Photographer's Corner - equipment

[seraphim]

We went to a Marine museum in Michigan, and they had items on displayed removed from the 60s wreck of a German ship. One item was an old LunaPro light meter. Whipped out mine and compared the two - not too much of a difference lol. Mines an 80s model. Tired for a comparison photo, but the display was too far back behind glass...


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[seraphim]

More old useful equipment.

The teleconverter and extension tubes will not work with modern lenses which do not have an aperture ring, since the devices do not permit communication between the lens and camera. But I still have an older 35-70AF lens that functions with both. Using the film lens with the 1.6 TC and a 2.7x crop factor on the AW 1 makes for a reach of, let's see see, 151.1 to 302.4 mm. The three extension tubes come in 12, 20 and 36 mm, and can used individually or in any combination. No AF, of course, but no problem there.

That's quite a range. Now, if my old 70-200 lens is still functional, after getting damp, ... Actually, the electronics don't matter. If they're shot, the lens should be usable, if there's no fogging I can't eliminate.

That would - on the AW1with TC1.6 - be a range of 302.4 to 864 mm *grin*

Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[seraphim]

The ft1 lens adaptor is coming in next week


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Ronstar]

Dw got a Sony Cybershot in the mail today for her 25 yr award from megacorp. Looks like I'm adding another download cable to the mix. I wish the camera industry would standardize their cabling. But then again, no other industry does.

 

[seraphim]

Check a few existing cables you already have - you may get lucky.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Ronstar]

I did get lucky - sort of. My Nikon 5200 cable is the same as DW's cybershot, but different from the Nikon 610 which is different from my Sony DSC RX-100. So now we have 4 cameras that use 3 different cables

 

[audreyh1]

Is there any reason to prefer the old 17-40L lens? I think reviews are uniformly in favor of the newer lens.



You must have a lot of lenses :>

My newest 16-35mm f2.8 is bulky, a half pound heavier, and main issue just won't fit in my smallest camera bag that I want to carry around Europe. With the 17-40 I can carry two lenses and hoods, no prob. This will be my official "overseas sightseeing tourist" setup - all handheld - as I don't plan to schlep a tripod around Europe either.

The bag is a Lowepro Rezo 170 AW that I got free when I ordered my 6D from B&H. Great small shoulder bag - but that's the biggest in that particular form factor.

We have indeed accumulated a few lenses - but over a 15 year period. Fortunately even lenses we bought in 1999 still work with the latest camera bodies. And DH and I both photograph, so lenses change hands now and then as we each follow our preferred subjects/style.

 

[Ronstar]

For those of you that travel a lot and take a lot of photos on the road, do you process on a laptop, do your best with a tablet, or wait until you get home to your computer?

 

[explanade]

I do take a laptop but not necessarily to edit.

And I use a preset on import rather than pore over each image.

It would be impossible to do hundreds of images a day at night after being on your feet all day.

 

[Walt34]

I wouldn't want to do a lot of editing on that small screen and it would probably be a wasted effort anyway. I would use the laptop and an external drive for storage/backup.

 

[audreyh1]

For those of you that travel a lot and take a lot of photos on the road, do you process on a laptop, do your best with a tablet, or wait until you get home to your computer?

We bought a MacBook Air for that purpose and carry a small backup drive. It's an awesome travel computer - so light and slim yet full function. I do the major editing at home, but I can work on some pics while traveling and share or post if needed.

 

[Chuckanut]

I leave my travel photos on the SD cards until I get home. I have never had one fail

 

[audreyh1]

I leave my travel photos on the SD cards until I get home. I have never had one fail

You have enough cards to cover a trip then, I assume.

I have to have backup. Just me .

 

[seraphim]

For those of you that travel a lot and take a lot of photos on the road, do you process on a laptop, do your best with a tablet, or wait until you get home to your computer?

IPad for review, temporary storage/ backup and most editing tweaks. Normally not much is needed. Then can upload a few JPEGs exported from the RAW files to FB or Flickr. Use a nondestructive editor that leaves the RAW file untouched. Only use computer if I want to use layering, or run through an HDR program.

Have a linux box set up to transfer files to archive.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Ronstar]

Thanks for the replies. Very helpful - looks like the consensus is leave the editing for home. I have some trips coming up. In the past, I've downloaded some shots onto my iPad and left the rest on the card until I got home. But I'm anticipating taking a lot more shots on the upcoming trips - probably take multiple cards. I would like some sort of backup. So I'll bring my laptop/external drive for a backup, or see how well the dual card slots will work for backing up within the camera.

 

[RonBoyd]

For those of you that travel a lot and take a lot of photos on the road, do you process on a laptop, do your best with a tablet, or wait until you get home to your computer?

