smears-over the textures and detail at the same time. What you'll see is that most of the finer parts of the image are simply erased as the ISOs climb into sillytown.

Noise isn't the problem; the real question is how far you can enlarge images made at foolish ISOs before the softness becomes obvious.
Look at the grain in the wood: it simply goes away as the ISOs increase. Camera noise reduction does a great job of keeping the noise from rising and saving sharp edges; what you lose is subtle textures.
Click to expand...
He concludes with:

The "Technical Image Quality of the 7D Mark II being "Very Good" while the 5D Mark III and the 1D X are "Excellent."

On the other hand: On "Technical Image Quality, typical ambient arena/gym/pool lighting" the 7D is "Very Good" and the other two are "Poor."
 
RonBoyd said:
However, since Photoshop makes creating a panorama so easy and quick, it is not the issue it used to be.
Click to expand...

And for those without access to Photoshop:

Best Free Panorama Software

The best thing is that you really don’t have to know much about photography in order to create panoramic images; you just have to keep a few simple rules in mind when taking photos. ... There are several different programs that I have used to create panoramic photos, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Click to expand...
 
RonBoyd said:
Yes, that's what I said earlier about the "up-close and far-away" issue. However, since Photoshop makes creating a panorama so easy and quick, it is not the issue it used to be. Nevertheless, with my walking-around-lens (a Tamron 16-300mm) it is an irritant (occasionally) that the 16mm captures only what a 26mm lens on a FF camera can -- particularly when lining up the second shot is difficult or the scene is moving. On the other hand, the 300mm end is the same as a 486mm. So maybe it balances... certainly the cost of that 10mm difference weighs heavily in favor of the APS-C.
Click to expand...
Panoramas so easy and quick? Not really - even with the massive improvements it's still a lot of trouble taking and processing multiple shots. Trouble I usually only take for a large outdoor scene on an HDR situation.
 
audreyh1 said:
Panoramas so easy and quick? Not really - even with the massive improvements it's still a lot of trouble taking and processing multiple shots. Trouble I usually only take for a large outdoor scene on an HDR situation.
Click to expand...

I've used the HUGIN panorama tool in Linux, and it was very easy, and the results were fantastic even with the handheld shots I used. I just clicked with the defaults and it did all the work.

-ERD50
 
Do you take all of your shots from the same position, or do you move left and right to take additional shots?
I tried a pano a long time ago and the photo looked like it came out of a fisheye lens
 
If you take a wide enough shot, there will be a distortion of perspective.

I just took a pano with my iPhone of the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan skyline and the bridge curves because the pano is over 180 degrees.
 
audreyh1 said:
Panoramas so easy and quick?
Click to expand...

Here is a Video from 2012 that shows how easy peasy it was in PS CS6. The newer versions of LR (v7.51) and PS (2014) make it even faster/better. I know it is 17 minutes long but you can skip directly to about 7:40 for the actual hand-off to PS.

 
Ronstar said:
Do you take all of your shots from the same position, or do you move left and right to take additional shots?
I tried a pano a long time ago and the photo looked like it came out of a fisheye lens
Click to expand...

See the video I posted on how that is compensated for.

Of course, it is better if you keep away from very short lens... but that is not always possible in a confined space. But keep in mind that a photo taken is always better than one that is not.
 
I love taking panorama shots (via stitching) but I find that there's a huge variance in how easy is it process. In many cases it's literally a press of a button but if something goes wrong it can be very time consuming to fix (if you can fix it at all).

Parallax error, subject motion, fast changing light, architecture (when you want straight lines to be really straight and vertical/horizontal) can make it difficult to create the panorama without artifacts. I've also had panorama's ruined because one image in the series was blurry (maybe due to wind). There's a reason why the market supports specialized panorama heads that cost hundreds of dollars (one head from RRS I'm looking at runs ~$700).

If you need to do HDR/focus stacking on top of the panorama stitching then it's even more time consuming.

I actually don't like photoshop for panoramas (except for flat stitching). I use Autopano Pro and I think that and PTGui are considered among the best software for stitching. PTGUI started out as a GUI for panorama tools (which the open source Hugin also uses).
 
There's also a motorized head that will automate the shooting.
 
ERD50 said:
I've used the HUGIN panorama tool in Linux, and it was very easy, and the results were fantastic even with the handheld shots I used. I just clicked with the defaults and it did all the work.

-ERD50
Click to expand...

Still a lot more trouble than simply having a full-frame with wide angle lens and a single auto exposed and focused image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chuckanut
Replace old SD cards that still work?
Replies
10
Views
1K
donheff
donheff

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom