Like meeting people, Like spending money- Photography is the answer

Hello there,

[This was copy and pasted from the other thread "Photography" as requested]

Hi,

My reply here is mostly a reply to LG and Spec, and i copied one post quote from the other thread because this is about photography again. LG basically says that Nikon is better than Cannon, so i didnt have to copy that quote.

LG:
So you seem to be saying, and this is relevant to my own personal purchasing, that if i go out and by a 100 dollar Nikon and a 100 dollar Canon camera that the Nikon will be better than the Canon? If so, what will be better about it? There are several areas here such as raw picture size (image sensor size), color quality, features, etc.
I'd like to know more about this before i buy another camera.
Right now i have a Canon 'pocket' sized digital and it works pretty good, but with the film cameras i went with Rollei and Carl Zeiss lenses. Despite the extreme quality of the Rollei's, i still like using the Canon better because it doesnt require the hassle of developing film and making prints, or running down to the shop to get them done and paying the price every time. I've taken thousands of shots with the Canon and the only cost is disk space to store them in, do digital is my preference now.
But i'd still like to know more about why you believe Nikons are better, and i am not trying to imply that they are not, just that i would like to hear some concrete reasons why they are.

Spec:
Oh ok so i guess you see this as a "tube" vs "transistor" guitar amplifier debate
If LG really has some good reasons why he likes ManuA over ManuB then i'd like to hear why, in practical terms.
I know some cameras are better than others, but they usually cost more too. Any real comparison i think has to be within the price group i think, like say 100 to 130 dollars, 130 to 160, 160 to 200, etc. I dont like to spend too much anymore so im around that lower bracket right now, at least for digitals.
BTW, thanks for starting this thread...i think a lot of us here do some photography. One of my favorite subjects long ago was taking shots of electronic parts close up
Of course nature too, hillsides, mountains, wild animals in their habitats.

Copy/Pasted from the private thread.

I have a couple of squirrel pics somewhere too.

Camera selection depends a lot on what you want to do and as LG and others have mentioned the lens does most of the work. I never was good at optics and I hear that all of the lens specs are referenced the 35 mm world somehow.

I kinda wanted value, not perfection hence the Panasonic DMC-FZ50. I never owned a 35 mm camera.
So, I protect the lens with an IR filter and a lens cap. Since you can't change the LENS telephoto is not really an option.

It does have a MACRO mode (manual and autofocus) and the macro made can be made better with a macro lens attachment. With MACRO you basically have to "pick" what you want to be in focus.

A tripod and lighting seems to be more important in MACRO. Even though my camera has image stabilization (a really nice feature) in MACRO it's more important to have a remote shutter release of some sort. It can be wired or wireless.

The biggest irritant of all is lighting. The flash can sometimes be improved with a piece of paper or a diffuser for macro work. The camera tries to help with lighting issues in lots of ways. Different camera modes (e.g. fireworks) and how the image is focused and "exposed".

So, a ring light would be the next option to consider.

The camera even sports a red eye reduction mode.

5 MB seems to be enough for an 8x10 picture, so I keep it there.

Ok I have secured 3 hours in the week in my mums studio I have a huge list of do's and dont's but it was the best I could do after 4 hours of negotiating (nagging) her. The idea is to give specs an idea of how a studio can be set up fairly cheaply, I will exclude all the stuff he wont need and set up some of the product shoot type lighting stuff etc, I cant use the 6' soft box's as they are a pain but the smaller ones are ok.

For macro work get a commander unit for the camera and a flash boom and use off camera flash or mount the flash behind a soft box, the other and sometimes better way is to use a deflector, you can get holders for them or prop them up, then just use normal light to reflect off and onto the subject

8X10 with 5 meg is about as large as you want to go are they JPEG files?

I might also do some set up's for Hi Key and Low key shots. Hi Key is all the rage at the mo but I love low key stuff.

Little Ghostman said:

I can show you what she has taught me so far. Some really cool tricks with flash ect

Click to expand...

LG , I think you meant techniques , tricks are what a magician does .

MrAl said:

Spec:
Oh ok so i guess you see this as a "tube" vs "transistor" guitar amplifier debate
If LG really has some good reasons why he likes ManuA over ManuB then i'd like to hear why, in practical terms.
I know some cameras are better than others, but they usually cost more too. Any real comparison i think has to be within the price group i think, like say 100 to 130 dollars, 130 to 160, 160 to 200, etc. I dont like to spend too much anymore so im around that lower bracket right now, at least for digitals.
BTW, thanks for starting this thread...i think a lot of us here do some photography. One of my favorite subjects long ago was taking shots of electronic parts close up
Of course nature too, hillsides, mountains, wild animals in their habitats.