I use Lightroom to organize my images. I have all 75,000 images (and supporting files -- XMP, etc.) on a single 2 TB external hard drive. This makes it simple to go from the desktop (at home) to the laptop (on the road) by simply plugging in the USB cord. Additionally, I have all the image locations in as basic structure as possible -- in my case, the only subfolders are by camera because using five different Canon cameras caused in-camera naming conflicts. (I should mention that all of the Lightroom files -- except the actual program itself -- are on this external drive; collections, presets, etc.) In addition to the normal daily backup routine on the Desktop, I use "Compare Advance" to sync the image files to the internal drive of the two computers and, if at home, two external drives on the Desktop. (Yes, I have five copies of every image and subordinate files.)

Now, having said all that, I use Lightroom to process 90% of the images. My Laptop has a 17" monitor and I do process some (very few) images while on the road -- the curse of Facebook. My main concern "on the road" is to take the pictures. Processing is way too thought intensive and requires the isolation that can only be found at home.

 

[Ronstar]

I use Lightroom to organize my images. I have all 75,000 images (and supporting files -- XMP, etc.) on a single 2 TB external hard drive. This makes it simple to go from the desktop (at home) to the laptop (on the road) by simply plugging in the USB cord. Additionally, I have all the image locations in as basic structure as possible -- in my case, the only subfolders are by camera because using five different Canon cameras caused in-camera naming conflicts. (I should mention that all of the Lightroom files -- except the actual program itself -- are on this external drive; collections, presets, etc.) In addition to the normal daily backup routine on the Desktop, I use "Compare Advance" to sync the image files to the internal drive of the two computers and, if at home, two external drives on the Desktop. (Yes, I have five copies of every image and subordinate files.)

Now, having said all that, I use Lightroom to process 90% of the images. My Laptop has a 17" monitor and I do process some (very few) images while on the road -- the curse of Facebook. My main concern "on the road" is to take the pictures. Processing is way too thought intensive and requires the isolation that can only be found at home.

Nice setup! Do you have a backup for your external drive? In all my paranoia about backups recently, I realized all of my photos are on an external drive that isn't backed up. Went to back the photos from the external drive to my music NAS and it said it would take 3 days to copy (I only have 11000 photos)

 

[someguy]

Those who are paranoid about leaving the only copy on an SD card while traveling might want to check out the Eye-Fi SD cards. They have WiFi built into them that you can configure ahead of time via your computer and one option is to find and use any public WiFi to sync photos. So if you go somewhere with free WiFi or have it in your hotel/condo/whatever, you can set it to upload a copy off the card. It does use the battery faster, but not enough to be an issue to me.

I recently went to the third version (mark iii) of the Sony RX100 and it has built-in WiFi. I have yet to try the capability to sync with an iOS device.

 

[RonBoyd]

Do you have a backup for your external drive?

My external drive has the following directories (both computers are Windows v8.1):

1. The Images
2. Extracted Previews (currently empty)
3. Lightroom Publish (imagine my surprise to find all the JPGs created by the Publish module.)
4. New Catalog (all of the Lightroom files created by the program. This includes the LR Backup files created after EVERY session -- see below)

The Images directory is synced (with "Compare Advance") after every session of Lightroom use. This depending on which machine I am using gives me up to four identical copies (in separate locations) of all image files and their subordinate files (XMP, etc.).

This week I ran out of room on one of the remote drives and had to move the image files to another drive -- it took about ten hours (while I slept). Syncing, however, takes only a couple minutes depending, of course, on how much processing was done. Therefore, once you have the back upped files in place, maintenance takes very little time.

The other directories are backed up nightly with "True Image." This takes care of the issue of LR Backup files being on the same drive as the original drive -- although these can be recreated easily anyway.

So, yeah, I am a dyed-in-the-wool paranoid pessimist as far as my image files are concerned and go way beyond what is rational.

Add on: When I am "on the road," I use "Compare Advance" to sync to my Image files directory on the Laptop's internal "D:" drive. That gives me two copies (plus the camera cards) of all my images plus all the current ones.

 

[Chuckanut]

You have enough cards to cover a trip then, I assume.

I have to have backup. Just me .

Yes. They are cheap enough that I can take plenty along. I also use the smaller cards so if one does decide to fail, I only lose a small percent of my photos and not most of the trip. Back in the days of film, I lost photos to labs that messed up and film canisters that got mishandled.

I don't need a computer or tablet because all of my photos have perfect exposure, color balance, composition, focus, etc. every time I press the shutter.

Just kidding of course! My #1 photo improvement tool is the trash can icon on my computer.

 

[audreyh1]

I use Lightroom to organize my images. I have all 75,000 images (and supporting files -- XMP, etc.) on a single 2 TB external hard drive. This makes it simple to go from the desktop (at home) to the laptop (on the road) by simply plugging in the USB cord. Additionally, I have all the image locations in as basic structure as possible -- in my case, the only subfolders are by camera because using five different Canon cameras caused in-camera naming conflicts. (I should mention that all of the Lightroom files -- except the actual program itself -- are on this external drive; collections, presets, etc.) In addition to the normal daily backup routine on the Desktop, I use "Compare Advance" to sync the image files to the internal drive of the two computers and, if at home, two external drives on the Desktop. (Yes, I have five copies of every image and subordinate files.)

