DSLR Camera Tips

[MrZorbatron]

One of the big things I'd suggest doing right away is setting the Auto ISO mode on and setting the max ISO to whatever you feel comfortable with (probably 1600 or 3200, maybe even 6400). That will give you a bit more flexibility with shutter speeds.

 

Honestly even the 18-55 kit lens is a pretty good lens, although I don't even carry mine around anymore now that I have the 35mm f/1.8 prime. Now if you're going to go tower hunting, a long zoom lens is definitely something you'll want; I've been happy with the 55-300mm, although you probably can get away with the less bulky 55-200mm.

Do NOT do this.  If you want to understand sensitivity, light, and exposure, auto ISO is not the way to do it.  If you do use auto, beware of noise and do not set it above about 800.  Auto ISO can kind of impart a feeling of more capability than you actually have, or actually know how to use.  Even in the dark, it's a lot better to brace the camera against something than cranking the ISO to 3200+.  Detail suffers rapidly.

 

You should also set noise reduction to a conservative setting, not Auto.  Auto NR is for the idiot who just takes his card to the drug store to print and always wants a non grainy picture, never knowing that his pictures are crap because he prints 4x6s of everything.  It is quite easy to eliminate noise in post processing and retain a lot more detail than most cameras will retain if you have them do it internally.

 

On your camera, consider going over 3200 to be a zone of last resort.  It's what you do if you if it's more important to get the shot than that the shot be good.

 

Don't forget, the 35mm prime lens is going to perform a lot better than simply locking your 18-55 kit lens to 35.  You won't believe the difference in low light performance that the larger max aperture will bring.

 

One thing to remember with high ISO settings is the amount of noise that you will get with them.  I try and shoot around 100-800 ISO on my Canon 50D.  That range is typically pretty good for keeping the image clean of sensor noise.  That said, you can use those higher ISO settings to introduce a bit of artistic flare in your photos to make them look a little grainy.

 

All part of the fun.

If you do this for this reason, just remember to turn off noise reduction entirely.

[Deval]

Do NOT do this.  If you want to understand sensitivity, light, and exposure, auto ISO is not the way to do it.  If you do use auto, beware of noise and do not set it above about 800.  Auto ISO can kind of impart a feeling of more capability than you actually have, or actually know how to use.  Even in the dark, it's a lot better to brace the camera against something than cranking the ISO to 3200+.  Detail suffers rapidly.

 

You should also set noise reduction to a conservative setting, not Auto.  Auto NR is for the idiot who just takes his card to the drug store to print and always wants a non grainy picture, never knowing that his pictures are crap because he prints 4x6s of everything.  It is quite easy to eliminate noise in post processing and retain a lot more detail than most cameras will retain if you have them do it internally.

 

On your camera, consider going over 3200 to be a zone of last resort.  It's what you do if you if it's more important to get the shot than that the shot be good.

 

Don't forget, the 35mm prime lens is going to perform a lot better than simply locking your 18-55 kit lens to 35.  You won't believe the difference in low light performance that the larger max aperture will bring.

 

 

If you do this for this reason, just remember to turn off noise reduction entirely.

 

Thank you for the advice everyone. 

 

This weekend the weather should be nicer, so I'll take the camera out and take some pictures. 

[MrZorbatron]

An S4GRU member has been spotted:

I think I am the only S4GRU member who still uses film at all.

[WiWavelength]

Thank you for the advice everyone. 

 

This weekend the weather should be nicer, so I'll take the camera out and take some pictures. 

 

We just so happen to have an artist's depiction of you out taking pictures...

 

 

AJ

[Nickel]

We just so happen to have an artist's depiction of you out taking pictures...

AJ

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

(Mods, if this is too inappropriate then I'll take it down) 

[richy]

I think I am the only S4GRU member who still uses film at all.

 

Nope, I still shoot some 6x7 but living out here getting E6 chems is insanely tough due to it not being able to fly and I hate shipping film for someone else to soup so mostly b&w. I did pretty much stop shooting 35mm film, the shoots I used it for were better suited to dslr's. Before I hung up the cameras I was doing a decent amount of hybrid work, combining digital 35mm and film MF and it paid pretty well. The portraits tended to blow up better with film (never be shocked by just how large some brides want their portraits) but that is hugely subjective. I was toying with going back to LF but it would have meant hiring an extra set of hands and also the scanning cost would have been a lot higher. 

