Photographer's Corner - equipment

[ggbutcher]

Lenses will be the cellphone deficiency for a while. Wide angle and telephoto lenses are about more than just coverage and reach, they bring a perspective to the shot that cannot be duplicated digitally. There are add on lenses for cellphones, but they don't cover the range of the DSLR offerings.

Sensors will also differentiate cellphones and serious cameras. FF sensors are just too big for cellphone form factors.

 

[explanade]

Oh you'll never have image quality comparable to DSLRs on phones, unless the phones can be 3 inches thick or there's some fantastic morphing technology invented that causes a 3 inch lens to pop out of a 1/3 inch phone.

But there may be some in-between solutions like this that Olympus just announced:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7983555/olympus-air-is-a-wireless-camera-for-your-smartphone


Basically a self-contained camera with a cradle for a phone so that you can control the camera, via a Wifi link, with apps.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there are little cradles produced for other cameras including DSLRs if there are compelling mobile apps. made for controlling cameras.

 

[ggbutcher]

The main reason I bought a DSLR was shutter lag on our first digital camera. It wasn't until I started shooting RAW and processing in Lightroom that I [-]stumbled across[/-] figured out what else I was missing.

Since no one has mentioned it, is it correct to assume that the mirrorless cameras do not suffer from shutter lag?

Walt, that's the same reason we bought a DSLR: my wife got tired of assembling the kids/grandkids for a photo, and by the time the camera got around to firing, they'd all dispersed. We have quite a few really nice carpet and wall pictures as a result...

Which is kinda funny, as the early digital point-and-shoots are the cameras that introduced "shutter lag", which (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) was really about the slow auto-focus mechanisms. A digital camera really doesn't need a shutter except maybe to protect the sensor, but it needs rather powerful computing to figure out the focus and then capture the light measurements across the sensor face. I've used more recent point-and-shoots that are very responsive when you press the button; one seemed to be capturing a frame some milliseconds before I pressed, because I seemed to be getting the shot I wanted even if I thought I'd pressed the button too late...

Mirrorless cameras render obsolete the need for the SLR mechanism, and the mechanics of a shutter-based exposure. What I'm reading on the photo forums is that auto-focus needs to be addressed, because the SLRs over the past 40 years have incorporated special sensor and processing that make the job quite responsive and reliable, and the digital processing to replace it isn't there yet. I just bought a D7000, and comparing the AF response with the viewfinder vs the LiveLook on the LCD bears this out. But, it won't take long...

 

[RonBoyd]

Mirrorless cameras render obsolete the need for the SLR mechanism, and the mechanics of a shutter-based exposure. What I'm reading on the photo forums is that auto-focus needs to be addressed, because the SLRs over the past 40 years have incorporated special sensor and processing that make the job quite responsive and reliable, and the digital processing to replace it isn't there yet. I just bought a D7000, and comparing the AF response with the viewfinder vs the LiveLook on the LCD bears this out. But, it won't take long...

It has always been my understanding that the definition of SLR was the focus and exposure measurements were taken "through the lens." The mirror was only incorporated into the mix to allow one to "see" the results of those processes prior to pressing the shutter button. The removal of the mirror (or even renaming it DSLR) doesn't change that. You, the photographer, are still viewing the scene "through the lens" either optically (mirror) or digitally (monitor).

I am unsure what you mean exactly by "the digital processing to replace it isn't there yet" but I can find no difference between the two with my 7D II (or the 7d, for that matter). Perhaps it is because I don't know what I am looking for.

In answer to Walt34's question: My EOS M has no lack between the time the button is pushed and the image capture -- it seems to be instantaneous. This, of course, may easily fall in to the YMMV category.

 

[Chuckanut]

Mirrorless cameras render obsolete the need for the SLR mechanism, and the mechanics of a shutter-based exposure. What I'm reading on the photo forums is that auto-focus needs to be addressed, because the SLRs over the past 40 years have incorporated special sensor and processing that make the job quite responsive and reliable, and the digital processing to replace it isn't there yet. I just bought a D7000, and comparing the AF response with the viewfinder vs the LiveLook on the LCD bears this out. But, it won't take long...

IMHO, the reason to get a mirrorless DSLR is to take advantage of the fact that the camera bodies and lenses are smaler and lighter. I routinely carry around the FF equivalent of a 150mm f/1.7 lens, but it is probably 1/4 the size of the FF equivalent.

Autofocus speed is still better with the best mirrored SLR, but they are getting better. The OM1 is quite fast, for example.

 

[photoguy]

Oh you'll never have image quality comparable to DSLRs on phones, unless the phones can be 3 inches thick or there's some fantastic morphing technology invented that causes a 3 inch lens to pop out of a 1/3 inch phone.

The optics will always be worse on a phone camera than DSLR. But I think phone makers have been much quicker to put advanced image processing algorithms on the device itself.

For example, my phone will do panoramas and stitched images on the fly -- while a single picture may not exceed the quality of my DSLR, I can see how a dozen stitched phone images (done automatically as I wave the phone around) could be better than my DSLR picture.

In theory DSLR makers could put this stuff in camera but have been hesitant to do so.

