Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
General Subjects => General Forum => Topic started by: mark smyth on November 24, 2006, 07:03:54 PM
-
Here are the merged pages of all the pre-existing photographic subject threads, brought together in one place. Please use this area for techy talk on photographic questions/discussions.
Cheers,
Maggi
Today I bought the What Digital Camera magazine. In it they have trialed the new canon 400D, the Nikon D80 - a magazine for itself included along with a winter buyers guide. There is a great but pricey gadget, £250, that converts the TTL view finder to a small screen that can be tilted out in any direction to photograph awkward objects. Acording to the magazine Canon's 350D is the worlds best selling digital SLR. The rest as they say is "it's now up to you"
Now then, where in the next four weeks can I find a rich widow to get the Canon 400D for Crimbo?
-
Mark'
The Canon G3 had a screen which was very adaptable. It folded out and turned round. Canon now make a G9 or G10. If it had been available when I bought my EOS 350D in May I would have bought it. I like the 350D but miss the fold out screen, Worth checking it out
-
The down side to screens is their poor performance in bright light. My 'compact' Fuji 2800 had a screen but also a TTL imager adjustable for individual prescriptions, which was great for using in bright conditions AND I didn't have the problem of keep having to put reading glasses on to see the screen. I have ben using a Nikon D50 for a year which is a proper SLR with changeable lenses, which I find very useful but frequently have the wrong one fitted when something flitting comes into view. I had a wide angle lens fitted when a Goldcrest settled nearby but in the picture it was a tiny dot on the horizon. The TTL is much better than a screen for me but I wish I could afford the eyepiece fitting to enable viewing fom above (to avoid laying in the mud but I do have a plastic sheet rolled up in my camera bag). I have just invested in a Nikon D200 which I have almost paid for by selling off some of my plants on ebay. Also swapped with a guy in Germany some of my Dactylorhiza foliosas for some Cypripediums. I will also be getting rid of my Nikon D50 on ebay to make up the difference and to pay for the memory cards etc
-
I think most of you know my thoughts about digital cameras and how good I think they are but I have been waiting before I went down the SLR route.
The two main issues I have with SLRs are: one dust on the image sensor and two: having to lie on the ground to see through the view finder when taking low shots, just as John describes.
However Olympus must have been reading my thoughts as they have now brought out a digital slr camera that tackles both these issues.
The olympus 330 has a sonic shaker to solve the dust problem and you can also view a live image on a flip out lcd screen if you wish.
The one thing they need to tackle now is to bring the price into my range, or if they want to send me one I will review and use it every week on the bulb log!
check it out.
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_E-330.htm
-
For the financially challenged there is a lively market in second hand digital cameras as people better off than I keep up-to-date with the latest models. The camera that I use is a Nikon Coolpix 995 which has a swivel body for comfort when photographing awkward subjects. It can be picked up on Amazon for £150 and quite possibly less if you are prepared to fight for it on eBay. The earlier 950 which is nearly as good (not so bright lcd screen, only 2mp) is cheaper still.
-
For the last few days, each time I come to the computer, I have found a window open, showing various types of Olympus compact digital cameras: I was puzzled by this, the Bulb Despot currently has three digital cameras and I might have expected him to be browsing the digital SLRs but not a compact. However, I said nothing and went about my business. I've just returned to the pc and found another page open with a compact camera's details: I hailed the despot as he passed; "what is the attraction of these cameras" I asked, "surely you have a digital compact camera, though you do not use it much, lately?" "Oh" quoth he, carelessly, (very carelessly, as it turns out)" I was thinking about replacing it; it is rather old and slow."
Gentle reader, you can doubtless imagine my reaction to his comment ?
-
Ian, disappointed! A bit obvious, don't you think?
You are letting the (male) side down. You really will have to brush up on subtle.
Paddy
-
What is subtle Paddy, I don't think I do that.
I have told Maggi that I have no intention of getting rid of my old slow one I just want a fast sleek one as well.
Opps.......
I am watching the Olympus digital SLR E330 and the price is falling I could now get the body and a lens for £500, I am still waiting....
My oldest digital compact is slow, I am usually ready to take my next shot and it is still writing to the card.
The processor is too slow so I am considering replacing it with a neat compact that I can carry with me all the time.
I am not looking for top spec/all singing and dancing I just want a good basic compact below £150 and so far I have narrowed my selection down to either the Olympus Mju 700, or the Nikon coolpix L6.
Any suggestions, comments or experiences with these cameras would be appreciated.
-
Ian I was in Jessops yesterday. They showed me a good cheap all rounder for £199. The Ricoh 5 with a macro focus to 1cm!! The guy asked for my watch and had the side of the lens touching the watch to take an angled shot of the face. It's about the size of a pack of cards. It;s only 7 megapixels
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ricoh-174284-RICOH-R5-Black/dp/B000JBXWP0/ref=pd_sbs_ce_1/026-8854914-7878826 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ricoh-174284-RICOH-R5-Black/dp/B000JBXWP0/ref=pd_sbs_ce_1/026-8854914-7878826)
-
I've come across this strange looking object, on the QVC website: here is a pic and what the makers say about it:
An essential piece of equipment for any photographer, this tripod will secure your camera to just about anything! Unlike conventional tripods, you can rest it on all kinds of uneven surfaces - even branches and posts - to ensure you take the perfect picture. Each leg is made from flexible joints that rotate through 360 degrees, and there's a universal camera fitting with a slim link quick release plate. The tripod only weighs 45g so it's light enough to carry around anywhere.
[attach=1]
Looks quite interesting, doesn't it? For getting to blossoms on branches for instance?
selling price is £17.45 with post and packing of £3.35.
-
I spotted it as well in one of those catalogues that come in the post. Was thinking of buying one as it would save having to adjust the legs on the tripod on rough ground. Would be interesting to see if anyone has tried it, waste their money instead of ours if it doesn't work ;)
-
Looks a bit like something from Dr. Who?
-
For a little pocket point-and-shoot, maybe, but it doesn't look like it'll hold much weight...
-
Hi Maggi
Aamazon have Gorilla Pod for £11.50+postage.
Regards
afw
-
Hello, afw, welcome to the forum and thanks for this info. Quite a difference in price, isn't it, even with the money back trial period?
May I (we?) call you something friendlier than afw? In Scotland, afw too easily becomes a'faa which is "awful" and to my mind and manners,that is awful! It could be that you are full of awe but, then again, the risk of being thought a'faa is not one I would relish !
-
Hello Maggi
Perhaps alan is better, not so awful.
Regards
-
Hi, Alan, yes, that is nicer, thank you!
-
Each leg is made from flexible joints that rotate through 360 degrees,
I wish I had legs like that. Do they really mean 45 grams? That's less than 2 ounces (in old money).
-
Yes, it does seem very light, there were no other measurements given. I suspect it may be pretty flimsy.
I've had a root about and found that this is the smallest model, there are others which are msuitable for bigger cameras/digital SLRs etc.
Those are pricier, of course, but they seem quite useful. I'm thinking about it!
-
I have recently purchased a Velbon CX 460 mini to replace an earlier model from the same maker that I have been using for about 20 years. I use a digital SLR and photograph in some fairly challenging conditions. I am very pleased with the new Velbon and would recommend it without reservation.
-
Hi there, we are trying to post some photos onto the site. But cant get them small enough. Can anyone help.
Thanks Ellen and Dan
-
Well, I'm not an expert in such matters by any means, but the BD is sleeping and Mark doesn't seem to be online tonight! Trouble is, any advice will vary depending on what type of photo manipulation programme you are using. We edit our photos in ACDSee 4.0 for the forum I resize to approx 650 pixels wide by 450 high and use the compression tool ( Jpeg options) which appears when you go to 'Save' to reduce the file size further if need by. So, if I begin with a photo 1600x1200x24b at 446.5 KB, resize by pixels only to 650 x 487x24b I can get 104.5KB or I can compress it further, using the JPeg option to 68.2 KB
this is the file, reduced simply by reducing the number of pixels:
Garden view with Rhododendron 'Rose Elf' pixel sized
[attachthumb=1]
Garden view with Rhododendron 'Rose Elf' further compressed
[attachthumb=2]
Click the pix to enlarge on screen.
Hope this helps a bit!
-
You will see that for viewing at this size, there is not much difference in the two pix.....the smaller size means you can fit more pix into the 300kb allowance for each post, though. up to a maximum of ten pix.
-
Oh yes he is! but they have hidden their email address to send what I've written
I use Photo Shop Express but most programmes do the same thing. Maggi is correct. With PSE you can reduce file size from the normal 100% to 60% like I do.
-
Hiya, Mark! Thanks for this!
-
In whatever programme you use, there should be some resize function. Select you pic, click resize, enter the size you want, either in pixels or KBs and save it with another name, thus preserving the original. That's all I need to do with Photofiltre.
-
save it with another name, thus preserving the original
OOH! Yes, I should have said that... it is vital to save it with another name to preserve the original in case you need the full file size for another purpose.... publishing, printing, whatever.
-
or selling ... I sold two photos at the weekend.
-
If you are running Windows XP (most peple are) I think the easiest thing to do is to download and install the small programme Image resizer from Microsoft, you can get it here
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
After installing right-button clicking a picture file will give you the opportunity "resize picture" click that and you can resize to any size you want. And the new (resized) picture will be saved under a new file name!
Cheers
-
The package I use (IrfanView) allows you to resize to a specific size but also lets you halve the image size - I find if I do that twice ie take it down to 25% of the original they are a fine size to post and Ok to view and pressing the 'half' button twice is faster than working our how many pixels.
The saving it to another name is a really good point and one I occasionally forget to do! >:(
Sue
-
Thanks you all for your help. We will try again tonight.
Sorry Mark if we have hidden our email address we didnt know, and dont know how to unhide it.
Thanks Ellen and Dan
-
It's easy. Go to profile the account settings in the left hand box and untick hide email
Looking forward to you photos. You have plenty of editing options to choose from
-
I have done something to my Photo Shop
The crop tool is OK while I am highlighting the area on the image but when I want to move the selected area, and the moving dashes are still present, there is a small x on the lower right quandrant of the + that stops me moving the selected area to make a better cropped image. It trys to create another crop.
Any idea what has gone wrong?
-
Mark
I have tried to create your problem but cannot. Try left clicking on your cropping tool box and hold your finger down till you get the selection tool bar giving other options for that button. Move to another cropping option try that then move back to the original position.
If that does not work try shutting the progam down and restart it.
That is all I can think of without being there.
-
Try this - On the second tool bar down, far left there is a dotted rectangle. Click on this and it says Reset tool, or Reset all tools. Try clicking on "Reset all tools". I have found this works when I get into a mess. I've put a picture with a red circle to show where as there are two dotted rectangles
-
I can't seem to get rid of that damn red circle now Diane!! :D
Enjoy Prague and don't worry TOO much about we poor people back in Britain!
-
excellent work Diane. I must have accidentally click there at some stage recently or more like one of the nieces was playing around
I am very excited now about going to the conference.
-
Have a marvellous trip Mark and no, don't worry about the rest of us who can't be there but DO remember that we want to see and hear about it all.
A bit off topic but would you look out for Otto and have a few words with him please? He'll be right at home as there will be many Germans there I expect as well as English speakers, but he's sometimes quite diffident among strangers. He also needs major encouragement with his own computer efforts, so give him any help you can. Thanks very much.
-
No probs.
I was worning the garden this evening and I thought I want to go but at the same time I dont. I need someone to look after my babies. How will they cope for 11 days without me. My troughs are about to have a great show and I'll miss the peak :'(
-
Hi all ,
I'm planning to buy a new camera -a Nikon D 50 -has anybody experience with this typ ?