Click to expand...

Hy MrAl,

Thanks for re posting here.

Yes, you could say that film versus digital photography is like a tube versus transistor thing in principle, but not in terms of quality. There is something very appealing to some people about the whole process of film- for one thing there is non of this pixel stuff with film. There is just granularity of the film itself. Also it is said that the color depth and rendering is better with film. I agree with all this, but for me, digital has transformed photography beyond recognition- just like word processors and spell checkers transformed writing. But that is because of my non artistic approach.

About Nikon versus Cannon. Forget it that is just LG and me messing about.

As far as digital photography goes there are two broad categories of camera: fixed lens and changeable lens.

(1) Point and Shoot (PAS)
Price range: £20 UK to £750 UK)
This covers the majority of cameras on the market which are the smaller types you carry in your pocket or in a belt bag. Then there are the cameras built into mobile phones.

PAS cameras are incredible value and, with a few exceptions, take adequate to good pictures providing the conditions are ideal. They have built in flashes and wide range zoom lenses so they are self contained and that is it- no more to buy, except perhaps a couple of memory cards. There are many good makes: Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Practica, Samsung, Pentax ... even Nikon and Canon, and all you need to do is chose the model that suits you- both performance and cost- and you are done. These cameras have all sorts of aids to help with your shots, hence the name Point and Shoot (PAS).

There is a sub category of PAS cameras that have above average performance, tend to be larger and cost around the £700 UK mark. These cameras have the advantage of compact size while still producing a decent image. Serious photographers tend to have one of these in addition to their main gear.

(2.1) Single Lens Reflex Consumer (SLRC)
Price range: £125 UK to £1.5K UK
Before yon take the first step into serious photography you have some axiomatic decisions to make. Are you always going to be happy with the camera body along with the standard zoom kit lens that comes withe the body as a package. If so just buy the model that best suits you.

If, on the other hand, you see your photography progresing- and it invariably does, you would be wise to consider either Nikon or Canon. This may sound like a sweeping statement and many people will disagree, but the fact of the matter is that both companies have such a wide range of photographic products that will not fit any other make of camera. So by choosing a different make you would be cutting yourself off from this range of products.

Also, for this reason the resale value of both companies products hold up well. I have known people who have had to sell their kit or simply put it in the cupboard in order to get on the Nikon or Canon band wagon- my barber just recently for example. The other thing is that being the standard there are many support communities, books, magazines and second source components to fit both makes. It is unfortunate that all cameras don't have the same fitting interfaces so that lenses especially can be fitted to all makes of exchangeable lens camera bodies.

Whereas POS cameras have tiny image sensors, SLRC cameras have a crop sensor. Nikon's crop factor is 1.5 and Canon's is 1.6. This is relative to a full frame (36mm wide by 24mm high) sensor, which has become the reference standard in photography since the film days (confusingly known as 35mm). In general the larger the sensor the better the image quality, but the camera body, and especially the lens, size weight and cost go up accordingly.

Because modern camera bodies are so good, it is the lens that ultimately dictates the image quality. A friend's wife transformed her camera by a simple lens change.

Lenses can suffer from all sorts of gremlins: chromatic aberration, vignetting, multiple distortions, slow focus... the list is endless. Because lens construction is time consuming and labor intensive, they are expensive. But there are a few bargains around. If you invest in a collection of good lenses you tend to keep them even if you upgrade the body, hence the wisdom of sticking with one make or with second source lenses for the same make.

There are lenses known as 'nifty fiftys' which are good quality 50mm fixed lens that are available cheaply. One option for a potentially serious photographer on a limited budget is to spend all the money on a camera body and get one of these 50mm lenses to start with and then save up for a decent standard zoom.

The most common lens is a standard zoom which can be included at a good price, with the camera body as a kit. A standard zoom would typically cover the focal ranges from 27mm to 130mm (normalized to 35mm). This is known as a 'walk around' lens for obvious reasons and, if chosen carefully, will provide a wide range of photo opportunities.

The first thing you notice when shooting with a Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera is how good the viewfinder is. This radically helps your shots, even in bright sunlight where on most POS cameras the display, which substitutes for a view finder, is impossible to decipher.

(2.2) Single Lens Reflex Prosumer (SLRP)
Price range: £1.5K UK to £5K UK

This range of cameras have full frame sensors and are normally bigger, heavier, and better built. Some have weather proofing. Having said this, some of the crop frame cameras are encroaching on SLRPs in terms of performance, image quality, and build.

To take advantage of a good camera body you need matching lenses, which quite simply are expensive. While a full frame lens will fit on a crop frame camera body, a crop frame lens will not fit on a full frame camera body.