 

[audreyh1]

The optics will always be worse on a phone camera than DSLR. But I think phone makers have been much quicker to put advanced image processing algorithms on the device itself.

For example, my phone will do panoramas and stitched images on the fly -- while a single picture may not exceed the quality of my DSLR, I can see how a dozen stitched phone images (done automatically as I wave the phone around) could be better than my DSLR picture.

In theory DSLR makers could put this stuff in camera but have been hesitant to do so.

They may. But the biggest issue for me has been that with the more consumer oriented devices, I simply can't see well enough to take a decent picture.

Not to mention the horrible noise in the iPhone images!

 

[photoguy]

IMHO, the reason to get a mirrorless DSLR is to take advantage of the fact that the camera bodies and lenses are smaler and lighter. I routinely carry around the FF equivalent of a 150mm f/1.7 lens, but it is probably 1/4 the size of the FF equivalent.

Autofocus speed is still better with the best mirrored SLR, but they are getting better. The OM1 is quite fast, for example.

I've been looking at switching into the sony A7 series of mirrorless cameras and I think they are going to be the future of cameras. In addition to the lighter weight (which they still have despite being full-frame) I can think of a number of advantages:

- focus is done on the sensor plane so you don't have registration problems (important for pixel peepers/shallow DOF). Just look at how many posts on the internet are about DSLR lens microadjustments

- AF can use the whole sensor not just a limited section in the middle

- no crop in the viewfinder (most mid-tier and lower bodies only show like 9X% of the frame)

- no mirror to get out of the way = faster frame rates

- no mirror = less vibration

- no mirror box means that the flange distance is short and you can mount pretty much any DSLR lens from any maker on the camera

- focus peaking and other ways of showing what's in focus in realtime

- realtime histograms, blinkies, etc

- cheaper (but I'm not sure how much is inherently from simpler construction vs other considerations)

 

[photoguy]

They may. But the biggest issue for me has been that with the more consumer oriented devices, I simply can't see well enough to take a decent picture.

My eyesight is poor and along with glasses I've never been able to get a good view through a viewfinder. I envy people with good vision.

 

[Walt34]

Walt, that's the same reason we bought a DSLR: my wife got tired of assembling the kids/grandkids for a photo, and by the time the camera got around to firing, they'd all dispersed. We have quite a few really nice carpet and wall pictures as a result...

I had much the same experience with kids, hence the frustration with the point 'n shoot.

In answer to Walt34's question: My EOS M has no lack between the time the button is pushed and the image capture -- it seems to be instantaneous. This, of course, may easily fall in to the YMMV category.

Thank you. I'm not ready to retire my D7000 and collection of lenses for it yet but I'll keep the alternatives in mind.

 

[ggbutcher]

It has always been my understanding that the definition of SLR was the focus and exposure measurements were taken "through the lens." The mirror was only incorporated into the mix to allow one to "see" the results of those processes prior to pressing the shutter button. The removal of the mirror (or even renaming it DSLR) doesn't change that. You, the photographer, are still viewing the scene "through the lens" either optically (mirror) or digitally (monitor).

I am unsure what you mean exactly by "the digital processing to replace it isn't there yet" but I can find no difference between the two with my 7D II (or the 7d, for that matter). Perhaps it is because I don't know what I am looking for.

In answer to Walt34's question: My EOS M has no lack between the time the button is pushed and the image capture -- it seems to be instantaneous. This, of course, may easily fall in to the YMMV category.

In most SLRs, the mirror allows all of that, focus, exposure setting, and viewing, through the lens; when the picture is to be captured on film, the mirror has to be flapped up to let the light through to the shutter and then the film. In most designs, the focus and exposure sensors are illuminated with the mirror. Wikipedia has a nice description: Single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A digital sensor allows the designer to use the same sensor for all of those functions, in addition to capturing the exposure, hence no real need for the mirror or shutter. My understanding is that in DSLRs, the focus and exposure sensor setup from SLRs has been retained because the camera processors have not been fast enough to implement all that functionality using the single sensor.

I've recently done AF fine-tuning of my zoom lens on the D7000 using the LiveView technique, where you use the LCD to focus on the target, then switch out of LV to the viewfinder and observe the focus collar shift when the AF sensor kicks in. LV focusing is definitely slower, and it see-saws a bit more before settling in on the focus plane.

I'm sticking with my DSLR for the time being because of the lens selection. But I believe we'll see more "pro-sumer" and pro mirrorless offerings in the next couple of years, with a complementary evolution of lenses. Then, I'll re-evaluate my picture taking and, maybe, switch...

 

[RonBoyd]

- AF can use the whole sensor not just a limited section in the middle

Oh, but if only it were so. We can only dream. My 7D II has 65 focus points (same as the 1DX) which is the most of any camera I am aware of... a long way from "whole sensor."

 

[Nodak]

I bought mirrorless camera to use with a telescope. It avoids any shake induced by the mirror movement.

 

[walkinwood]

I think the future will be a mirrorless SLR with android, iOS or the current mobile OS of choice running on the camera. That will merge the superior optics & sensors with the convenience and speedy innovation of mobile apps.

