what is your camera

[Garzan]

8 hours ago, Encora said:

The lens is pancake size, body very light, the images very high quality, joy to use with old fashioned shutter speed and aperture dial.

That was a big part of why I bought a Nikon P7000 (back when the P7000 was a new model.) Nice, small compact with a hot shoe and able to go into manual mode. They are really cheap now on eBay, but they are also not anywhere close to the latest and greatest. But it still takes a fine photo. :-)

[Pole]

On 3/15/2018 at 00:47, TheJoker said:

Also a good friend who is a real photographer gave me the other great piece of advice, buy glass not bodies.  Put you money into good lenses and don't worry about the latest and greatest body.  

 

On 3/15/2018 at 01:01, Garzan said:

I got the same advice years ago. "Bodies are always changing, but good glass lasts forever." :-)

Agree.  Sometimes you have newer features on lenses which are not essential but nice to have.  Like in body stabilisation working with lens stabilisation on Olympus and Panasonic devices.  Probably available in other systems but I'm more familiar with those.

TheJoker not sure if you've seen the f1.7 20mm Panasonic lens but it makes the GX7 so pocketable and is a great lens.  If you haven't it may be worth taking a look at.  If I recall the Mk1 optics are marginally better than the latest one too but not to a point I would notice.

[Billyboy294]

On 3/13/2018 at 19:56, Billyboy294 said:

Regarding guys who claim their camera is the greatest but never post any photos of girls,  I took into account some of your pics taken with the Sony RX100 Mk1 when i bought my one in May 2015..

And here are some pics taken at the Royal Garden just after i bought the Sony RX100 Mk 1. Original plus a crop. The first pic taken with the camera held above my head because i was at the back of the crowd.

What more do you want.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Billyboy294

[Roadglide]

On 3/14/2018 at 17:47, TheJoker said:

Mr. Jerry or someone with greater knowledge.  It is true that sensor size also reflects in true aperture for lens.  For example my M4/3 sensor is half the size of a full frame, so if I am shooting with a 1.7f lens it is actually a 3.4 for real light gathering????  I ask because if you are shooting a 1.4f but only on a 1in sensor, it is truly a 1.4? 

Also a good friend who is a real photographer gave me the other great piece of advice, buy glass not bodies.  Put you money into good lenses and don't worry about the latest and greatest body.  

Joker...

Photo of my favorite taxi girl: 1/100 sec. f/1.7 43mm on a Panasonic GX85.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 07:55, jerry said:

Partly true , the F number of the lens is the F number and doesn't change with the size of the sensor . Though the bigger the sensor the more light it catches resulting in being able to shoot at 800ISO were a smaller sensor needs 1200/1600ISO or even more if it's a real small sensor to get to the same shutter speed and/or F number . So yes , the size (sensitivity) of the sensor does make a difference . Also the reason that full frame cameras can shoot up to very high ISO without noise or grain showing . 

Downpoint of bigger sensors and 1.2/1.4 lenses on max aperture is often that the lenses aren't able to cover the whole sensor equally resulting in vignetting (images that are darker at the sides and corners) . 

A pro of the bigger sensors is that you're able to play with field of depth much more . 

Using the two Nikon formats for example DX and FX a f2.8 lens will gather the same amount of light for both format sensors, as Jerry said the larger sensors let you play with the DOF more.  A Sigma 50-150 f2.8 lens on a DX and a Nikon 70-200f2.8 lens on a FX will give you the same focal length and will allow the same amount of light hit the sensor, the BIG difference is going to be the Depth Of Field, or subject isolation.  Since the FX sensor is 1.5x larger this will effect the focal length and the DOF.  A DX will give you 1.5x more focal length using the same lens, that is why a Sigma 50-150 will have the same effective focal length as a Nikon 70-200 lens, however the 1.5x multiplier will work against you for DOF, the FX will have a 1.5x shallower DOF for the same "f" stop.  

Shooting at f2.8 on a DX will give you about the same DOF as shooting at f4.0 on a FX camera,

In the end, the camera is a tool.  What are you going to use it for?  Sports and bird or animal shooters will want a DX for the greater reach in focal length, a portrait or wedding photographer will want to go for the FX camera for greater subject isolation and low light performance.

In the end I traded up from a Nikon D7100 DX camera for a Nikon D750 FX camera.  It works better for me as I do more low light, bedroom style photos on vacation, plus I shoot a lot of nudes and portraiture here in the states.

[TheJoker]

On 3/18/2018 at 10:34, Pole said:

 

Agree.  Sometimes you have newer features on lenses which are not essential but nice to have.  Like in body stabilisation working with lens stabilisation on Olympus and Panasonic devices.  Probably available in other systems but I'm more familiar with those.