Now, having said all that, I use Lightroom to process 90% of the images. My Laptop has a 17" monitor and I do process some (very few) images while on the road -- the curse of Facebook. My main concern "on the road" is to take the pictures. Processing is way too thought intensive and requires the isolation that can only be found at home.

I keep a copy of Lightroom on our travel Mac, and I've found it works very nicely to have a fresh catalog for each trip. Then when I get home, I just have to copy over the catalog and I can work on it as an distinct unit rather than having it combined with other photos.

Currently my photos taken with my current camera are on my main drive which gets backed up fairly often by Time Machine. In addition I have an external "media archive" drive where I keep another copy of files, and since this has older photos as well, I have a backup copy of that which stays in the bank safety deposit box and gets updated whenever I move images off of my main drive - about once a year.

 

[photoguy]

My newest 16-35mm f2.8 is bulky, a half pound heavier, and main issue just won't fit in my smallest camera bag that I want to carry around Europe. With the 17-40 I can carry two lenses and hoods, no prob. This will be my official "overseas sightseeing tourist" setup - all handheld - as I don't plan to schlep a tripod around Europe either.

I totally understand not wanting to carry the f/2.8 lens. I was wondering about the differences between the 17-40L vs new f4 version of the 16-35 with IS.

I did take a tripod to europe but left it in the hotel room except for sunrise and sunset shots. I didn't have one at the time, but I wish I also had a jobo gorilla pod for cathedral interiors.

 

[audreyh1]

I totally understand not wanting to carry the f/2.8 lens. I was wondering about the differences between the 17-40L vs new f4 version of the 16-35 with IS.

I did take a tripod to europe but left it in the hotel room except for sunrise and sunset shots. I didn't have one at the time, but I wish I also had a jobo gorilla pod for cathedral interiors.

Buying yet another lens?

The new 16-35 IS is much higher quality at the edges of the lens. In fact it also blows the f/2 away except for the speed. It's also 50% more expensive than the 17-40mm, weighs closer to the f/2, and is closer to the f/2 in bulk. So I doubt it would fit as well in my bag. I also will probably appreciate that extra 5mm of zoom in based on my shooting patterns.

I'm sure I'll take some kind of pod to Europe one day, but that will be a trip where photography is the top goal.

 

[RonBoyd]

I keep a copy of Lightroom on our travel Mac, and I've found it works very nicely to have a fresh catalog for each trip. Then when I get home, I just have to copy over the catalog and I can work on it as an distinct unit rather than having it combined with other photos.

That is what "Collections" are for. I find it takes up too much of my time to close a Catalog and open a new one when a simple mouse click in the left column serves the same purpose. Not to mention the need to "keep track of" all those file (folder/directory) names.

Another issue that "Collections" as apposed to "separate Catalogs" alleviates is the need to have multiple copies of files spread all over the place -- just keeping track of which copy is the most current is a nightmare. (This occurs when a Catalog is created that covers multi- sessions -- a common usage.)

Currently my photos taken with my current camera are on my main drive which gets backed up fairly often by Time Machine. In addition I have an external "media archive" drive where I keep another copy of files, and since this has older photos as well, I have a backup copy of that which stays in the bank safety deposit box and gets updated whenever I move images off of my main drive - about once a year.

I find it more convenient to keep ALL of my images in the same place in terms of organization and "search" functions. I will, however, admit that I am weak on "off-site" storage -- I tell myself that I am waiting for the Cloud to catch up with me. <chuckle>

 

[Ronstar]

My external drive has the following directories (both computers are Windows v8.1):

1. The Images
2. Extracted Previews (currently empty)
3. Lightroom Publish (imagine my surprise to find all the JPGs created by the Publish module.)
4. New Catalog (all of the Lightroom files created by the program. This includes the LR Backup files created after EVERY session -- see below)

The Images directory is synced (with "Compare Advance") after every session of Lightroom use. This depending on which machine I am using gives me up to four identical copies (in separate locations) of all image files and their subordinate files (XMP, etc.).

This week I ran out of room on one of the remote drives and had to move the image files to another drive -- it took about ten hours (while I slept). Syncing, however, takes only a couple minutes depending, of course, on how much processing was done. Therefore, once you have the back upped files in place, maintenance takes very little time.

The other directories are backed up nightly with "True Image." This takes care of the issue of LR Backup files being on the same drive as the original drive -- although these can be recreated easily anyway.

So, yeah, I am a dyed-in-the-wool paranoid pessimist as far as my image files are concerned and go way beyond what is rational.

Add on: When I am "on the road," I use "Compare Advance" to sync to my Image files directory on the Laptop's internal "D:" drive. That gives me two copies (plus the camera cards) of all my images plus all the current ones.

I'd say that's sufficient backup