The Olympus Air and the Samsung Android based cameras, imho, are small steps that point to the future.

There will always be hobbyists & professionals who prefer well tuned single purpose devices.

 

[audreyh1]

I bought mirrorless camera to use with a telescope. It avoids any shake induced by the mirror movement.

It's easy to lock up the mirror in many DSLRs and that's what I do for night exposures and multiple exposures once I've composed the image.

 

[audreyh1]

My eyesight is poor and along with glasses I've never been able to get a good view through a viewfinder. I envy people with good vision.

My vision isn't great. But I really can't see well using anything but a viewfinder that looks through a lens that gathers a lot of light and blocks my eye and the viewfinder display from ambient light. Not to mention the magnification.

 

[photoguy]

Oh, but if only it were so. We can only dream. My 7D II has 65 focus points (same as the 1DX) which is the most of any camera I am aware of... a long way from "whole sensor."

I think the notion of autofocus points is going to disappear. I.e. cameras will have so many that the device can select arbitrary shaped & sized regions that adapt to the subject.

The sony A6000 mirrorless has something like 200 focus points (phase detection) covering 97% of the sensor. Plus I would guess that every pixel can participate in contrast-detection AF.

Take a look at this video:

At 3:26 the presenter shows "eye autofocus" where the camera literally selects an eyeball as the focus point. I've had problems with my DSLR where the focus points were too big and I couldn't get the subjects eyes sharp without resorting to manual focus.

At 4:12 he shows how the focus tracks the subject right to the edge of the frame.

 

[Nodak]

It's easy to lock up the mirror in many DSLRs and that's what I do for night exposures and multiple exposures once I've composed the image.

I have an old Minolta SRT 101 with mirror lock up and that is what I used until about 2 years ago when I completely gave up on film. I moved to an apartment and didn't have room for my darkroom. I have an older Canon EOS Rebel DSLR but there is no mirror lock up on it. My Canon is old enough to be only 10Mp so I bought an 18Mp mirrorless.

I am planning on moving back to my house in a few months and may resurect the darkroom; depending on film availability.

 

[audreyh1]

I think the notion of autofocus points is going to disappear. I.e. cameras will have so many that the device can select arbitrary shaped & sized regions that adapt to the subject.

The sony A6000 mirrorless has something like 200 focus points (phase detection) covering 97% of the sensor. Plus I would guess that every pixel can participate in contrast-detection AF.

Take a look at this video:

At 3:26 the presenter shows "eye autofocus" where the camera literally selects an eyeball as the focus point. I've had problems with my DSLR where the focus points were too big and I couldn't get the subjects eyes sharp without resorting to manual focus.

At 4:12 he shows how the focus tracks the subject right to the edge of the frame.

Hey, if it locks on wildlife eyes my husband may be able to use autofocus again!

 

[RonBoyd]

Hey, if it locks on wildlife eyes my husband may be able to use autofocus again!

This is part of a series by Arthur Morris on photographing birds, that might be of interest:

Found at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvqs9r3h9dh87lRHSatDpNg/videos

 

[Ronstar]

Ordered a DJI Phantom 2 drone with a stabilizing gimbal for my gopro today. I have several test flights planned over grassland conservation areas before I fly it over wooded areas or water. Hopefully I'll have some decent aerial photos and video in a few weeks.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[audreyh1]

This is part of a series by Arthur Morris on photographing birds, that might be of interest:

Found at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvqs9r3h9dh87lRHSatDpNg/videos

Thanks - we did a couple of Art Morris's photo workshops in the late 90s, early 2000s, including Bosque del Apache. That was our initial bird photography training.

The challenge DH has to deal with is photographing very small birds (warblers) in trees with lots of branches using 1200mm. Depth of field is not great and it's too easy to for the camera to focus on something that is not the bird's eye, and unless the eye is tack sharp, the photo just doesn't look right. I think Art often uses manual focus under the same scenario.

 

[Disappointed]

I have not followed this thread so I don't know if anybody saw a documentary about Virginia Maier, it is very interesting for those that are into photography, especially street photography.

I believe I saw it on Showtime, the documentary is called "Finding Virginia Maier", her work was absolutely fascinating.

Check it out.

Mp



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[RonBoyd]

I believe I saw it on Showtime, the documentary is called "Finding Virginia Maier", her work was absolutely fascinating.

Here is the "must watch" Trailer for the movie:

Here is a Blog on Street Photography that is quite informative:

Eric Kim Street Photography Blog – Street Photography Tips, Inspiration, and Community

Hey streettogs, I am excited to announce that I’ve finally published my free e-book: “Street Photography 101“. If you’re new to street photography, want to learn the fundamentals, or refresh your existing knowledge– check it out. As always, this book is “open source” — meaning you can freely edit, remix, and distribute this information as you would like.

 

[Walt34]

Nikon announces the release of the D7200:

Nikon D7200 Digital SLR Camera | DSLR from Nikon

Here are the specs: Nikon D7200 Digital SLR Camera | DSLR from Nikon

Tempting, but I'll wait at least awhile. It is described as an evolutionary model of the D7000 and D7100.