SLRPs tend not to have built-in flashes. Instead they have 'hot shoes' which accept external flashes which have a far superior performance to the built in type. But, once again, external flashes are big and expensive, although good after market flashes are cheaper.

Then you need a well designed and rugged camera bag to put all your kit in.

(2.3) Professional
Price range:

Very large heavy expensive camera body with superlative performance in all respects and lenses that are even bigger, heavier and more expensive. The huge lenses you see professional photographers lugging at sports events can cost around £20K UK.

Developments
In the last seven years the situation has got more complicated because you can now get cameras that fall between the fixed and changeable lens types: bridge cameras for example.

Choosing a Camera Kit
When choosing a camera, it is best to first decide what photography you want to do and work out a budget. Then read the reviews, especially on the DP Review web site, which is generally considered to be the oracle on modern photography, and chose a kit that suits you. Then go into a camera shop and see how your chosen instrument handles. If you are potentially going into half serious photography chose from either the Nikon or Canon range.

Once you have finalized your model, shop around; companies like SLR Hut in New York have some jaw-dropping offers from time to time.

What I have written here just skims the surface about camera characteristics, but there are some good books that would give you greater depth and wider coverage.

granddad said:

LG , I think you meant techniques , tricks are what a magician does .

Click to expand...

some I think would more than qualify for tricks, hence the expression 'trick of the light'

The other big deference with digital and film is with film you get to take the shot once and dont see if you have it until you develop it, this means you have to learn photography or be rich and use alot of film. With DSLR's you just point and shoot and if it dosnt get exposed right change a few settings and off you go again, to me film is more pure and requires more skill. The upside with digital is you can take 20 years or 20 lbs off someone with photoshop and have alot of fun with photoshop. it makes touching up easier as well.

The big thing in both cases is aiming for the correct white balance and exposure. from there you can do most things. Some cameras like the D810 have such a huge depth of colour you can bring alot of detail out of under exposed pics with photoshop and mostly noise free. the best time to shoot is the blue hour, this is the hour you get twice a day just before and just after sunrise, everything is blue, the pic I did above with the white vignette is the blue hour. I cant find the RAW file to it so I had to post the vignette version I did of it. Also grey skys can be better than alot of bright light.

Hi,

I have to agree 100 percent that film is 'better' than digital, but i think modern digitals are starting to look pretty good too. The main criteria is what you are going to use it for.

For example, if you use it for family pics in a photo album the chances are very good that digital will be just fine and provide some nice pics, and what is nice is you will get MORE pics because you dont have to develop/print. And for computer 'icons' almost anything will do because they are so small.

On the other hand, if you intend to blow up any pics into full size posters let's say, then you face some problems with digital and film alike. Cant use an ASA too fast or the graininess will show up in the blow up, but at least you can go lower. With digital you'll probably always see some pixelation. Lucky for me i never have to do this.

I cant see any digital cam beating a real 8x12 inch negative film Rollei though or something like that. Maybe they got better though, and even better in the future.

The other advantages of digital have really made it come a long way though. Geeze, i can take decent videos with mine which i could never do with the film camera. Get snap shots of almost anything and never run out of film. Zoom in a little or a lot..with my film camera i had to swap lenses, and that takes time too being careful not to damage the lens or finger print it up, etc.

This same situation happened when i made the decision to go to a digital monitor. I HATED digital monitors and TVs because of their inability to produce good dark scenes and some other issues. What changed that though was when i got my first digital (LCD) TV, and i saw how much room it saved me. It was so light i could hang it from the ceiling, thus freeing up the top of the cabinet i used to use JUST for the TV. I later gave up my CRT monitor too, which took up an enormous space. With the LCD monitor i have lots of room for my other junk
So i accepted some faults to get some other advantages, and it seems to work out in the end. I do miss my CRT TV though when a dark scene comes up in a movie on TV.

MrAl said:

Hi,

I have to agree 100 percent that film is 'better' than digital, but i think modern digitals are starting to look pretty good too. The main criteria is what you are going to use it for.

For example, if you use it for family pics in a photo album the chances are very good that digital will be just fine and provide some nice pics, and what is nice is you will get MORE pics because you dont have to develop/print. And for computer 'icons' almost anything will do because they are so small.

On the other hand, if you intend to blow up any pics into full size posters let's say, then you face some problems with digital and film alike. Cant use an ASA too fast or the graininess will show up in the blow up, but at least you can go lower. With digital you'll probably always see some pixelation. Lucky for me i never have to do this.

I cant see any digital cam beating a real 8x12 inch negative film Rollei though or something like that. Maybe they got better though, and even better in the future.