TheJoker not sure if you've seen the f1.7 20mm Panasonic lens but it makes the GX7 so pocketable and is a great lens.  If you haven't it may be worth taking a look at.  If I recall the Mk1 optics are marginally better than the latest one too but not to a point I would notice.

I had the 2.5 14mm with my Lumix GM1, that was a great little street shooter, easily pocketable. 

One of the issues I am trying to work out is having newer lens that use both body and lens stabilization.  This allows for quite a bit of lower light work without any movement blur.  I have thought about getting a 20 1.7 but I already have the 25 1.7 and have a lot of fun walking around with it.  It reminds me of my first film SLR which had a 50mm prime.  Had to feet to zoom or widen.  

I just ordered a 14-140, which is a bit bigger then most but it will likely be my street shooter during the day, as it has a great range for when you have good light.  The 25 and 42 1.7's, the 42 is dual stabilized,  will me my night time lens.

I am hoping to get out more this next trip and use my camera more.  I tend to get lazy and these new cellphones have such good, relatively speaking, cameras hard to justify grabbing the kit.  Also girls on Walking Street yell less when you point you Lg at them, instead of your Nikon...

Joker.

[Pole]

The lens which is on my GH3 90% of the time is the 35-100.  I like the weight of it, weather sealing and how its useful in so many situations.  Whenever I switch to a prime lens I always miss that extra ability to move in and out of the subject.

You'll probably find the 14-140 will be stuck onto your body most of the time.  I think 14 mm is the smallest (practical) micro 4/3 lens and very pocketable the only reason I bought the 20mm was for the slightly better low light performance.

Sorry I can't help with the dual stabilisation I only have one lens which can use that functionality but no body.  it is something thats caught my attention and I would like to play with in the future.

 

I bought and LX10 a while ago, even when I have other camera's I still use that camera.  A lot has to be said about the quality of those small pocketable camera's.  I tend to carry it around with me everywhere.  I never got into using my cell phone's camera and when I do use it I tend to be clumsy and unfamiliar even though the interface is simple I still have to think more than using a dedicated camera.

 

[jerry]

The Canon 6D keeps amazing me with its low light performance . Just one spot in the ceiling , 5000 ISO , 70/200L zoom at 80MM , 1/50 at full aperture . 

Outside pics at 400 ISO , full aperture to get a nice DOP , 1/800 sec .  

[Encora]

Yummy!

I think I need to see a few more samples before you convince me....

 

[TheJoker]

Really hard to concentrate on the aspects of those last few photos.....  Beautiful as always.

Joker...

[jerry]

10 hours ago, Encora said:

Yummy!

I think I need to see a few more samples before you convince me....

Keep an eye on the Cambodian adventures ...  . 

[singalong]

Sony RX100M3 - f5.6 - 1/400 ISO 640

Edited March 22, 2018 by singalong

[Roadglide]

On 3/21/2018 at 09:14, jerry said:

The Canon 6D keeps amazing me with its low light performance . Just one spot in the ceiling , 5000 ISO , 70/200L zoom at 80MM , 1/50 at full aperture . 

Outside pics at 400 ISO , full aperture to get a nice DOP , 1/800 sec .  

Most lenses are NOT sharp when they are wide open...f2.8 lens being shot at f2.8, open up your lens one "f" stop say to f3.2 and you will see that your shots are much sharper. 

I'm really liking the Full Frame cameras, the lenses are a bit large for travel, but a 85mm f1.8 prime will blow you away with how light and sharp it is.

P.s. your subject is a hottie two thumbs up.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Roadglide
added last paragraph

[jerry]

10 hours ago, Roadglide said:

Most lenses are NOT sharp when they are wide open...f2.8 lens being shot at f2.8, open up your lens one "f" stop say to f3.2 and you will see that your shots are much sharper. 

I'm really liking the Full Frame cameras, the lenses are a bit large for travel, but a 85mm f1.8 prime will blow you away with how light and sharp it is.

P.s. your subject is a hottie two thumbs up.

This is true for a lot of lenses , almost every lens that has 1.2/1.4/1.8 as max aperture will face this problem . IMO a lens like a Canon 50/1.2 is for showing off and doesn't actually give you much bang for your (big) buck(s) . Better to buy a camera that gives good results at higher ISO and buy a good 1.4/1.8 lens . 

Lenses that start at F4 , like the 70/200L i used for these shots , are less prone to this problem . The cheaper ones will still have problems at full aperture but the L serie from Canon does a very good job at full aperture already . The original RAW files are razor sharp , unfortunately these compressed JPEGS don't show the full potential . 

PS ... thank you  . 

[jerry]

11 hours ago, singalong said:

Sony RX100M3 - f5.6 - 1/400 ISO 640

I know it's a big 'no no' to try and 'improve' other people's pics . Just showing you what 30 seconds of photoshop can do . 

If you don't like it i will remove it . 