I use since many years my old Nikon FM 2 - after a inquiery to Nikon they says to me I can use my old objektiv ( Nikkor AF 60 mm / 2,8 ).
All suggestions are welcome -thank you in advance
Greetings
Hans
-
No experience with the D50, but I know that the D80 is a good upgrade on the D70, which I have. I know Ian likes his new Olympus because of the swinging screen, but I like to look through an eyepiece.
Anthony.
-
Hi Anthony ,
Thank you for your information .
I'm a little surprised that nobody here use this camera .
Yesterday I have found a report that this is the best camera ( for this price ) from last December .
Greetings
Hans
-
I've been toying with the idea of changing my camera (Samsung Digimax U-CA3 3.2 mega pixels. 5cm macro. 3x optical zoom) for a few weeks now. I had first thought of a Digital SLR but, given my complete lack of photographic knowledge and skill; the fact that almost all the pictures I take are of flowers and gardens, either for my own satisfaction or to post to the Forum; and the cost of Digital SLR's, maybe I am just as well, sticking to Digi Compacts?
Knowing that Ian speaks very highly of his Fuiji FinePix S9600 Zoom that had been amongst the possibles, and it is available now for under £250. I had a bit of play with one this afternoon but found it a little heavy. The shop did have a new (I think?) model Fuiji S5700 with 7 mega pixels and 10x optical zoom and macro down to 1cm. This felt nice and light and I thought might suit my purposes better than the S9600. It was priced at £190 but is available on the Internet for less than £150 and £200 would by the full package including case and memory cards etc.
Is anyone familiar with this model or could suggest alternatives for me to look at with a ceiling of £200 for a full package?
-
if you are buying a new top of the range camera you might have to raised your range by £50. Buy a copy of the magazine What Digital Camera
-
I did, but only understood every other word. The trouble with these kinds of magazines, I find, is that they are written by 'geeks' for 'geeks' and not for the 'sort of interested man in the street' ???
-
Top of the range camera for £250? What range?
-
David, I have not tried the Fuiji S5700 but I just looked it up on the net and it looks a very good buy with plenty camera for the money.
I pay little attention to the magazine reviews as they can vary greatly depending on who reviews it and for which magazine however they are worth reading. My favourite cameras have been slated by reviews in the past.
If the Fuiji S5700 feels good in your hands that is most important it certainly has all the specs to deliver top rate pictures and with easy to set controls I would say go for it.
The camera shop assistants will continually try and push you to get the latest highest spec model to increase the sales figures, that is their job, which often means that people end up with a camera that is over specked with controls that they will never use and only make it difficult for them to use.
Also buying over the internet will save you a lot of money, I have bought all my digital cameras that way and have had excellent service and very rapid delivery usually within 24 hours or less.
-
I second that (well, thats?) Ian. Horses for courses. My Nikon D70 has just come back from the repairers, so I have been using Vivienne's wee Olympus at medium spec. OK, it's a bit hit or miss, but using the extra close-up facitlity I managed to take the second bee pic, crop it and print it out A4 with no loss of quality. I still like the eye piece rather than the screen of my Nikon though.
-
I prefer using the screen on my camera. By using the screen I can hold the camera at arms length when taking closeups of bees/insects, and they don't fly off as quickly as when using the eye piece.
Rob
-
I can't focus on the screen at arms length :(, and with the Nikon I'm further away because of the focal length of the lens. When I was taking pics of the bee the camera was within 6" of the flower. With my Nikon I can be 6' away.
-
Thanks Ian, and others, for comments, I really liked the little Fuiji S5700, it seeded to suit my non-technical attitude to photography. I've just been told, by the most important member of the family, to hang off for the present as I have a big birthday coming up next February (you know the one Lesley!!) and the kids are already asking her what they could buy Dad for the big one. So, I shall keep a keen eye on the market place until then.
-
No rush then? ;)
-
I've just been told, by the most important member of the family, to hang off for the present as I have a big birthday coming up next February
No rush then?
Just a dawgone minute there, Musky... what about Father's Day, coming up fast on 17th June?
You go for it, that's what I say! A Pop is a precious thing.... tell them I said so!
-
Having, for years, passed off Father's Day as just a way for retailers to earn extra and refused to have anything to do with it, I can hardly change views now can I. I can wait until February. Mind you, if I feel tomorrow like I felt when I got up this morning I'm not certain to make February-is it possible to transmit the 'feeling rough virus' via the Internet? :(
-
Don't you go spreading that around the forum David....some of us are off to warmer parts in the morning. :)
That reminds me, shouldn't I be packing?
Take care everyone and keep the pot gently stewing while I'm away please.
-
Enjoy Yorkshire Cliff. ;D
-
Cliff, take care and have a great time.
-
Goodness me, Cliff, I thought you had already left, which is why I did not post happy holiday greetings to you after you told us you were going away! So, Happy Hols, take lots of pix, you know we'll want to see them!
-
Thanks for the good wishes everyone.....now where did I put those bicycle clips? T'is a hell of a trek o'er them Pennines Anthony.
-
Were you aware that Paris lies a little to the north of Holmfirth? See Yorkshire see the World :D
-
There's even a wee village called New York!
-
.....And I knew two carpenters from Doncaster called Rocky who were at their peak...........Enough, enough, let me away...... :P
-
What? You're still here Cliff? You'll be home before you've gone at this rate :D
Whatever do you mean David? I've been 39 for the last 25 years ;D
-
Hi all ,
here are the first pics with my new digital camera ( Nikon D50 ) - it was much easier that I guess !
I got the camera yesterday .....and now I must learn a lot ..... :)
Greetings
Hans
-
A very nice first batch Hans :)
-
Hi Lesley ,
Thank you for the compliment :-*
Here is a picture special for you :
Hemerocallis 'Apricot Angel'
Greetings
Hans :D
-
7 day shop are now have stock of Canon camera and accessories tax free from Guernsey
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?r=CB2&cat=1&type=1010&man=8&filterwords=eos+or+%22canon+ef%22&filterwordsalldb=1&go=SEARCH&comp= (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?r=CB2&cat=1&type=1010&man=8&filterwords=eos+or+%22canon+ef%22&filterwordsalldb=1&go=SEARCH&comp=)
-
Perth Group are planning to splash out on a digital projecter funded by a legacy left by one of our members.
The one I am looking at at present is the Canon LV-7260 Projector £692 +vat. My reasons are that it meets all our specs. and since Canon specialise in photo equipment I persume they are looking at it from this angle rather than home cinema/office perpective. It is the one most often stocked in Photography shops - is this a clue?
Has anyone had experience with this make/model good or bad?
susan
-
I have a Canon LV-S3 in my classroom. I think it is the oldest (and best) one the science dept in our school has. It is very good with zoom and freeze facilities.
-
I bought a new camera yesterday from 7 Day Shop. It's the 10 megapixel Canon Ixus 900Ti. £112 off recommended price
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/IXUS/Digital_IXUS_900_Ti/index.asp (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/IXUS/Digital_IXUS_900_Ti/index.asp)
-
Someone asked me tonight if I could give a lecture using moving images ie from a digital camcorder. Sounds like a great idea that while I'm blabbing the flower/s are 'live'.
The questions are
Can it be done?
What software do I need?
what else do I need?
Most important ....
Can you recommend a digital camcorder?
-
Mark
I have been using a digital camcorder for about 6 years. They are all much the same. As with all things photographic it is safer to stick with the known manufacturers such as Sony, JVC and Canon. There are two types of recording medium available- mini DVD tapes and mini discs. Of the two, the DVD tapes are probably better although not as convenient.
You would expect to pay about £400 for a top quality model. The next step is to download the tape onto your PC. An editing suite is required, Pinnacle is a simple suitable one. Then you have to burn this to a DVD. The software will probably be on your PC already,although DVD editing suites incorporate this. Now we come to the expensive bit !!
You will need a projector and a laptop computer - we are talking about £400 minimum for a laptop and at least £500 for the projector. So, you are talking about an outlay of nearly £1500. Unless you are really serious about going into film making, I would forget it. Another point I would make is that your PC has to be pretty powerful to cope with the demands of editing. You are talking about 12Gb of storage space per 1 hour tape. To work efficiently, you will need 1 Gb oF RAM to deal with the demands on the system and it can take up to 5 hours to complete the editing and burn it onto a disc. You will be spending chunks of your life in front of a computer.
I have yet to burn a tape onto a disc as my computer keeps crashing under the demands placed on it. From a more optimistic view, you can easily show the tapes on a standard TV.
I have used my camcorder to record my grandchildren and for recording wildlife in S. Africa, India, N.Zealand etc.
For every 1 hour of tape used, I could junk half of this as being jerky, out of focus or some other fault. It requires a completely different technique to still photography. It can look great when you get it right - I have recorded walks around Benmore, Branklyn, Kirstenbosch gardens and a few others that bring a feeling of immediacy but, in doing so, I saw nothing but a 1" screen most of the time I was there!
-
I have a projector and laptop. I see on Amazon there is now a camcorder with a 30GB hard drive inside
-
Mark
I am sorry but I don't know much about the "newer" technologies in Digital camcorders. All I can say from experience is that DVD tape mechanisms are fairly robust - hard drives are not. They have to spin at impressive speeds and can easily be damaged by jolts and knocks. I cannot see any real advantage of a 30Gb. disc in the field unless you want to continually record for a couple of hours non-stop, in which case your battery would probably give out. In the few articles I have read on mini disc DVD cameras the two minus points quoted were lesser picture quality than tape due to compression of detail and a lack of robustness with the recording mechanism.
I would suggest that you look at a few of the monthly magazines dedicated to camcorders and feel the water before making a possibly expensive mistake.
Regardless of the camera chosen, you will still need to edit the final results from the camcorder. There is nothing more soul destroying than to sit through a film show of badly exposed, jerky and out of focus pictures. As I said already, a good lot of your footage will be poor. I think you would be amazed to know how much is filmed in the BBC Wildlife programs to give 1 hour of quality pictures.
However, don't be put off if you really want to do it. When you get it right, it looks great. I would put one caveat, films look good when there is movement and sound. By and large, plants don't move.
-
7 Day Shop have some brilliant bargains in memory today that are too good to miss
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=6&type=0&man=0&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp= (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=6&type=0&man=0&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp=)
SD 1GB from £6.50
SD 2GB from £11.50
CF 1GB from £7.25
CF 2GB from £12.50
-
Fuji Finepix S5700
Thanks to David for asking about this camera and to Ian for his positive response. Currys have it on offer at £129 so I bought one last week. It suits me just fine and I am enjoying using it. It has stuff that is simple enough for me to understand and other stuff that I have no intention of burning my brain out with.
I have one technical question - what quality setting should I be using for pictures that I might want to display through a projector. Do I need 'print' quality or will 'web' quality do?
-
my experience giving all but one lecture digitally : rubbish photos are always rubbish. I use a high setting second from the top giving me high resoloution images. I then cut these to size and resave 600 or 800 pixels wide. A great tip is the audience should be no closer than twice the width of the screen. Closer and they see the pixels. Try and and you'll see
-
I'm with Mark. I always take them high quality, often you just need a small part of a picture and you still keep the good resolution when you enlarge it , also you never know when you might want to print it. Once edited save as close as you can to the projector resolution. Remember always keep your unedited photo for later use, you can always store them on external drives.