[MrZorbatron]

Nope, I still shoot some 6x7 but living out here getting E6 chems is insanely tough due to it not being able to fly and I hate shipping film for someone else to soup so mostly b&w. I did pretty much stop shooting 35mm film, the shoots I used it for were better suited to dslr's. Before I hung up the cameras I was doing a decent amount of hybrid work, combining digital 35mm and film MF and it paid pretty well. The portraits tended to blow up better with film (never be shocked by just how large some brides want their portraits) but that is hugely subjective. I was toying with going back to LF but it would have meant hiring an extra set of hands and also the scanning cost would have been a lot higher.

I actually meant for cell site pictures. I use an old (personally restored) 2x3 baby press camera with b&w for some things for fun sometimes. I have taken lots of cell site pictures with my old A1 because I have a 600mm lens for it and until recently, did not for my Nikons. I have a 4/3 lens that hits 300mm, but my bag with my E5 and a couple other lenses got stolen a few months ago. Never decided if I might just sell my remaining 4/3 gear or buy another E5. I really loved that camera, it felt indestructible and the pictures seemed to never need to be touched, though never looked processed.

 

Incidentally, the Sigma 150-500 for Nikon is outstanding. I was very surprised for a $1200 lens. It's actually hand holdable much of the time.

[WiWavelength]

Nope, I still shoot some 6x7...

Pentax SLR or Mamiya rangefinder?

 

I was toying with going back to LF but it would have meant hiring an extra set of hands and also the scanning cost would have been a lot higher.

 

With the demise of optical printing, is there really much quality advantage to shooting large format any longer?  I can understand doing so for Scheimpflug purposes, not to mention, just the photographic ritual of shooting with a view camera.  I can also understand shooting 8x10 or larger for contact printing.  But it seems that if the end result is going to be a digital print, a large format transparency/negative probably will not provide a much better scan than that of a medium format transparency/negative.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

 

(Mods, if this is too inappropriate then I'll take it down) 

 

I see Deval.  But I thought that he was interested in taking photos, not posing for them.

 

AJ

[richy]

Pentax SLR or Mamiya rangefinder?

 

 

With the demise of optical printing, is there really much quality advantage to shooting large format any longer?  I can understand doing so for Scheimpflug purposes, not to mention, just the photographic ritual of shooting with a view camera.  I can also understand shooting 8x10 or larger for contact printing.  But it seems that if the end result is going to be a digital print, a large format transparency/negative probably will not provide a much better scan than that of a medium format transparency/negative.

 

AJ

Rz67

 

The benefits are diminishing compared to digital medium format when it comes to enlargements and it would have been a hybrid workforce with a drum scan or perhaps a fake drum scan on a flextight. Really the benefits come down to resolution,  the fact that is true color at every pixel rather than a Bayer sensor and more debatable factors like micro contrast. In the end the diminishing number of emulsions, especially at 8x10 and the difficulty of shipping the chemicals turned me off. That and I knew I wasn't stopping around long enough to make the investment back. 

 

Honestly though 8x10 has a crazy amount of detail, even rougher emulsions will scan at 2000 dpi and some even at circa 4000. It takes more technique but digital mf and newer high resolution 35 mm is starting to demand better technique anyway. 

[WiWavelength]

Rz67

 

Okay, we will split the difference -- Mamiya SLR.  I just thought that most medium format shooters went Pentax for SLR, Mamiya for rangefinder.  I used to shoot medium format 10-15 years ago, but I did so with a $200 TLR that I grabbed off eBay.

 

AJ

[richy]

Okay, we will split the difference -- Mamiya SLR.  I just thought that most medium format shooters went Pentax for SLR, Mamiya for rangefinder.  I used to shoot medium format 10-15 years ago, but I did so with a $200 TLR that I grabbed off eBay.

 

AJ

Many probably did It was one of those no right or wrong choice in general but there were key advantages to each. Mamiya made 2 awesome rangefinders and Pentax made some great lenses but their SLR had a low shutter sync (1/30? iirc), crazy mirror slap, no replaceable backs and no route to digital. The 67 was very heavy and didn't have quite as many lenses (although they were great,  sharp and robust) but for what I wanted it was the better bet. It was also the more expensive which swayed a lot of folks,  the ability to use Polaroid backs and film won many over to the 67 in the pro market (excluding travel). If I was buying tomorrow (for personal use) I'd get the Mamiya 7 rangefinder in a heartbeat (even today it is holding is price very well when anything film that isn't hassie or leica had tanked). Lugging the 67 places is not much fun and is tough to fly with. 

[WiWavelength]

Many probably did It was one of those no right or wrong choice in general but there were key advantages to each. Mamiya made 2 awesome rangefinders and Pentax made some great lenses but their SLR had a low shutter sync (1/30? iirc), crazy mirror slap, no replaceable backs and no route to digital.

