Photographer's Corner - equipment

[photoguy]

Yeah the DNG sidecar issue is particular to each person's workflow. For me, I'd rather have the option to keep it separate but I can see how keeping everything to together can be more convenient.

[seraphim]

Nice photos mathjak.

Most of my shots with the D200 use the 10-24 lens. Don't do a lot of cropping. 36mp would be nice lol. I've considered upgrading the camera, but want to keep using the Nikon lenses. Mostly, I can't justify spending the money, and I'm generally pretty good at that lol.

I've gotten lazy and use the iPhone for street photography. It's so darn easy.

I need to back into photography, since I'm retired. I'll stick to what I have for now, until I figure out what I really.

[mathjak107]

thanks

[seraphim]

Darn it - I've been checking out D800 prices all day, now...

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seraphim Darn it - I've been checking out D800 prices all day, now...

Yeah, I had to look too. Gulp! Maybe if I can convince DW that family photos would be "so much better!" with that and a couple of fast lenses than the D7000....

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seraphim Darn it - I've been checking out D800 prices all day, now...

Hang the D800 around your neck with a high quality fast lens attached (so you can take advantage of those 36 megapixels). Walk around for a few hours. You may find the combo less tempting.

Of course, my photographic style makes smaller lighter equipment more desirable. YMMV.

[explanade]

I'm hoping Nikon makes something like an A7R, so you have FX sensor and Nikkor lenses in a small package.

Only problem is that such a product would take sales away from the bigger Nikons.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade I'm hoping Nikon makes something like an A7R, so you have FX sensor and Nikkor lenses in a small package.

Sony's smaller full frame cameras have the same problem: the lenses must be a certain size to cover the frame. OTOH, 4/3 sensors use much smaller lenses. My 45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens is the equivalent of 90mm in full frame. Such a fast, high quality lens in full frame would be much larger.

Different tools for different uses.

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Hang the D800 around your neck with a high quality fast lens attached (so you can take advantage of those 36 megapixels). Walk around for a few hours. You may find the combo less tempting. Of course, my photographic style makes smaller lighter equipment more desirable. YMMV.

no question it is on the heavy side. i always use a monopod when i take the 70-200mm f2.8 and d800 just for the weight.

but we have both the d800 and d7000 and weight wise there isn't much difference when you are carrying it. with heavy lenses they both get uncomfortable after a while.

shooting our fuji x100s is a world of difference weight wise and a pleasure to take. but it isn't for everything.

.

[Walt34]

After my last post I went to talk to DW about the D800. She took one look at me and said "what do you want to buy?" Didn't fall for the the "family photos would be so much better" line.

In July we'll have been married 26 years so she pretty much has me pegged. Oh well, it was worth a try.

[seraphim]

Chuckanut

The D800/lens combo will not be significantly heavier than what I currently use, and a heck of a lot lighter than other combinations I have carried - such as an RB67 or a 4x5 Speed Graphic (with a load of film holders) lol. I use a chest strap, which places weight on the shoulders, not the neck, and holds the camera firmer while hiking through the woods. And I can always stick it in the backpack. Weight really isn't an issue. I'm glad you're pleased with your lightweight combo, but it's not for everyone.

[Mr. Paul]

Walt34 just tell her we took a vote and it's already been decided

[seraphim]

Walt

They know us so well lol. The D800 will have to wait until January, I think. Major purchases for the year are already planned out. But what I have is fine for what I do. Should I get back into high quality prints, or prints at all, I'll move the D800 to the front burner. For now, everything I do is viewed digitally, and 10 mp is sufficient.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seraphim Chuckanut The D800/lens combo will not be significantly heavier than what I currently use, and a heck of a lot lighter than other combinations I have carried - such as an RB67 or a 4x5 Speed Graphic (with a load of film holders) lol. I use a chest strap, which places weight on the shoulders, not the neck, and holds the camera firmer while hiking through the woods. And I can always stick it in the backpack. Weight really isn't an issue. I'm glad you're pleased with your lightweight combo, but it's not for everyone.

Very true. We each choose the tool that works best for us.

[Chuckanut]

Here's a review of the Olympus OM-1 camera body by Thom Hogan. What I like about Hogan's reviews is that he doesn't rush to put out a review based upon using a loaner body for a week or two, but waits until he has actually used the equipment for a while in the field.