-
Fuji Finepix S5700
Thanks to David for asking about this camera and to Ian for his positive response. Currys have it on offer at £129 so I bought one last week. It suits me just fine and I am enjoying using it. It has stuff that is simple enough for me to understand and other stuff that I have no intention of burning my brain out with.
I have one technical question - what quality setting should I be using for pictures that I might want to display through a projector. Do I need 'print' quality or will 'web' quality do?
I saw it in Curry's but both branches in Plymouth were out of stock, so checked on Amazon and have got it for £123-80 with free delivery. It's an early birthday present (birthday not 'till February!!) Is it good on close-up work? Which type of memory 'whatsit!' did you get?
-
Thanks for the Advice, Susan & Mark. It is the sort of info that the manuals don't give.
Close up, David, you can just about press the flower whilst taking the picture! I am still experimenting. And I have a 520Mb card in and that allows me something like 140 pictures at best quality.
-
Both Davids,
The joy of digital is that you don't need to get too close to the plant to get close ups, great when you are in someone elses garden. As long as you have good focus you can really cut out all the crap and enlarge the best bits. Here is an example of a Mec Sarsonii taken complete with my hand used for cutting glare included and surplus background then the finished photo. If you are planning to print for framming make sure you get the size of the frame first and make the photo fit, it surprising how few frame sizes there are.
-
Both Davids,
The joy of digital is that you don't need to get too close to the plant to get close ups, great when you are in someone elses garden. As long as you have good focus you can really cut out all the crap and enlarge the best bits. Here is an example of a Mec Sarsonii taken complete with my hand used for cutting glare included and surplus background then the finished photo. If you are planning to print for framming make sure you get the size of the frame first and make the photo fit, it surprising how few frame sizes there are.
Am I being thick-I don't see a hand!! When you say 'enlarge the best bits' do you mean by use of something like Photoshop, by blowing up the image??
-
My hand is the black bit across the top. I would recomend throwing out the editing package that comes with the camera and splashing out on a really good editing/organising programme. I use and would recomend Photoshop Elements, it can do everything I need, the best bit is the tagging facility to help you find your photos, no need to be continually sorting them into folders. You just cut out the part you want then resize it to whatever size you need whether for projection, email or printing. You should have come to our Photography Day ;D
-
My hand is the black bit across the top. I would recomend throwing out the editing package that comes with the camera and splashing out on a really good editing/organising programme. I use and would recomend Photoshop Elements, it can do everything I need, the best bit is the tagging facility to help you find your photos, no need to be continually sorting them into folders. You just cut out the part you want then resize it to whatever size you need whether for projection, email or printing. You should have come to our Photography Day ;D
I would have but the mileage is the killer ;D
-
My Fuji FinePix S5700 arrived late this afternoon. The first hour saw me fathom out how to get the shoulder strap to stay on and how to fasten the lens cap to the shoulder strap (I was quite pleased with my progress!). Now to reading the manual!! ???
-
Absolutely wonderful David, I know how you feel. I am one of those who refer to the manual as a last resort when the air is thick and very blue!
I have just borrowed a slide scanner from Cliff 'Buttercup' Booker, the manual runs to 150+ pages and because all the scans so far look blue and washed out I think I am going to have to read it. Trouble is I don't speak Nikon, words like Gamma, Analog gain, Calibration, Curves and LCH Editor Palettes mean absolutely nothing to me.
I just wish they would include an English translation for numbskulls like me.
Shelagh
-
Couldn't agree more Shelagh. My manual is of course written in Fuji speak and it appears that only 'and' and 'but' correspond to English words. I read through most of it over lunch but apart from understanding how to switch it on I don't think much of the information 'stuck'.
There ought to be two distinct versions of these kinds of manual:-
Version 1: You probably know what you are doing.
Version 2: You patently don't.
By the way between leaving Yorkshire and landing here at the end of the known world I lived in Brandlesholme for three or so years. I loved Bury.
-
David,
My few words of gained experience: there is no doubt a setting labelled 'Automatic'. It is my practice to set this one and use the camera to take lots and lots of photographs for a few days. This gets you into the feel of the camera. You will then know what areas work as you would wish them to work and which do not. You can then explore additonal features of the camera as you need or wish. The automatic setting will take reasonably good photographs for the time being.
But, will you get a move on and post some of these photographs for us to see them. We all know you are from Yorkshire but do you not realise these digital photographs have no development of printing cost?
Paddy
-
Really!!! oh well, that changes a lot ;D
-
First attempt, OK not one of the best but give me time!! This is Brodiaea (not sure of the species) Queen Fabiola, just going over after a good months show. Not bad from a £2 B@Q packet. I intend to leave them in the ground over Winter and see if they come up next year. I must try to get hold of some of the other Brodiaea species, I like 'em.
Not impressed with FinePix software suppied with camera doesn't seem to do anymore than other software I have (IrfanView and Picasa both free) and doesn't seem to have a crop function.
-
looks OK to me
-
The colour is good, David. Blues are not the easiest and this seems very true to me. I like Brodiaea, too. A friend used to grow quite a few in her nearby garden in Aberdeen so you should be okay with them over winter. Though she was on a slope which will have aided drainage.
-
Good to see you in action with the camera, David.
Looking forward to more and more photographs from you now.
Paddy
-
Here are a, small, selection of what I have managed with our new S5700. The most editing any have had is simple cropping.
Gentian angustifolia
Gentian prolata - a super, tiny little plant but it does need the sun to make it open its flowers :(
Arisaema jacquemontii seedhead waiting for the sun to ripen it
Cyclamen purpurascens without leaves (I think rather than hederifolium)
-
At the beginning of the month Susan refered to the Pitlochry Photo Day which I belive was excellent and appreciated by all that attended. Carol and myself were booked but had to cancell due to other commitments. I have heard Ian and Cyril give talks on digital photography and have learned a lot from them but forgoten even more.
Could I ask Ian, Susan, Sandy et al who are skilled at using digital cameras and Photoshop etc to put their heads together and write a tutorial for the website? The tutorial will be focused on plant and garden photography and cover use of the camera, taking plant pics and editing them for use on the web or in projector presentations.
The tutorial would be something to keep and refer back to and I think many members, not just David & David, would benefit from it. Please give it some thought :)
-
David, your Gentiana angustifolia is not... it is one of the G. septemfida types. I'm not too sure about the G. prolata, either :-\
And your Cyclamen purpurascens is a C. hederifolium... the pix are okay though!! ;)
-
You could be right about G septemfida as we grow both, however it has been in flower since mid July. The G prolata is from a respected Scottish nursery; and I know they don't always get it right either.
What is the differnce between Cyclamen purpurascens and hedrefolium. The one pictured has been in flower for weeks.
-
David, did you find a cropping tool in the FinePix software that came with the camera? I didn't.
-
Ask and you receive
Photoshop Elements
Save your images to named folders. For this year I have a folder called ‘Images 2007’. In the folder there are further folders for each month. This month’s folder is 08. This way you can keep a track of what has flowered when. In the folder I have the original image eg DSCN2821 or whatever your camera saves the image as and the edited and named image e.g. galanthus peshmenii.jpeg. Photo Shop automatically adds the .jpeg when you save the image. To be able to do more with an image it is better to set your camera at a high setting, 2500 pixels wide, rather than a small one of 600 pixels wide.
Once Photo Shop Elements, PSE, has installed go to start and click on programmes and look for PSE. It is below accessories and it will say Adobe. Place the cursor on it and it will open. Put the cursor on PSE which will open revealing the green icon, right click it and then click copy. Go to your desktop, right click and paste. This will place a shortcut to PSE on your desktop. Easy so far?
Double click the icon and PSE will open. On the left hand side there is a vertical narrow box with icons. Make sure the top left one is highlighted by clicking on it. It’s a square box with perforations. You are now ready to edit a photo. Go to FILE at the top LEFT corner of the screen and CLICK it ONCE. A drop down menu will appear. Click OPEN which will make a box appear. To the RIGHT of LOOK IN there is a small DOWN ARROW. Click it and another drop down box will appear. This will bring up what is on your desktop and hopefully you will see your folder called ‘Images 2005’ or what ever you have called it. DOUBLE CLICK the folder and all the images will be there but only as names or the number allocated by the camera. DOUBLE CLICK one of the images and it will open. You can open all images at one go by holding down the arrow above ctrl on the bottom left of your keyboard and left clicking each image and then click OPEN. To cut images down to size click IMAGE on the left of top tool bar and a drop down menu will appear. Place the cursor arrow on RESIZE and then click IMAGE SIZE. A box will open showing the detail of your photo. Pixel dimensions width, height, pixels, document size (inches or cm) and resolution. Change the RESOLUTION to 72 by left clicking in the resolution box. I very rarely use document size and only use it to see how big an image if I’m going to print it. Above width it also tells you the physical size of the image in megabytes. I save my images to 600 pixels wide for general use which is mainly for my web sites. For posting on the SRGC web site I resize the images to 450 pixels wide. You only need to change width which will automatically be high lighted after you click image size. The computer will automatically change everything else. Click OK when you have changed the width of your image. If you feel you have made a mistake click EDIT on the top TOOLBAR and click STEP BACKWARD. This will undo what you have done. Click FILE on the top toolbar and go down to SAVE FOR WEB. A new box opens giving you the option to do a few things to the image. I set the QUALITY to 60. You will see on the left side your image twice. At the bottom of each image you will see some information. The left image shows the original size of the image. The image I’m editing shows it was 777K the right image shows it is now 112.6K and it will down load in 20 seconds with a 56K modem. Click OK when you’re ready. A box appears allowing you to select a folder to save your image in. Click SAVE when you are ready. You are then left with the original photo in the PSE screen. Click the X to close it. When it asks SAVE CHANGES click NO.
It took a lot longer to type this than it will to edit images once you get to learn it
-
OK, Mark, and thanks.
I will print that posting off and see how I get on with it.
David, no, I did not find a cropping tool in the FinePix software but bought Photoshop Elements last year. It only cost about £40 (I think) and has far more applications than I will ever need.
-
Maybe I'm thinking of G. paradoxa.... much more feathery foliage.
Have a look at the Cyclamen Group site : http://www.cyclamen.org/indexCS.html there's a list there of the species and their basic traits.
For first glance the difference is in the leaf shape, flower shape and colouring and. most important for me, C. purpurascens has a really strong and lovely fragrance!
-
The Gentiana prolata looks a little large and loose, compared with mine anyway. Depends how much it varies.
-
G. paradoxa looks like this and with narrow leaves up the stem
-
Cyclamen purpurascens doesn't have the 'auricles' at the flower opening, which are also absent in C. cilicium (a point missed by the numpties that produce the fake photos on the ones sold dry in garden centres) and C. colchicum. I had hederifolium in flower in early July.
-
Lesley, the whole plant (Gentiana prolata) in the picture is only about five inches across although it is a young plant that I bought earlier this year. I have just collected a few seed heads off it. Very fine seeds and 'green' - presumably ripe as the seed heads had split naturaly.
Marks picture of G. paradoxa is much the same as the ones in our garden. Thin, stagly stems with yellowish green leaves that are very narrow.
-
Having obtained my new camera (Fuji FinePix S57000 from Amazon I seem to get regular Emails from Amazon pushing 'other similar items you will need'. The latest is a UV Filter and I take it this is an Ultra Violet filter? Can anyone please tell me what differences having one would make to my (limited!) expertise and photographic results.
-
Hi David,
All my lenses have UV filters, mainly I must admit, for the protection of the much more expensive lens but also for the reasons as listed below from Wikipedia...
UV filters are used for general photography to reduce haziness or fogginess created by ultraviolet light.