The other advantages of digital have really made it come a long way though. Geeze, i can take decent videos with mine which i could never do with the film camera. Get snap shots of almost anything and never run out of film. Zoom in a little or a lot..with my film camera i had to swap lenses, and that takes time too being careful not to damage the lens or finger print it up, etc.

This same situation happened when i made the decision to go to a digital monitor. I HATED digital monitors and TVs because of their inability to produce good dark scenes and some other issues. What changed that though was when i got my first digital (LCD) TV, and i saw how much room it saved me. It was so light i could hang it from the ceiling, thus freeing up the top of the cabinet i used to use JUST for the TV. I later gave up my CRT monitor too, which took up an enormous space. With the LCD monitor i have lots of room for my other junk
So i accepted some faults to get some other advantages, and it seems to work out in the end. I do miss my CRT TV though when a dark scene comes up in a movie on TV.

Click to expand...

Digital has already reached Medium format standard, the 36Mpx Nikon D810 is now often used instead of a medium format, I dont know the technical side but even the finest grain film or paper can only match the D810. I have seen huge prints (10'x8') with the D810 for posters and they are every bit as good as film if not slightly better colour. The only caveat being you need a specialized printer or bromide printer to get the result. But like for like the D810 is now becoming common where the medium format was used. many medium formats use digital backs on them but with 36Mpx you are way way up there standard wise.

Funny enough for now 36.7Mpx is the upper limit for normal optical glass to resolve, so its hard to see how it will now develop as lenses are now at there resolving limit. Sure some cameras say they have more but its a trick with numbers, the pixel density on the D810 is a single photon, how do you get a lens to resolve more than that?

My mum had medium format as most her customers insisted on them for the product work so poster launches for brochures matched, now she will often use the NIKON instead as the colour rendition is better when using bromide printing. Sure cameras will get faster etc but resolving power is at its limits for glass at the moment. The larger format cameras can print larger but the sharpness isnt any better as your still stuck with bromides for the posters, so with RAW files and PNG formats you can print as large and grab as much detail as you can print with a large format.

Film is better simply because you have to understand light and photography to get the best from it, digital takes away alot of the nuts and bolts. Digital is more versatile but give a digital to someone like Rinder or Mike norton who grew up on film and you cant top them. Those guys like Ansel understood light, but that knowledge only comes from film, once you have it then digital becomes a different level.

My mum takes pics and no matter what I do I cant get close to her work

MrAl said:

I do miss my CRT TV though when a dark scene comes up in a movie on TV.

Click to expand...

You won't miss your CRT set much longer- take a look at a curved screen 4K OLED TV.

spec

spec said:

You won't miss your CRT set much longer- take a look at a curved screen 4K OLED TV.

spec

Click to expand...

Spec if I can find it there has been a BBC click on a new tech for TV's, they are using new camera technology, apparently it blows 4KOLED out the water!! Not available yet but another 6 months, I think its sony making them. Let me try and find the click program on Iplayer later. The guy that does click was speechless when he saw it

Little Ghostman said:

Spec if I can find it there has been a BBC click on a new tech for TV's, they are using new camera technology, apparently it blows 4KOLED out the water!! Not available yet but another 6 months, I think its sony making them. Let me try and find the click program on Iplayer later. The guy that does click was speechless when he saw it

Click to expand...

Hell I would like to hear about that. I saw an OLED TV in John Lewis in Cribbs Causway Bristol a year ago and couldn't believe the picture- I thought it was a sales trick.

spec

Little Ghostman said:

the pic I did above with the white vignette is the blue hour.

Click to expand...

Remember I said an honest critique... did not rate the vignette seascape... , seemed to lack a focal point. IMO pictures should tell a story , at least ask a question , make you smile / cry . Its very easy to let the photographic process, and effects to take centre stage, in its day solarisation was all the rage along with other manipulations but they didn't last.

Sometimes stories are personal, like all art its mainly done for the artist. Maybe I should of called it dead trees, 2 years ago those turbines were not there. The story is simply that even the perfection of the blur hour can be spoilt by the intervention of man. Two years ago there was a large wood now just a few turbines

Lg.. To be honest I had not clocked the turbines ! My point / opinion was the vignette distracts from your message. It could be a powerful image , rampant destruction in the name of progress ( you could PS one tree somewhere ).
A trick I use with difficult contrast is to set my Canon on 3 frame mode +- 1/2 stop.

The actual image is missing, (RAW File), all I had on the laptop was the image that was used as a part on a web site. originally the vignette was done as the link picture the idea being you click the link and see the complete image. The complete image is in two parts one taken morning we first moved in at sunrise, the second at sunset with the Turbines.

I have the complete image somewhere, but through that up as I was asked a question in a pm about what blue hour was, its was the only image I had to hand.