Olympus E-M1 Review | Sans Mirror — mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

A few years ago I found that my best travel photos were taken not with my Nikon DSLR but with my Canon s90 pocketable camera, because that was the one I was taking with me when I was out and about for a day. I rethought my needs, sold most of the Nikon equipment and bought into the micro 4/3 system. I can carry a body and three lenses (one zoom and two fast primes) in a space smaller than 1/2 the size of a traditional child's lunch box.

[walkinwood]

How many of you color calibrate your monitors? Do you find it makes a big difference on today's monitors? And what equipment do you use?

What about camera profiles? Do you create custom profiles for your camera to use in Lightroom or other programs? Do you find it makes a big difference?

What else do you do to get your color right - in the camera & on the monitor?

Thanks.

ps: I understand "big difference" is subjective, but wanted your opinion.

[Walt34]

I use an X-Rite Colormunki Photo and X-Rite Colorchecker Passport and am very happy with both. Bear in mind that at least as I understand it the camera profile is only valid for that camera in that particular light. I can see the value if you shoot in several different studio lighting setups where the light is consistent from day to day but for me things are too variable. There was a significant visible difference in the monitor the first time I calibrated it.

The Colormunki will also build printer profiles for your printer/paper combination if you can't find one online.

I also use an Expodisc, mostly for outdoor shots and the colorchecker indoors since the color changes more inside depending on the color of the walls I'm bouncing the flash off of.

In virtually all indoor shots I use the colorchecker in a scene and it is literally a mouse click in Lightroom to set the white balance for a series of shots in that room.

The result is that I can shoot a photo of the colorchecker and print it out, hold the colorchecker and the the print next to each other, and the colors are the same with no differences that I can see.

Relatives sometimes comment on the color accuracy of my photos compared to theirs and they express interest in how it's done until I tell them. Very few people want to go to the bother of the learning curve.

Oh, and while I show links to Amazon (everybody trusts that site) I mostly buy from either Adorama or B&H.

[cranberryjoe]

I also use the X-Rite Colormunki to calibrate my monitors. It does make a difference. I have two monitors, and before calibration they showed the same colors very differently (especially noticeable with white). After calibration they are the same, or at least close enough that I can't tell the difference. I post a lot of photos to G+ and want to make sure others with calibrated monitors see exactly what I see. Of course there's nothing I can do for people using uncalibrated monitors or phones.

Most monitors are delivered from the factory with brightness and contrast set way too high, and many have presets for movies, games, etc. that alter the white balance and brightness. A calibrated monitor negates those factors.

I have not used the Passport or similar calibration in the camera. I shoot in raw and do enough post processing in Lightroom and Photoshop that I'm looking for colors I like, which aren't necessarily exact renderings of the original scene. When I do want accurate white balance, I find that my camera's white balance is usually accurate, and when it's not Lightroom's auto white balance does well.

There are certain subjects that I would like accurate color. My camera has a hard time with some blue and purple flowers. That's when I should have a Colorchecker Passport. Anybody want to buy me one?

[walkinwood]

Thanks Walt34 and cranberryjoe.

I've been reading up on both the X-Rite Colormuki Smile & Display, and the Colorchecker Passport & wanted some real-world feedback on their usefulness. Thank you.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinwood How many of you color calibrate your monitors? Do you find it makes a big difference on today's monitors? And what equipment do you use?

I use an older X-rite i1 display monitor calibrator. I don't think they even make this model anymore.

With my older apple cinema display, I found that calibration did not make that much of a difference compared to using the built in software "calibrate" function on a mac (it shows you some striped squares and you note when they blend together). But in general monitors are *horrible* in terms of color unless calibrated, so I would definitely recommend a puck if you are serious about sharing or printing.

Quote:

What about camera profiles? Do you create custom profiles for your camera to use in Lightroom or other programs? Do you find it makes a big difference?

No. I just use Adobe standard.

In lightroom, at the bottom of the develop box you can cycle through various camera profiles and see how the color changes. The differences are significant, but maybe not once you apply all of your own processing tweaks.

Quote:

What else do you do to get your color right - in the camera & on the monitor?

I think it depends on what level of color fidelity you want. For most of what I shoot I don't care about faithful colors so I skip the gray cards and color checkers.

However, if I was shooting portraits or artwork for reproduction, I'd try to use at least a gray card if possible. (note: I've found that some gray cards, even those that are supposed to be for digital), are not really grey and can impart an unpleasant color cast.