A UV filter is transparent to visible light, and so can be left on the lens for nearly all shots. As UV filters are usually inexpensive (about US$20, depending on size), many people use them as protection for their lenses, although this is subject to some controversy.[citation needed] For this purpose they are preferred over other kinds of filters which are more intrusive, such as neutral density filters.
The UV filter absorbs ultraviolet rays without changing the exposure. With most images, most people will not see a difference when a UV filter is used.
-
David, towards the end of the email there is an opt out link. DONT click on it as it's mine
It reads
We hope you enjoyed receiving this message. However, if you'd rather not receive future e-mails of this sort from Amazon.co.uk, please visit the opt-out link below.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/gss/o/1Fs.an6sHiaNmSMOfck21lxGIwFPy0k6hrgkUxHTrHdKAzSBJB
-
Hi David I am with Cliff - I always have a uv or daylight filter on my camera to protect the front element of the lens form scratches and also to keep it clean.
It is easy to rub muck off a filter and if it gets damaged it is cheap to replace - get one.
-
Does anybody use a Nikon D200?
A kind and very trusting shopkeeper, as she did not know me, gave me one for an hour last weekend to test around the shopping centre. I was very taken with the ease of use, the good feel in the hand and the images produced and am very tempted to purchase.
I would welcome comments from anybody who already uses one.
How have you found it?
Does the lack of a sensor cleaner and image stabilisation impinge on quality or create a nuisance?
Could anybody using this or any of the other similar Nikon cameras - D80, D40 or D40X comment on these 'one-suits-all-purposes' lens. The one I was using was an 18 - 250mm zoom. It was very easy indeed to use but I am concerned about the very restricted f-stop range, only 3 - 5.6. This seems to me to cut down quite a lot on the range of the lens. Anyone with experience might comment. I use a similar lens at present on a Fuji S9000 and find it very versatile but it has a wider range of apertures available but doesn't have image stabilisation.
Any other suggestions re lens selection welcome. The D200 comes as a 'body-only' purchase with lens purchase separate.
By the way, I exaggerated somewhat about the shopkeeper's trusting nature - I had to leave my son as security for the safe return of the camera. I was tempted but his mother insisted I go back for him.
Paddy
-
Paddy,
The Nikon D200 is an outstanding camera, and the lynch pin in a fine system. Had I not blundered into a good deal on a Nikon D2x, I'd be shooting with the D200 now (I just helped a good friend into buying one). The only camera comparable is the Canon EOS 5D, which is also a winner. I've been shooting with Nikon for decades, so it wasn't a difficult choice (but I did compare, compare, compare--and dragged my heels for a while).
If I'm not mistaken, your lens HAS a full range of f-stops...the 3-5.6 refers to how wide open you can get at wide angle (the 3) and telephoto (the 5.6) ranges.
I use three lenses to cover just about all situations...
Carlo
-
Paddy,
I have recently bought a Nikon D80, my first DSLR which I admit is rather complicated at first
Previously I had an OM2 and an Olympus point and shoot digital camera.
Although the D80 is heavy it felt right in my hands and I'm happy with the lens I bought with it..18mmto 200mm zoom.
A moment ago I shot this pic to see how close I could get.
It's full frame taken with the zoom at 200mm and at a distance of 21cm, the closest distance at which the lens would focus.
The flowers are 85mm in width.
Ihave used the camers mainly for landscapes and family shots indoors and am really pleased withb the results.
I don't print larger than A4 but that is often after a big crop.
-
I have a Nikon D70 and find it excellent. I hate these cameras that don't take a pic the instant you press the button. Vivienne tried 10 times to take pics of the children jumping into the pool on holiday with the Olympus, before giving up.
-
As I have mentioned before on the Forum Paddy, I too have a Nikon D80 (with three different lenses) and am very satisfied with the portrait, landscape and abstract images that it has produced (all the California/Utah shots were taken with it), but.... (and it is a significant 'but'), I will always take my much older and much less sophisticated Nikon 995 to the Shows as the close-ups of plants in relatively poor light conditions taken so easily with that 3.4 megapixel camera will never (in my very humble opinion) be matched by this new 'all singing, all-dancing' upstart.
See sample Iris meda taken three or four years ago...
-
Oh, my word, that iris portrait is a STUNNER! Lovely! A perfect illustration of why I adore Iris.
-
Thanks Maggi....hand held with the little Nikon 995....super lens... and only my stomach to steady the camera...(What a belly)!
-
Ranunculus,
Which program do you use to manipulatE your NEF files from your D80?
-
Hi David,
I use Paint Shop Pro for everything 'digital', but I seldom do anything other than cropping, fine tuning the focus or reducing the image size for web display. My brain is addled enough already with the rest of life's flotsam and jetsam without having to learn such technical stuff. Breathing, fish pie, alpines, music, alcohol and ample fresh air are more than enough to keep me occupied at the moment (and I think I've forgotten a few things that SHOULD be on that list....family, football, photography, etc. etc).
-
Carlo, David, Anthony & Cliff,
Many thanks for the very informative responses to my query re Nikon D200 and I think that is the way I will go, probably with one of those super zoom lens to begin with and I can always add others later on - make a list for birthday, Christmas etc.
Carlo, with a D2x I wouldn't bother with the D200 either. A monster great camera.
David, I found the camera heavy also, but comfortably heavy if you know what I mean. The canons are very well designed but don't suit my chubby fingers. Good sample photograph; shows what the lens can do. I'm impressed that you were at 200mm and able to focus at 21cm. Very good.
Anthony, you are obviously very happy with your D70 which is very comparable with the D200 and I have seen many of your photographs and can judge by the results.
Cliff, you seem to have left one activity out of your list presuming, of course, that you are not beyond it!!!!
Paddy
-
Quite right Paddy.......Suduko...!!!! :P
-
Sad news camera fans....
the continuing Nikon and Canon wars make our current cameras yesterday's news. Both manufacturers have new models coming out this fall....
Paddy...The New York Times is reporting TODAY that my D2x and your D200 are about to be eclipsed by the D3 and the D300. You might just want to wait until fall....
-
David,
I thought I'd repsond to your question about manipulating NEF files. I'm using a D70 like Anthony and found that the program Nikon supplied was not terribly useful. You can use Photoshop CS if your pocket is deep enough and you are willing to forgo meals for the next five years and the new car you promised yourself.
An alternative I came across (described in a very useful book called 'The Digital SLR Handbook' by Andy Rouse, a well Known wildlife photographer) is called Capture One, which is a RAW converter. It's available in a basic and profressional version, the basic version is fine and is a lot cheaper. It probably does things that other programs do as well but it works for me. What I particularly like is the ability to batch process RAW files. You can select the files to be converted, set the resolution, destination folder and set it away. Come back later after a cup of tea and the hard work is done for you. The following link is to a site I've bought from in the past, and they have more details available from this webpage (several links):http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?/photo/software/phaseone.html
Peter
-
Paddy I have a Nikon D70 which I use with a variety of Nikon a Sigma Macro lenses (these are cheaper and at least as good according to tests) I came accross this article from a client and fellow Nikon user yesterday which I thought you would find useful. It is a comparison of features between the D2, d200 and D80. Here is the link. I doubt if an amateur could tell the difference in results betweenn the 3 the main difference between the D80 and the D200 as far as I can see is mainly that the 200 is in a magnesiun case making it 300 gms heavier and it offers more protection against wet. This makes it more suitable and reliable for someone who makes their living at photagraphy but is a bit of a brick in the hands. The other differences are small in terms of plant and landscape photography
http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/pdf/gazette/gaz61.pdf (http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/pdf/gazette/gaz61.pdf)
-
Thanks Maggi....hand held with the little Nikon 995....super lens... and only my stomach to steady the camera...(What a belly)!
This just goes to show the the Pudsey Pigs are not just stuffing themselves with so much food because they are greedy... they are actually pursuing a reasoned course of belly increase for photographic purposes! ::) :P ;) :-*
-
Ian,
A great article, so clearly spells out what each of the cameras can do and what they can't do along with how they feel and handle. It was far far better than anything I have read in the various photography magazines, giving much more information in a much clearer and more concise manner. Many thanks. I have read it quickly and feel that the D200 might still be my choice.
Carlo, the announcement of an upgrade to the D200 might not be bad news at all. I do not suffer from the need to have the very latest in specifications and with the introduction of an upgraded model it is likely that the price of the D200 might just fall a bit. So, I shall wait and see; as Maggi puts it in such an American way, until the 'fall'.
David, I meant to ask you what make of lens are you using?
Many thanks, Paddy
-
as Maggi puts it in such an American way, until the 'fall'.
Not guilty, Paddy, I seldom use that americanism, unless in conversation with a native of that land, to make them feel at home! I believe it was our American chum, Carlo, who talked of that season... the fall was in my mind, I confess, as I read of the proposed new camera models, but I was thinking, as you have mentioned, of the "fall" in price that might then be expected in the current style range... a saving to be made there, I am quite sure.
-
So now I'm the "American chum"...I suppose that's one step away from "the ugly American."
The autumnal reference was, in fact, to the season and NOT to a fall in prices. My observation has been that demand for these cameras is so strong that there is little or NO movement in prices. My guess is that the choice will be between the D200 at its current price, and the D300 at its projected price---$300-400 higher.
My advice: there's really no need to wait if you know what you want.
-
Nah, we chat, I like you, ergo you are a chum.........and anyway, I don't know what you look like!!
We will certainly expect a fall in the prices in the Fall here in the UK when a new model comes out....and I don't just mean we "canny " Scots!
-
Note for overseas readers... a chum :D is NOT a chump , nor indeed, a chimp :P well, only occasionally :P ::)
A chum is a friend, a pal,a person whose company one enjoys... there Carlo, feeling better now?
-
At £800+ the Nikon 200D is very expensive
-
Still less than I paid for my D70 when it came out. :(
-
My 8mp Nikon cost £800 but my new 10mp Canon cost just over £200. That's progress!
My first Sky set up cost £400 many moons ago. Had to get an electronics buff to install it. Now you can get sat tv for very little
-
Sorry Maggi, I fell into that fall, didn't I?
You are right Carlo, if I know what I want it is as well to go ahead and get it. Let me just check the bank balance now. I see the D200 as probably a bit better a camera than I really need but I like the idea that it will do a little more than I need at present and is likely to serve my needs for some time to come.
Mark, it is with this in mind that I am willing to spend what I have to agree with you is quite a lot but I enjoy photography. I may be lucky and the price may come down. I am not going to rush straight into it.
Many thanks to everybody for advice. You have been very helpful.
Paddy
-
Note for overseas readers... a chum :D is NOT a chump , nor indeed, a chimp :P well, only occasionally :P ::)
A chum is a friend, a pal,a person whose company one enjoys
Chums here too Maggi, though we also have chumps. Not so many chimps though. We also have mates, pals, cousies, bro's and a fair selection of hey yous.
-
Hi Paddy,
I have come to this conversation rather late. I use a Nikon D70 and have been vacillating about upgrading to a D200 for several months now. A 10 megapixel camera is good and I have found the lighter cheaper Nikons are perhaps a little fragile in my hands. I have lost the eyecup and screen over the LCD from my D70. I have been using the kit 18-70mm that came with the camera but recently bought a 60 mm Nikon Micro (really a Macro lens). You could buy a 105 Micro if you do not like grovelling in the mud. The Micro lens gave a sharper clearer picture - the results were most impressive and very good for photographing plants. You do lose the ability to frame your subject quickly that you have with a variable focus lens.