 

Most medium format was 6x4.5 or 6x6.  So, when you mentioned 6x7, I immediately thought of Pentax and Mamiya.  I will accept all due credit for narrowing it down to the right two.

 

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

I will add that I always admired the Fuji wide aspect ratio rangefinders:  6x9, even 6x17.  Those were some expensive, specialized landscape cameras.

 

AJ

[richy]

I will add that I always admired the Fuji wide aspect ratio rangefinders:  6x9, even 6x17.  Those were some expensive, specialized landscape cameras.

 

AJ

They were great,  Fuji also made a great 6 x 8 with movement,  I think you could even put a digital back on it.  They make some astoundingly good glass as well. There's lots of dentists out there with hassie h systems raving about the lenses but they're really Fuji lenses,  the xpan was another Fuji product rebranded. Linhof sell similar cameras but they make Fuji look cheap.

There's some good stuff from China these days,  Shen Hao make some good 6x12/17/24 cameras for very sane money. 

Mind you,  even cheap stuff is good these days.  I got an Olympus m43 with underwater housing for playing with and it was $500 new in a sale,  the kit lens is surprisingly good. 

[Deval]

I see Deval.  But I thought that he was interested in taking photos, not posing for them.

 

AJ

 

Lol, posing is fun as well

[MrZorbatron]

Anyone seen those new Hasselblad digitals that are re-bodied Sony models with slightly tweaked firmware?

 

The $7000 Lunar aka NEX7 and the $2000 Stellar aka RX100 are the first two if the series.

 

Additionally, Hasselblad doesn't do itself any favor when it talks about the premium feel and build quality, rather than great performance. Now, both of those are good cameras in either Sony or Hasselblad trim, but they are in no way worth the Hasselblad prices ranging from 3 to 5 times that of the Sony model from which it is derived.

[richy]

Anyone seen those new Hasselblad digitals that are re-bodied Sony models with slightly tweaked firmware?

 

The $7000 Lunar aka NEX7 and the $2000 Stellar aka RX100 are the first two if the series.

 

Additionally, Hasselblad doesn't do itself any favor when it talks about the premium feel and build quality, rather than great performance. Now, both of those are good cameras in either Sony or Hasselblad trim, but they are in no way worth the Hasselblad prices ranging from 3 to 5 times that of the Sony model from which it is derived.

 

They had success in the past rebranding fuji stuff but fuji sold at roughly the same price in Japan (well at a moderate discount, but not orders of magnitude) but it was for literally the same camera. As digital has made photography substantially easier (a quick check of the number of uncle bob's and SMWAC's shooting weddings shows this) as compared to ye olde film days the market for better cameras has increased significantly. Hassie is basically playing for the 'dentist camera' market segment. People with very significant amounts of disposable income who want a camera to be seen with rather than it's robustness, image quality etc. They want a better camera than somebody else because frankly they dont stand a chance of being a better photographer. As much as it beggars belief it must be working, they have done it a third time (an a99 is on the way) and hassie is VC owned (capitalists, not the southern asian kind) and they tend to not repeat mistakes. Just as there is a market out there for cell phones with 4 year old tech but diamonds selling for insane prices it seems there is a market for grossly overpriced blinged up cameras. 

 

At those prices you could buy a decent mid tier full frame pro camera and a couple of pro lenses.  

[MrZorbatron]

They had success in the past rebranding fuji stuff but fuji sold at roughly the same price in Japan (well at a moderate discount, but not orders of magnitude) but it was for literally the same camera. As digital has made photography substantially easier (a quick check of the number of uncle bob's and SMWAC's shooting weddings shows this) as compared to ye olde film days the market for better cameras has increased significantly. Hassie is basically playing for the 'dentist camera' market segment. People with very significant amounts of disposable income who want a camera to be seen with rather than it's robustness, image quality etc. They want a better camera than somebody else because frankly they dont stand a chance of being a better photographer. As much as it beggars belief it must be working, they have done it a third time (an a99 is on the way) and hassie is VC owned (capitalists, not the southern asian kind) and they tend to not repeat mistakes. Just as there is a market out there for cell phones with 4 year old tech but diamonds selling for insane prices it seems there is a market for grossly overpriced blinged up cameras.

 

At those prices you could buy a decent mid tier full frame pro camera and a couple of pro lenses.

They have had some success, not in the professional or enthusiast groups, but with the rich idiot group. the cameras have been pretty well universally can buy professionals, reviewers, and photography equipment experts. For example, the Stellar is a good good camera because the RX100 is a good camera - for its $600 price that is. It isn't a good camera for $2000.