[Gone-east]

I'm getting the feeling that cameras are like women. Beauty is in the eye of the tripod holder.

[singalong]

I know it's a big 'no no' to try and 'improve' other people's pics . Just showing you what 30 seconds of photoshop can do . 
If you don't like it i will remove it . 

That's ok. No need to remove! In these kind of posts I normally post SOOC JPEGs and no post process - I will post some post processed one later...
Cheers

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[TheJoker]

Just did a walk about Savannah Georgia, started at last afternoon and waited till the sun went down.  Sun up used my new 14-140, which is dual stablized. This is when I was really glad I had my 1.7 twins, 25 & 42.5.  For night photography they are really great.  Body is a Lumix GX85.  I really like this camera, especially with the new lens for daylight city shooting.  Can't wait till my summer trip.

Joker

[iron]

using the canon sx 6o at the moment,great for general daytime photos, with good light,the zoom is amazing.

[saffer]

Upcoming big trip, and I am seriously considering for the first time to only use my mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus) on the trip and forego bringing a point and shoot. I can't bring a DSLR on a vacation - I tend to just leave it in the hotel meaning I've carried all that weight for nothing...

[TheJoker]

3 hours ago, saffer said:

Upcoming big trip, and I am seriously considering for the first time to only use my mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus) on the trip and forego bringing a point and shoot. I can't bring a DSLR on a vacation - I tend to just leave it in the hotel meaning I've carried all that weight for nothing...

I understand that, my entire kit, body, four lens, extra speedlight maybe weights five pounds and I bring it.  Still most of my photos end up coming from my phone.  This next trip I plan to specifically go on photo hunts bringing the camera.  Use the phone when I am simply out and about or with a BG.

Joker...

[jerry]

8 hours ago, saffer said:

Upcoming big trip, and I am seriously considering for the first time to only use my mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus) on the trip and forego bringing a point and shoot. I can't bring a DSLR on a vacation - I tend to just leave it in the hotel meaning I've carried all that weight for nothing...

The hotel room (with a nice girl) ... that's the only place i would use the DSLR . Not much out there in Pattaya worth bringing a big heavy camera for . 

[saffer]

12 hours ago, jerry said:

The hotel room (with a nice girl) ... that's the only place i would use the DSLR . Not much out there in Pattaya worth bringing a big heavy camera for . 

I could bring a GoPro for the hotel room! Much smaller and more POV things possible...

[MrLek]

On 3/16/2018 at 01:25, jerry said:

Partly true , the F number of the lens is the F number and doesn't change with the size of the sensor . Though the bigger the sensor the more light it catches resulting in being able to shoot at 800ISO were a smaller sensor needs 1200/1600ISO or even more if it's a real small sensor to get to the same shutter speed and/or F number . So yes , the size (sensitivity) of the sensor does make a difference . Also the reason that full frame cameras can shoot up to very high ISO without noise or grain showing . 

Downpoint of bigger sensors and 1.2/1.4 lenses on max aperture is often that the lenses aren't able to cover the whole sensor equally resulting in vignetting (images that are darker at the sides and corners) . 

A pro of the bigger sensors is that you're able to play with field of depth much more . 

All sensors regardless of size gather the same amount of light. The sensor size has nothing to do with the amount of light being captured. Only the lens and its aperture determine this. A larger sensor has an advantage because the photo sites on the sensor given the same megapixel rating will be larger. eg a 20 megapixel sensor full frame will be roughly half as noisy at a given ISO as a 20 megapixel crop sensor or apsc or whatever term you give it because it is roughly half the size. That is simply because the photosites on the larger sensor are bigger. 

Given the same pixel pitch a full frame sensor would be a much higher megapixel rating than an apsc sensor.

A larger sensor does not gather more light. it just deals with the informaton better. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by MrLek

[rog555]

On 23/03/2018 at 14:45, singalong said:

That's ok. No need to remove! In these kind of posts I normally post SOOC JPEGs and no post process - I will post some post processed one later...
Cheers

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

If its OK then to comment on the photos, I would like to add my 2 cents. 

My question would be - what is the subject of the photo ?  Its not clear. Is it a photo of the buddist carving with dramatic clouds. Or is it a photo of the girl with a rock in background ?  Major cropping needs to be done to clear that up.  The flowers get in the way too, but a bit late to fix that. Lots of pavement in the photo.  I think I'd go for it being a photo of the rock and clouds, crop the girl.  The sun is behind her, the flower pot adds clutter and she's too far away.  

Cecil Beaton

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by rog555

[jerry]

1 hour ago, MrLek said:

.... That is simply because the photosites on the larger sensor are bigger. 

Resulting in gathering more light ... you're right in the amount of light the lens let go trough by a certain F number (what i already wrote in the first sentence) but as a full frame has as you say bigger photosites it is able to gather more light . That's why i wrote size (sensitivity) is what makes the difference .