It is difficult to take a bad picture with a modern digital camera so my suggestion would be to get as many megapixels as you can afford then get the best optics that you can afford. I feel the budget Nikons are not robust enough for use in the field.
The next thing is to learn enough about your camera that you know how to outwit it when you wish to. They are devilishly clever pieces of machinery and they have minds of their own ( that think in Japanese)
Good luck!
-
The next thing is to learn enough about your camera that you know how to outwit it when you wish to.
Yes, David, Ian is always saying that is the important thing!
-
It may be difficult to take a bad picture with a digital camera David but I still manage it. At least you can delete them without the expense of having them developed before you discover your disasters.
Shelagh
-
Shelagh I wouldnt say it's difficult to take a bad photo it's actually very easy.
-
David,
Many thanks for your comments on the Nikon. Much appreciated. The selection of lens is certainly quite puzzling.
Paddy
-
Paddy a lens the standard lens will not focus as closely as your compact and I quickly became dissatisfied mine. You should try a zoom lens with a macro or near macro facility which will give you some flexibility. I have a Sigma 17 -70 mm 2.8 with a 1:2.3 macro (not actually a macro which should be 1:1) but good enough for my purposes for plants and family - became a grandad again today so it needs to be dual purpose. There are few other choices there is a Nikon 24-85 which has a 1:2 feature but because of the sensor sizes on SLR which are only a proportion of the area of 35mm film camera you need to multiply the focal length by , in the case of Nikon, 1.5 to obtain the 35mm equivalent meaning that the 17mm Sigma wide angle is equivalent to 26mm wide angle whereas the 24mm Nikon (which was built for film camera) is equivalent to 36mm focal length meaning that it is restricted in wide angle capability though it is an excellent lens. The choice is yours but there aren't many suitable zooms with a reasonable macro facility on the market. I do have a 1:1 macro but the fixed focal length is not flexible or convenient when composing pictures.
Hope this helps and doesn't confuse
-
Paddy,
I pretty much concur with what Ian has said about lenses; most of the pictures I have posted on this forum were taken a 18-70mm zoom lens (AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G IF) so you can judge the results for yourself. All the letters mean different technical stuff that you can look up on the web if you are interested. The closest focus distanceof this lens is 1.2 feet (0.38m) and it does not give true macro 1:1 reproduction ie image is less than lifesize. However for a Nikon lens it is relatively economical and versatile. Its gratest advantage is that you can rapidly frame up a subject whether it be a garden scene or the mother-in-law (or you could remove the mother-in-law from the garden scene). It is not particularly good as a telephoto ie for bird shots.
The 60 mm lens I have (AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D) does not have to do so much stuff so it is simpler in construction and performs its basic functions better. It has a wider maximum aperture (f 2.8 compared to f3.5) so you can get more light in. The closest focus distance is 8.75 inches (0.219m) so you can get closer to your subject and it gives a reproduction ratio of 1:1. Good for flower shots and for snapshots for the photo album as well.
Two more economical Nikon lens that you could consider are the AF-S 18-135mm DX f3.5-5.6G IF-ED and the AF-S 55-200mm f4-5.6G VR IF ED. These are designed specifically for their digital camera range. The latter is a medium telephoto zoom with vibration reduction technology (VR). Apart from these the sky is the limit for Nikon gear ($NZ 10,000 and up- It possibly looks less painful in Euros) Hope this clarifys some of the lens issues.
-
Right, I've got it all now.
Paddy
-
There is a chance to win a digital slr kit on the telegraph site
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml;?view=CAMPAIGN&grid=A1NoGoogle&pg=/ETHtml/content/promotions/2007/05/03/earth/index.jhtml
I put an entry in last month which is in gallery 26, but I'm assuming the flooded grafitti was the winning photo.
I will enter again this month and October when the competition ends if I can find suitable photos.
'This competition is open to residents of the UK, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Republic of Ireland aged 18 years over, except employees of Telegraph Media Group Limited, or anyone else professionally associated with the competition'
-
Nice shot of the Goldenrod, Rob... interesting to hear that you have seen no honeybees, there aren't many around here, either.
-
Don't know where to put this post but as I am not satisfied with the picture I will put it in the camera thread.
Dirk sent me this wonderful Crocus banticus albus this year but I have a complaint - I cann't photograph it! The white is too pure. There is no contrast between the various parts of the flower. I have taken numerous picture with various backgrounds and this is my best effort. Do any of you photographers any suggetsions? I am using the S5700.
-
Dave,
You've got the same problem that wedding photographers have with a white wedding gown next to a dark tuxedo; and landscape photographers face with snow.
My guess is you're matrix metering and the dark background is telling the camera to open up its aperture and let more light in--over exposing the flower, which of course is an absolute contrast. (These cameras think for themselves...but they aren't too smart. We've got to out-fox them.).
Try changing the metering to spot or center-weighted so that the camera meters off the flower...
OR just manually expose the shot and shut down a stop and a half or so from what the meter tells you...
OR meter off a neutral light grey or the lawn or anything that is mid-toned (instead of the two ends of the spectrum you're dealing with)...
OR just fiddle around with your aperture/shutter speed bracketing the heck out of things until you get a satisfactory shot...
-
I think Ian's covered this in a bulb log... now, which one?? :P ::)
-
I will go away and try your suggestions, Carlo. The picture I posted was the best effort of many pictures of the flower using assorted methods and backgrounds.
-
white flowers come out really well against very pale grey card. Is your camera on automatic? The flash isnt on? Was the day over cast or bright sunshine?
-
Try reading this log David.
http://www.srgc.org.uk/bulblog/log2006/250106/log.html
-
Thanks, Ian. It looks as if I will have to do a bit more 'in depth' reading of the manual. All of the forumist comments have, hopefully, pointed me in the right direction so now it is up to me to figure out the practicalities. Thanks all.
-
I'm the Birthday Boy today and the hoped for present arrived - well, I did order it and pay for it myself. Sad, I know but the best way to be sure of getting what one wants.
So, many thanks to all who gave such sound advise when I was looking for it. I now have a Nikon D200 and opted for the 18 - 200mm Nikkor lens.
I haven't had much opportunity to do much with it as yet but am impressed by the feel, build and apparent quality. Lots more controls and options to previous camera but seems reasonably workable.
Paddy
-
Happy Birthday Paddy! You're going to love the D200. I can't wait to hear what you think of it...
-
Happy birthday Paddy. You certainly have aimed high!
-
Happy birthday Paddy - and I guess we'll be seeing lots and lots of excellent pix in the foreseeable future ;D
-
Many happy returns Paddy...we hope to see some WONDERFUL images from Switzerland next year?
-
I haven't had much opportunity to do much with it as yet
I was going to ask if you'd taken it into work, but, with all the political correctness around nowadays, I suppose you'd be arrested... so, we'll be hoping for a fine few days in the garden, then?
It's often said that you should choose a gift you'd like to receive yourself, so this is just another way of doing that, eh? The family will be pleased you have a gift that really suits you, too, so everyone will be happy 8)
Now you are the same age as I am... scary isn't it?
-
Happy Birthday from Germany, Paddy!
-
It'll soon be mine. Maybe if I wish hard enough .... very unlikely. It'll be something useless as ever!
I found my Photoshop disc!
-
Many thanks for the very kind sentiments. Very appreciated.
OK, I know I am an excited little boy with a new toy and had to tell someone but I feel it would be terrible if I ever reached an age or stage in life when I couldn't get excited by a nice present or something new in life. Yes, the years are adding up but I am still a child in many other ways.
Maggi, yes I took it into work but, as you implied, I didn't point it towards any children. Such is the way when minding children these days. Though I always take 'first day at school' photos of children and parents, put them on our notice board and give copies to the parents. They really like it as they can't take a photo of themselves with their child. I also keep a school photograph album for each year. As this is my 25th year in the school the collection is quite big and people love coming in to see photographs of themselves when they were younger. I always record Christmas Concerts, Sports Day, School Outing, First Communion & Confirmation (Religious occasions for children) along with any other special occasions in the school.
Carlo, it is out of this world, love it, great functions and so very easy to use, comfortable in the hand, controls all just where is natural for one's fingers and photograph quality really good.
Mark, it wasn't a case of putting my hand into my pocket and ordering such an expensive camera. I have had an amount stopped from each salary for morer than the past year and just cashed it in this week.
This time of the year is quite busy for me, back to school, newsletter to get out for the Irish Garden Plant Society for early October, neighbours away in Australia leaving care of the farm to me when a new road is being built right through the centre of it and baby-sittiing their two dogs who are pining for attention. My day starts shortly after 6a.m. and finishes after 9p.m. However, hopefully I will get a few photographs together soon. I have been very remiss re posting for the past while though I still drop in for a quick peep to see how things are going.
Best wishes to all. Many thanks for your kind thoughts. Apologies for not expressing my appreciation of your very enjoyable postings but shortly I shall be back to my regular habits - my farming neighbours return on Oct 7th.
Can you hear it? Click, Click, Click - yes, that's me with my new toy.
Paddy
-
Happy birthday Paddy, from Austria
Franz
-
And from New Zealand too Paddy, though it was yesterday here of course? Which sounds somewhat Irish to me. :D
-
Anyone know anything about the software used to enhance these pics of cypripediums? http://www.flickr.com/photos/jideegee/sets/72157602057678560/
-
Amazing Photos. I have never tried anything like that. As far as I can see by looking at the info on Helicon Focus you have to take several macro photos with different focal points then combine them to make an overall in focus picture. I think you would only be able to do that by using studio conditions as I persume they would have to be identical shots they also seem to use a lot of lighting. Looks like a lot of work but the results are certainly stunning.
-
Unless I have read it wrong it seems to be Mac software?
-
I must investigate further. I wonder how he managed to make the spider stay still? (Row 3, column 6)
-
I'll change the direction of this thread slightly and tell you about Dell Computers. Sadly Dell Ireland has nowed moved to a base in India just like it's UK base. I phoned yesterday because my laptop is acting strange so I should get a new model that is up to date. Before I got anywhere they asked for my address, phone number and bank details saying this was normal practice. I said what I wanted and the guy says I suggest you go for a better model for editing photos and Power Point lectures. I said all I need is XP and Office 2007. He then tried to sell me Vista and tried to sell me a laptop double the price I was interested in. He has phoned me 12 times in the last 24 hours - 5 yesterday and 7 today "Mr Smyth we are holding production just for you, Sir. If you do not place an order soon you will miss your delivery date" I havent placed an order yet. I just tried to speak to someone in customer service. Another Indian!! Bluntly and I apologise - where are the men with English/Irish accents for me to complain to?
-
You have my sympathies Mark. Nice people all but for companies trying to sell anything to people whose main or only language is English, to employ hundreds of people on the subcontinent is plain stupid. It's all about cheap of course but unfortunately that generally equates to nasty as well. NZ companies use call centres in India for banking or insurance enquiries, selling anything you can imagine, various surveys and so on. Nowadays my reaction is to put down the phone pronto and go to someone else.
-
I would like to apologise to everyone who watches the forum or takes part for my outburst yesterday.
This morning I have tried many phone numbers on the Dell web site to get through to someone in the UK but they all go to their overseas call centre
-
Mark, what are friends for but to give a shoulder to cry on.
I am sure we all get frustrated by overseas call centres but we recently had very good assistance when our wireless connection went down after a power failure.
