ShotgunUppercuts
Kingfisher
I havent shot anything in a while.i got 12 rolls of film i need to get developed .
The photography thread
- Thread starter Repo
- Start date
rudebwoy said:
Wow nice find on the camera. 1200 clicks is nothing.
Lenses - read these comparisons:
https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/
https://fstoppers.com/gear/can-you-tell-difference-between-100-lens-and-1600-lens-8588
The f1.8 is one of the best bang for buck lenses out there. The f1.4 is not very sharp wide open (so what's the point, right?). Easy choice.
ShotgunUppercuts said:
He's referring to the same focal length, not reason to get 2 of those unless he's a pro and needs a backup.
Ringo said:
Yeah I have read a lot of reviews, some say the 1.4 is better for low light and a little cleaner.
I have used the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and it is simply amazing. The price is a bit steep for me right now and double the price of the Canon 1.4 50mm.
I am thinking 24 - 105mm Canon as my big purchase.
This isn't my first DSLR camera and I am not new to the game.
I do love me some bokeh as well.
I'm moving and will probably stay mobile for a while, so I decided to get rid of my clunky DSLR kit (Canon 60D, 24-105mm f4 and two primes).
I've just bought a Fuji XT20 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4 as a replacement - it arrives today.
Although there are many mirrorless cameras at this price range, I chose the XT20 because I was fascinated with the physical dials and image aesthetics.
The Sony A6300 and the Olympus E-M10 Mark III were close seconds, although both offer different strong points.
Size comparison between the 60D (1.4kg setup) and the XT20 (0,69kg):
I've just bought a Fuji XT20 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4 as a replacement - it arrives today.
Although there are many mirrorless cameras at this price range, I chose the XT20 because I was fascinated with the physical dials and image aesthetics.
The Sony A6300 and the Olympus E-M10 Mark III were close seconds, although both offer different strong points.
Size comparison between the 60D (1.4kg setup) and the XT20 (0,69kg):
kbell said:
Indeed. The weight comparison is right on my post if you read it again. The whole Fuji setup weighs about the same as the 24-105mm by itself.
Another thing that spiked my interest in the mirrorless systems is the fact that they are less conspicous than DSLRs.
I really enjoy street photography and taking candid shots, but everytime I pull my 60D everyone around me zooms in on the camera. People suddenly become very mindful of the fact that I can photograph them and it changes the dynamic and the atmosphere.
Hopefully a smaller camera will help with that.
TheUsual
Sparrow
Ringo said:I'm moving and will probably stay mobile for a while, so I decided to get rid of my clunky DSLR kit (Canon 60D, 24-105mm f4 and two primes).
I've just bought a Fuji XT20 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4 as a replacement - it arrives today.
Although there are many mirrorless cameras at this price range, I chose the XT20 because I was fascinated with the physical dials and image aesthetics.
The Sony A6300 and the Olympus E-M10 Mark III were close seconds, although both offer different strong points.
Size comparison between the 60D (1.4kg setup) and the XT20 (0,69kg):
Let us know how that works out for you Ringo. I'm still on the fence about the upgrade path from my 6d, the new Sony A7III looks mighty tempting but I'll have to reinvest in a lens system. I'm curious to know your thoughts on the Fuji system after you've settled into it for awhile, even the new X-H1 would be nice to have both a good stills and 4k video camera.
Can someone breakdown the light measurement this guy is referring to @3:08 when he talks about adjusting his set lighting with an umbrella - cutting away "2 stops" of light?
He was using f16 to get a black background, but if the umbrella cuts away 2 stops, now it would put him at f18? So he would then set his f stop to 14 in order to account for the additional 2 tops of light being cut away?
He makes a second point about reversing the umbrella so that it does not spill light onto the background. I'm assuming that reversing the umbrella casts the light more directly wherever you're aiming it? Whereas the regular umbrella would blast light everywhere.
He was using f16 to get a black background, but if the umbrella cuts away 2 stops, now it would put him at f18? So he would then set his f stop to 14 in order to account for the additional 2 tops of light being cut away?
He makes a second point about reversing the umbrella so that it does not spill light onto the background. I'm assuming that reversing the umbrella casts the light more directly wherever you're aiming it? Whereas the regular umbrella would blast light everywhere.
whitewashedblackguy
Kingfisher
He was still shooting at f16, so he either made the shutter two stops slower (1 sec to 4 sec), or his ISO two stops higher (200 to 800). If he changed his aperture, it would be at f4
Roosh - Were you using the Nikon and zoom for most of your walk around scenery videos during Babylon Road? I really liked the "very still" effect of holding the camera but obviously not on a tripod. Was that the result of the VR or were you using a certain technique?
I think for my next set of vacation photos I'm going to try some videography like that instead of stills, with scenes of 3-10 seconds length all clipped together in a row. It seemed very engaging as a way of displaying landscape photography, compared to a series of still photos for the viewer to click through.
I think for my next set of vacation photos I'm going to try some videography like that instead of stills, with scenes of 3-10 seconds length all clipped together in a row. It seemed very engaging as a way of displaying landscape photography, compared to a series of still photos for the viewer to click through.
whitewashedblackguy
Kingfisher
whitewashedblackguy said:
Oops. I just learned stops for aperture go by 1.41. So (16 / i.41) / 1.41 is about 8. For some reason 2.82 gives a different answer.
whitewashedblackguy
Kingfisher
Are there any good photo contest going on?