-
Paddy,
I have belatedly come to this topic and see you have bought a Nikon D200. I moved up to the D200 from the D70 in February this year and am pleased with the change. On its first outing I dropped it as the strap had come loose - my fault - real men don't read instruction booklets ! Instead of a pile of broken plastic it survived unscathed thanks to its metal body. I have taken about 40 Gb.'s of pictures since then. The only minus point I can see is the battery life. It seems to chew up power at an alarming rate. Every picture I have taken has had to go through a photo editor to get it exactly as I want it. Many user reports have complained that the picture direct from the camera is not pin-sharp. That is why we have programs such as Photoshop and AC/DC pro. The camera can produce top quality pictures. One of its other advantages is that it opens the field to a range of top quality lenses. In film photography the adage was that the two most important items in photographic equipment were the film and the lens. In digital terms sustitute sensor and processing chip for film.
One accessory I can recommend is a moulded rubber casing which fits the camera like a glove but still allows the use of all the controls. If you look up www.speedgraphic.co.uk you will see them there. Also, a spare battery is essential. I bought two EN-el3 equivalents from 7 dayshop.com at well over half the price of the Nikon models.
My next problem is that Nikon have now brought out the D300 with a 12.3 CMOS sensor designed by Sony, a live view 3" monitor which is ideal for near the ground shots of plants and a self cleaning sensor. What more could a young boy want!
Can I justify trading in a 9 month old camera for this "goody" Luckily for me the cameras are virtually unobtainable at present so maybe common sense will prevail.
-
yes! flog the old one for as much as you can to make up the difference
-
Mark
Call centres !! For the last 10 days I have been trying to get through to a call centre to find out what has happened to my Visa card renewal. I have been forced to listen to inane music while my phone bill racks up at 7p a minute and then I give up and put down the phone. When I finally got through after 3 days, I found it was in Glasgow ! I could have walked there in less time. The only saving grace was that they understood me and I didn't have to repeat anything.
My dealings with call centres on the sub-continent have been mixed. They have been extremely polite but are obviously reading from a prepared aide-memoire. At least they are much better than "Essex Girl" They could not get their brains round the name Cameron and would spell it as Kamwan. You would have thought that a name that had been around for about 700 years would have been in common parlance, but no. Not to estuary woman.
On another occasion I was in a remote island in the Seychelles when I injured my back and had to call to the UK call centre for assistance. Essex girl answered. "Where are you" she said. In the Seychelles I replied. "Is that in Portugal ?"
I thought, I'm in trouble and I was right!! Give me an Indian call centre any day
-
Many people are scared to change to digital presentations and maybe put off by very fancy lectures with bits dropping in here and shooting out. The down side for the older lecturers is not having digital shots of their garden dating back to the very start. I was at a lecture recently where the lecturer was showing quite poor slides that were up to 30 years old. They were dark or had had lost their colour. The dark ones were very dark where the object could hardly be seen. The palest could be described as bleached. The lecturer must be able to see this. I would say that they are letting their name do the talking. Maybe I am getting way too critical? What do you think?
-
Hi Mark
We are going to go totally digital, means we will have to scan our slides but that is doable. Anne Chambers talk at the discussion weekend was digital but most of the images were originally slides and the quality was fantastic! David is the slide librarian and the majority of the slides he inherited were totally unusable do to serious deterioration. In an ideal world the club would buy a scanner and we would scan anything that is still usable. A few individual members have such scanners but not the club as such, what do the rest of you think?
-
I am moving over to digital now (it means I don't have to remember all those place names etc.).
Mark's point of "very fancy lectures with bits dropping in here and shooting out" is just bad technique. No professional (I'm one) would ever recommend that. One sees this on TV now where the medium is striving to out-do the message and the latter is usually lost amid the confusion.
Scanning slides is time consuming as it is best done one at a time with careful colour matching. Old slides with a colour cast can be reasonably restored and under-exposed slides made good. Many of my 'customers' were moving over to digital from slides in the years before my retirement so I was scanning and restoring hundreds of old, scratched and filthly slides and producing bright, clean digital images. Slides took anything from 2 minutes to 30 minutes to complete.
I will be scanning my best slides but will keep the slides as well, of course. A good scanner and Photoshop will do the job.
Digital projectors are beginning to get affordable while being good enough to be usable. A good digital presentation, including captions, moving maps and video, can be very exciting - as long as the speaker has not been seduced by the 'amazing' possibilities offered by PowerPoint. KEEP IT SIMPLE!!
-
Heather has said all the right things - I too have switched, having amassed a good collection of digital images. A volunteer who wants to help me scan my slides (a volunteer with a scanner that is) will be handsomely rewarded!
-
I rented a professional quality slide scanner, the Nikon Super CoolScan 5000, and scanned several hundred slides with it over the course of a weekend. The results were excellent, vastly superior to the scans produced by a document scanner. I highly recommend it. A text file of simplified instructions is attached, in case you decide not to spend six weeks reading the manual ;D
-
Was it a Freudian slip that the instructions are entitled "Canon 5000"?
...for the Nikon 5000 scannner?
-
More senior moment than Freudian slip. I bought a Canon camera at about the same time as I rented the Nikon scanner, so they are hopelessly intermingled in my brain. But you get five stars for proofreading prowess. I just fixed it.
-
Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED £850 from Amazon
-
It's an expensive piece of professional equipment. That's why I didn't buy one. Hopefully, you can find a rental in your area. But it's not that difficult to use, unless you try to wring every last ounce of performance out of it.
-
Gene,
What sort of file are you scanning your slides into? I'm shooting my digital camera in raw and, in the event I get busy scanning the thousands of slides in my stock file, I'd like to get as close to it as possible in my scans. I want the biggest, most information packed files I can get so that I preserve the many ways I can use the finished product...
-
My goals were much more modest than yours. I used standard jpg files. I set the scanner to make 8 meg files, but for some reason they ended up being 4-6 meg. But believe me, this scanner will let you achieve whatever level of perfection you want. File size per photo can be as high as 64 meg. And it will do automatic dust and scratch removal. Here is a link to a site with the details: http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_5000_ed/ (http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_5000_ed/)
I have the manuals for this unit in pdf form, but they are too large for this forum (5 meg and 19 meg). If you send me an email, I will either email them to you or send them to you on a CD, your choice.
-
Thanks for the feedback on scanners ... I wont be buying one but I will investigate renting. The .doc file failed to open for me - I have office 2007 .... GRRR! I will post questions if I do rent a scanner and need help!
-
Tony, that is a very strange problem with the attachment. Try modifying the security settings in your web browser. I doubt that it is a Word compatibility problem.
Anyway, here is the text of the Word file:
Nikon 5000 Questions
1. Can ICE and analog gain be used on the computer AFTER the scan? No
2. Can I set the resolution to a certain number of megapixels per picture or pixels per inch? Yes
Notes:
1. When installing SW, select sRGB as color scheme.
2. Turn on computer first, then scanner. Wait for green light to stay on continuously, then start scanner SW.
3. When you start the SW, you will see a main screen that says "Nikon Scan 4.0", and a gray screen that says "Nikon Super CoolScan 5000ED". In the gray screen, you will see 3 horizontal bars that are pull-down menus. Select the middle one and choose which type of slide you will be scanning (positive or Kodachrome). Select the bottom one and choose color or black and white.
4. Click on the Tools button and click on "Tool Palette 1". A new window will open.
5. In the Tool Palette window, click on Crop. Here you can specify the file size of your scan files. When you scan your first slide, click the Preview button on the gray screen. A preview of the slide will appear, with a white dashed box around it. Using the mouse, resize the box to enclose the area that you wish to scan.
6. Click on curves. The black and white circle to the right of the graph is an automatic contrast control. The gray triangle at the bottom of the graph is very useful for adjusting the appearance of the scanned image. After you have scanned a slide, grab this triangle with the mouse and move it around and see what effect it has.
7. If you want to eliminate dust and scratches, open the Digital Ice 4 menu, and enable Digital ICE.
8. I also enabled Scan Image Enhancer.
9. I used a bit depth of 8 bits. This determines how many colors can be resolved.
10. To scan a slide: wait until the green light on the scanner is on continuously, then insert the slide. Click on the Scan button. It will take a couple of minutes. A window will appear which shows you what the scanned image looks like. You can rotate the image using the CW and CCW arrows in the "Nikon Scan 4.0" toolbar. You can resize the image by typing Ctrl + or Ctrl - . You can change the appearance by adjusting the arrows in the Curves menu. You can also open the Color Balance menu and make adjustments there.
11. When you are satisfied with the image, click the floppy disk symbol to save it. I saved mine as jpeg, excellent quality.
12. To eject the slide, push the button under and to the right of the slide slot.
13. You can use the SW when the scanner is not connected, to edit image files. Select File, Open.
-
I have Office 2007 also but I can read it
-
Here's the results of an online poll
Question: Since going digital, do you still use a film camera?
No. 64%
Very rarely. 15%
Yes. 10%
I don't own a film camera anymore. 8%
I haven't gone digital yet. 3%
I use them both equally. 1%
-
This thread was started on 16th December 2007, to collate the photographic pages from elsewhere on the Forum.
The thirteen forgoing pages are the merged pages of all the pre-existing photographic subject threads, brought together in one place. Please use this area for techy talk on photographice questions/discussions.
Cheers,
Maggi
-
great idea Maggi
-
Thanks, Mark, can't claim the credit, it was Len Rhind's idea!
-
Question: Since going digital, do you still use a film camera?
No. 64%
Very rarely. 15%
Yes. 10%
I don't own a film camera anymore. 8%
I haven't gone digital yet. 3%
I use them both equally. 1%
Someones maths is out, 101% !
-
Not neccecary :) wrong 8) with 101%
It is not so strange with rounding it to full % this happens and are correct. :)
That is why it is easier with only 2 options to only get 100%. An even easier old Soviet version is to have only one choice. :-X ::) to be certain to get 100%.
Regarding camera batteries that also have been up earlier I have heard that the rechargeable batteries loose a bit of energy when stored so if one is using the camera seldom and also little when using it it might be better to have "normal" non rechargeable spare batteries.
Kind regards
Joakim
-
Maggi,
Thank you, that is really great to get them all together in one source of reference. Merry Christmas to you and Ian.
Len
-
I have a Canon S3 IS that has one of those rotating displays, so you can take a photo with the camera at ground level and still see the screen. It's also got macro and super macro modes without changing lenses, and 12x zoom. I almost always use it in Auto mode, but it has good manual capability also. It also takes nice videos. It has a shutter delay feature that opens the shutter a couple of seconds after you push the button. This helps to eliminate camera motion. I like it. I think it's called an S4 IS now.
Caution, the LCD displays on digital cameras don't like to get wet. It's easy to ruin them.
Rechargeable Nickel Metal Hydride batteries usually have a 3-4 week shelf life, and lose their storage capacity after a few years. Sanyo has developed a battery called the Eneloop which has the high energy of NiMH combined with a one-year shelf life. I highly recommend them. I never see them at retail stores; I bought them on Amazon.com.
-
Gene, are you happy with your Canon S3 IS? I have just purchased the S5 IS, and am impressed with the super macro so far and the video. I have found that the rechargeables are great if used regularly. It always helps to have a spare set of non-rechargeables if away. Last year I was in Prague and taking photos of a lovely garden. Batteries expired, so changed to my recently charged set of batteries which lasted only a short time. It was then pointed out that our hotel room had a card to turn on the lights, so when I left it with the battery charger plugged in, the power had turned off and consequently the batteries had not charged even though they had been in almost all day. Apart from that the batteries last much longer than those bought in a pack.
Susan
-
Susan, the S3 IS works fine for me.
If your batteries are running low, there are two things you can do to maximize battery life:
1. shut off the LCD display, and use the viewfinder only. The LCD display uses a lot of electrical current.
2. minimize lens adjustments. The lens is driven by an electric motor that takes a lot of current.
-
Gene, photgraphic half-wit here... what do you mean by "minimising lens adjustments" , please?
-
zooming in and out, silly! - I hope
-
Thanks for that. I knew that the LCD display used battery but had forgotten about the zoom.
Cheers,
Susan
-
Really? But that's a bit hard, isn't it? I mean, how can you adjust the picture if you don't zoom.... ??? ::)
-
You can still use it but don't keep your finger on the automatic zoom function as it can take a lot of battery power if it is zooming in and out. Using the manual focus function would probably not be as power consuming either.
Susan
-
Really? But that's a bit hard, isn't it? I mean, how can you adjust the picture if you don't zoom.... ??? ::)
KRYTEN: Now then, uh, my optical system doesn't appear to have a zoom
function.
LISTER: No, human eyes don't have a zoom.
KRYTEN: Well then, how do you bring a small object into sharp focus?
LISTER: Well, you just move your head closer to the object.
-
Ahem.. a bit like this eh?
Father Ted to Dougal....
Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These (pointing to plastic cows on table) are very small; those (pointing out of the window) are far away...
-
I do not have a digital SLR, yet. One of the things that bothers me about my digital pocket cameras is the amount of time it takes to store the image before it is ready to take another one. I would like to ask those DSLR owners that are also birders, if this has ever been a problem for them with the newest generation of cameras? (No offense to plant photographers, but plant subjects seldom require quick multiple shots.)
Thanks, Len
-
Len my pocket Canon Ixus 900Ti takes a photo in .3 second
Shutter Lag Comparison Table
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm (http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm)
-
My friend Annette Cutts uses a Canon 30D for her bird photography
http://www.psiloswildlifephotography.co.uk/ (http://www.psiloswildlifephotography.co.uk/)
-
Len the problem with compacts is the shutter delay which can be very irritating even with my Canon G7 which is supposed to be state of the art is still useless for quick shots of moving targets like my grandchildren. My Nikon D70 SLR has no shutter delay which you or I could measure except when recharging flash and will take 3.5 shots per second in continuos mode for several seconds before pausing to write the files
-
I do not have a digital SLR, yet. One of the things that bothers me about my digital pocket cameras is the amount of time it takes to store the image before it is ready to take another one. I would like to ask those DSLR owners that are also birders, if this has ever been a problem for them with the newest generation of cameras? (No offense to plant photographers, but plant subjects seldom require quick multiple shots.)
Thanks, Len
There are several factors even with the modern Digital SLR's that effect the speed you can take pictures, the shutter lag is the least of the problems. Issue number one is the camera's buffer (the camera stores information whilst it is writing to the card). The buffer is dependent on the image quality you are using, camera RAW being the best to shoot in (as long as you have the relevant software to deal with it). The nikon D200 for example has a buffer of 21 shots before it runs out, in reality I have tested the camera with a 2gb card which allows 109 shots in RAW mode, and not reached the end of the buffer (109 shots in a row without stopping at 4.5 frames per second). The second issue is the type of card you are using, sandisk are the best around, and within their range of cards there are different write speeds... you need to check the fastest speed the camera can write at and buy the card accordingly. Cost is obviously a big issue and the more you can spend the better the features, saying that the D200 is now available for around £600 (body only) it was £1200 two years ago.
PS. I am Caroles son, home for Christmas. I lecture in Photography at Blackpool and the Fylde College. :)
-
Greetings to you, Carole's son and, indeed to Carole! Great to have your input here.
And Merry Christmas, of course!
-
Carole's son is obviously doing a splendid job at Blackpool and the Fylde College. I Went to have a look at some of the student's work a little while ago and they were superb.
-
Perhaps Carole's son may be back home for the Easter break and might advise. Of course, other forum members might be in a position to advise also but I note that Carole's son uses a Nikon D200 as I do and might be in a better position to advise.
At present I use a Nikon 18 - 200mm lens but am considering purchasing another lens for micro work. Any suggestions?
Paddy
-
No question Paddy...for macro work with a Nikon, get the 105 Micro Nikkor 1:2.8. It's a great lens and allows enough working distance for comfort yet goes down to 1 to 1.
-
Perhaps Carole's son may be back home for the Easter break and might advise. Of course, other forum members might be in a position to advise also but I note that Carole's son uses a Nikon D200 as I do and might be in a better position to advise.
At present I use a Nikon 18 - 200mm lens but am considering purchasing another lens for micro work. Any suggestions?
Paddy
Your choice is really between Nikon VR 105 2.8 MACRO. The latest version has vibration reduction which is a great help in handheld shots and must be the premium lens for macro work. The average price is about £500.
The other two are the Sigma EX DG 105 2.8 and the Tamron SP SP Di 90 Macro. Both of these are about the £270 mark.
Remember that these lenses mounted on digital cameras have a focal length of 150mm for the 105mm and 135mm for the 90mm.
I have been using a Tamron 105mm for 11 years and I am perfectly happy with the results..
I think that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between pictures taken with any of these lenses. The Nikon offers more with vibration reduction but is almost twice the price !
As usual, it comes down to what you fancy and how much you are willing to pay.
-
Carlo and Tom,
Many thanks for your replies; great to have unbiased advice. As I said above I am presently using an 18 - 200mm Nikkor VR lens and this allows me, at full zoom, to work at about 30 cm from the subject but at full zoom camera shake can be a problem especially as I have shaky hands at the best of times(the drugs to that!). A lens with a 2.8 aperture would allow greater speeds and help alleviate this difficulty. Using a tripod in the garden is not always the easiest.
I'll look into prices of those you mentioned above. For preference I would choose the Nikon but it is good to have others for comparison purposes and as an alternative when cost considerations come into it.
Many thanks, Paddy
-
Paddy, why don't you see if there is a local photographic club in your area. I did and found the members eager to help and found one with the same make of camera (Nikon) to let me try his lenses before I took the plunge. I found the 50mm 1: 2.8 Macro Sigma was excellent quality at a fraction of the price.This is for close work down to 1:1 but I can see that a longer one would be useful for getting to flowers in the middle of a herbaceous border. I can't hold my camera steady anymore either but always use a tripod (Manfrotto with a BALL head for quick and easy changes in angle, with one hand and has a quick release to detach the camera) also the legs have 3 adjustments for changing the angle to get really low down. When you use it often it becomes much less of a chore. You mention f2.8 but don't forget at close quarters you have almost no depth of field. I have bought second hand off ebay several times and got lenses at a much less tearful price without any problems.
-
7dayshop.com stock the Sigma lens
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=1&type=1380&man=130&filterwords=Sigma+EX+DG+105+2.8&go=SEARCH&comp= (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=1&type=1380&man=130&filterwords=Sigma+EX+DG+105+2.8&go=SEARCH&comp=)
-
John,
I was returning to this topic to add a further query and find that you have touched on it already.
What is the difference between a 50mm and a 105mm AF Macro? The 50mm is certainly much cheaper, half the price approximately.
From your comments, John, it seems that the 50mm is fine for shots close up to the subject and that the 105mm allows one to take close-up shots of subjects a little distant. However, I already have an 18 - 200mm which would cover this. Is this correct?
John, I looked at the Manfrotto tridop you described - state of the art, indeed! I passed on it as I thought I wouldn't get the use out of it to justify the price and settled for one within my pocket's means. They are excellent but very expensive.
Mark, I'll follow up on your link now. Many thanks. By the way, any thoughts on the snowdrops I posted last evening.
Paddy
-
The basic difference between 50mm and 105mm is the distance from the lens to the subject to get the same size picture.
To get full 1:1 magnification (life size) of an individual saxifrage flower, the front of the lens needs to be about 4" to 6" away. With digital sensors giving 1.5 magnification this is effectively 6"/9". This is often too close to manage without putting your subject in the shade of your equipment. A larger focal length allows you to move further back for the same size picture. The shorter focal lenghts are probably better suited to indoor set-ups such as stamps, coins etc. I have a Nikon 60mm. macro lens which I have used in photographing orchids in Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus. After struggling with this set-up I tried my Tamron 90mm SP with much more success as I could move further back from the subject, and it took me about a quarter of the time to take the pictures. I did not see any difference in quality between the two lenses.
-
To Carole's son
I went to the same Photo school in Blackpool (at least I think it's the same one) in the late 60s. It was an excellent school (not connected to an art college) which gave a good grounding in photography esp technical photography, rather than arty stuff. I would be interested to hear how it has changed - no digital in my days there, of course.
-
Tom,
Many thanks for such a clear and precise explanation as well as the practical implications. I have a far better undersanding now of what I need and of what is available.
Paddy
-
Here's a fantastic bargain or all those thinking of upgrading from very basic point and shoots. 7 Day Shop have the latest 12 mega pixel Canon with swivel screen and x6 zoom for £126 less than RRP. If you order before the end of the month there is a further £50 off as cash back
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=102911&r=20080319 (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=102911&r=20080319)
-
Paddy,
I am presently using two lenses with my Nikon D300 an 18-200 VR lens which I presume is the same as yours and a 60 mm Nikon micro for close up work. I am very satisfied with the 18-200 VR, the zoom facility is very handy for framing shots and you can take photos on the fly without having to stop and fiddle around with a fixed focal length and tripods. I use the 60mm micro for close up shots of small alpine flowers - It means you have to get down on your hands and kneees and grovel about in bogs etc
In honour of the year of the potato and my Irish antecedents here is a hand -held photo taken with the 18-200 zoom
and Phyllachne rubra taken with the 60 mm micro and tripod, so my suggestion would be to continue using your existing 18-200mm zoom for most things - it is really pretty good and get a 60 mm micro for closeup work. It is considerably cheaper than the 105 micro and offers the same 1:1 magnification.
-
Just to add my experience with macro lenses. The close-pictures of the hepaticas on the last Wisley Log were taken with the Sigma EX DG 105 2.8 (mounted on my new Olympus E3), which Tom mentioned previously. The results speak for themselves, it produces fantastic images. Because of the long focal length you can take close-ups from quite a long working distance from the subject.
It is however a large lens which adds to the weight of your camera and if you want to take pictures at f22 to get the best depth of field you really do need a tripod. I also still use my old olympus 50mm macro, which is considerably smaller and lighter and still gives a reasonable working distance from the subject. I would consider a smaller focal length lens like the 50mm a better bet for "everyday" general macro shots. But if you have the time to spend on getting the very best shots and want a good working distance then the longer focal lengths are a good choice. I can certainly recommend the Sigma without hesitation.
Paul
-
I use an olympus 35mm Zuiko macro lens on my E330 - it is not big and very light and I get great results and not that expensive at around £130.
35mm in digital is equivalent to a 70mm in old camera terms.
It is the lens I am using most around the garden as it works for most shots.
Paul when you say you are using your old 50mm macro lens have you an adapter to convert it to your E3?
-
Paddy
Remember that you have a Nikon D200 and that your sensor gives you a 1.5 increase on any focal length you put on this camera.
Your 18-200 is effectively a 27-300 used with a digital camera. If you had an Olympus then a 105mm macro would be a 210mm lens as their sensors have a 2.0 increase in focal length. Pauls 50mm on his camera gives the equivalent of 100mm, whereas a 50mm on the Nikon gives 75mm.
Confused?? I find that for general garden work, my standard 28-70 is fine. If I need to get closer then I stick an extension tube on the lens to enable me to focus a little bit closer. When you get into really close up work outdoors then your problems start. To get depth of field close up, then you are talking about f22 to f64 which then means a shutter speed of about a second with 100 ISO equivalent. You have the option of increasing the ISO to enable a faster shutter speed, but this can decrease the quality by introducing " noise" - the equivalent of grain in film sense. I imagine that where you live, as here in Ayrshire, a flat calm day is a rarity, so the plant starts shaking and you have to wait for suitable moment which can sometimes be a while ! Another problem I found that with a 50mm macro, the lens was so close to the subject that the tripod legs appeared in the shot. With the larger focal lengths, this was less of a problem.
I have mainly Sigma lenses and the quality is good enough for my purpose. Unless you have bottomless pockets you buy the best that suits you within your price range.
-
Hi Ian,
Yes I have an Olympus adapter that lets you fit any of the old olympus mount lenses onto the fourthirds system cameras. The adapter was expensive but it means for example you can buy any of the old olympus lenses - often quite cheap on ebay and the like - and use them on the digital, so overall you can save money over buying new dedicated lenses. The older lenses don't have autofocus, but otherwise it's great to be able to use them.
Paul
-
Question?
I have a an old Cannon A-1 which has a 50mm lens, the original that came with the camera. I also have a Soligor zoom macro 28-80mm and a 80-200 Super Paragon auto tele- zoom, that fitted the Cannon. will these Lenses fit a new Cannon digital SLR ?
Which one would you recommend as an upgrade from my Fuji Finepix S602z for plant photography. I intend to upgrade in the summer.
-
As far as I know, Canon changed their lens mount when they went onto autofocus lenses, I'm afraid that you are stuck with your old system as nothing would be compatible with any of their digital or autofocus film models
-
On the raido today there was a gadget expert talking about cameras. He said stick with Nikon and Canon for best overall cameras. He mentioned the following as great cameras
Fuji Z100
Sony T200
Canon 450D
Nikon D40
...... as I was out delivering I missed the whole interview. He did say these days there is no need to go above 8 megapixels unless you are into advertising or photography as a job
-
...... as I was out delivering I missed the whole interview. He did say these days there is no need to go above 8 megapixels unless you are into advertising or photography as a job
I disagree. I say get the best quality you can afford, the highest number of megapixels you possibly can. You cannot always get as close to your subject as you would like and the better the resolution the more you can enlarge the special area without losing too much quality and the image pixilating.
-
Mega pixels does not necessarily mean better quality but I agree to get the best you can afford. An 8 mega pixel camera with a decent lens on the front will out perform a 10 mega pixel camera with standard lens. There are mobile phones with 5 mega pixel cameras which would not come close to the quality of my old powershot 2.1 mega pixel canon, this is mainly down to the thing they call a lens on the mobile phone. My cousin is a photographer for the tabloids and he uses the same camera as me and will not consider upgrading his canon 20d as there is no need but bear in mind the price of some of his lenses (£2000+). Its the same with television cameras (film and digital) the lenses used on the front can be twice the price of the actual camera.
I've got a small compact 10 mega pixel canon 900ti which is a fantastic camera that I bought for holidays when out at night as it fits in my pocket. It does not come close in quality to my canon 20d.
Most people out there are taking photo's and letting the camera do the conversion to jpeg for them. For better quality on an SLR you should use RAW and use a decent program like photoshop to do the final conversion for you. You are loosing more detail by using the camera computer's software than the difference between using a 10meg or 8meg camera. Canon and Nikon etc make fantastic camera's but the software they use can be a big let down at times. Someone who knows what they are doing with a 6 mega pixel Nikon, a good lens, shooting in RAW format will out perform someone taking pictures in jpeg on a 10 mega pixel camera everytime.
I only recently bought my canon 20d secondhand (8 meg). I had the choice with my budget of this camera with a few extras or a new canon 400D (10 meg). The main reason I went for the 20d was build quality as it was made for pro/semi pro market and is far more robust than the camera's aimed at the home consumer market. I think the 400D is a great camera and I'm not knocking it but the materials that it's made of don't match the semi pro camera's.
-
7 day shop have a great offer on memory sticks. 4GB for only £7.89. Just right for backing up photos. My photo folders over four years are 27GB
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=101824 (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=101824)
-
Tom, Carlo, David, Paul,
Many thanks for your advice re macro lens selection. I have pondered and compared prices and have ordered the Nikon 105mm VR from a company in London, Purely Gadgets which was the one with the best price. As I ordered on Friday last delivery should be during this week and I shall be shooting merrily away with it very soon. Looking forward to it.
Paddy
-
Paddy,
A good choice. I am looking forward to seeing the results.
-
David,
Hopefully I will get into the hang of the new lens quickly and produce acceptable results - we'll see! It's an area of photography which appeals to me and I also have a project in the planning stages and photographs will be needed and, as the saying goes, if you want a job done well, do it yourself!
Dave,
Your comments on lens quality being more important than the extra megapixel of quality are very true. Likewise your comments on shooting in RAW. However, most people here, I imagine, are simply taking 'snaps' of their plants and the results produced by allowing the camera to do the conversion to JPEG are sufficient for that purpose. I suppose if one wished to do a 'plant study' it would be worth while taking the extra time doing the conversion in Photoshop or some such programme. For everyday snaps it hardly merits the time needed.
Paddy
-
Hi Paddy
I use Jpeg myself most of the time when I'm using point and shoot and use RAW on a few occasions when in different camera modes like aperture priority etc. The main point I was trying to make was that the more mega pixels does not defiantly make a better camera and buying a camera just because it has more pixels is wrong. Yes buy the best you can afford but that does not mean it has to be the one with the most Mega Pixels. Look at some of the crap that's sold on EBay under names I've never heard of with super mega pixels of 12mp + etc. They would probably not be any better than a 5 meg Nokia phone.
I bought my Canon 20d on EBay which looks like its never been used. Came with 3 batteries, boxed and still had two months International warranty. I paid £265 for it and I'm chuffed to bits with the camera and the price I paid. My mates a little p****d off as he paid over a grand not that long ago for the same kit ;D I've used television camera's in the past but still photography is new to me. I acquired photoshop CS2 which easily deals with RAW when you open the file. The main feature I like (one of many) is the ability to change the white balance. Cropping, sizing, cloning etc is easy but the rest of the program is way above me at the moment and I think a course would be needed to understand it fully. I'll keep on using different things and hopefully take a decent picture in the end :)
-
Was that body only Dave?
-
Yes, Dave,
I got your point exactly and agree totally. I simply added that most people don't go to the bother of shooting in RAW and converting in Photoshop for most of their ordinary photographs just for the more important ones.
Great bargain on your camera by the way. By any chance did you find a good price for Photoshop CS2 as well. It's good but very expensive.
Paddy
-
Unfortunatle I have Nikon lenses and flash so if I upgrade my D70 it would have to be another Nikon. :-\
-
Hi,
The camera came with the standard 18-55 lens. I'm going to get to know the camera first before spending the money I saved getting it cheap on a decent lens.
Dave
-
I shoot RAW all the time. How are you to know in advance which photos will be important? I've always got the option to convert a copy to JPG later...and I don't lose any of the information that I would if I only shot JPG.
-
Theres nothing unfortunate about having to use Nikon. They were late coming in to the digital camera market to start off with but have certainly made up for it now. I was torn between Nikon and Canon and only opted for the Canon because I've had several before and never a single problem (touching wood as I type).
Carlo
I agree. What I meant was - this is a new camera and I'm getting to know it and therefore just shoot away at lots of unimportant stuff that I will never keep and use jpeg for quickness.
-
...and by the way, the current version of Photoshop is CS3....CS2 is old news...
-
Hi, Yes I know but CS2 is expensive enough and does enough without the need for an upgrade. I could probably get away with photoshop 7 if it had all the RAW compatability for what I need.
-
I agree with Dave on Nikon. I've used them (film then film AND digital) for decades. I"m shooting the the DX2 now and love it--still experimenting....
The hardest part for me has been buckling down and establishing a workflow to get everything into a process/methodology. I'm studying the programs I'll be using and taking my time...BUT spring is busting out all over and I should be shooting every day....
-
Carlo, you have not got that problem on your own.
I have been using a program called Capture NX that came with my Nikon D300. It is very easy to adjust RAW images and convert to JPEG etc. I have Photoshop but I find it cumbersome and difficult to use. It more or less offers you a second chance to take a photo if you have mucked it up in the field.
-
Nikon D300 still nearly ₤1000 just for the body so I'll have to start saving. The D2x I can only dream about. :(
-
Carlo,
You wonder why I would not shoot in RAW all the time. I suppose it is because I find the transferring to Jpeg cumbersome and too much bother for what I consider simply snaps. When I go to take photographs with a particular end in mind and when they are photographs I will wish to keep for a particular purpose, then I use RAW.
David,
I haven't used the Nikon software at all, didn't even install it, using Photoshop 7 for editing. I must have a look at it now that you have praised it so much.
Anthony,
With the introduction of the Nikon D300, the D200 has dropped in price and is also a wonderful camera. Particularly it is a very comfortable camera in the hand, very strongly built aluminium casing. When buying I compared it with Canon cameras of a similar standard and it was the feel in the hand which made me pick the Nikon. I found the Canon models a little too small for my chubby digits. It lacks the sensor clearer of the D300 which I think was the main improvement they were after. There may be other developments also but I am not au fait with them.
Paddy
-
Actually, with the D3 out you may be able to find a more attractive deal on a D2x. These camera manufacturers sure have us going!
-
I think, as Ian Young said many moons ago, the sensor cleaner is a plus point. I have a bit of dirt on the sensor on my D70, as you may see in some of my pics. I know the D80 has this, but I want to move up to the D300 eventually? The D2x is a huge camera and also twice the price at ₤2000. Does it have the sensor cleaner?
-
Anthony,
I think with the D2x you are into a truly higher realm of specifications, top-of-the-range camera really, professional standard, but well outside my pocket and requirements. Even the D200 is really better than my photographic skills but I had saved hard and decided that I would buy a camera which left plenty of room for me to learn and do more than I would with what I might call a more ordinary model. To date, I am delighted with it though I know I haven't explored the full range of its facilities.
The D300 would certainly be an excellent choice as it builds on and improves on the D200. Save your pennies!
Paddy
-
Paddy,
The same can be said of the DX2, which I bought from a friend because the price was nearly the same as a new D200 (at the time). I love the beast and wouldn't hesitate to look at the D3 or D300 for my next camera body. Both of the newer models have self-cleaning sensors (although I haven't any idea how good a job they do on their own) and the D3 has a full frame sensor--the first Nikon digital to do so.
-
Can anyone tell me if the sensor cleaners work or are they just a gimmick? They shake the dust away - where does it go? As far as I can tell theres no trap door underneath the body to eject the dust :), so does it come back again and again and again so you keep shaking the same dust all the time? Eventually having to clean it properly.
I've never had a camera with one on say I'll hold judgement until the day I do but would be interested to hear others views on this.
Dave
PS A mate of mine has the Canon 1Ds and it would never work on his camera if it had it. I cringe when I see it caked in dust with fingermarks all over the IS lenses. He paid about 10k for the complete kit years ago. One of these people that has to have the best (which it was at the time). He still takes crap pictures. Hopefully he will need to upgrade soon and sell it to me cheap, I'll try and persuade him to go for a Nikon so he won't keep the lenses ;D.
-
I've got cleaning equipment for my sensor (though I haven't done it yet!) and I suspect that I'd hand-clean--very carefully, anyway. I too am interested in what people have to say about the automatic systems...
-
I have a sensor cleaning brush called the Arctic Butterfly which is obtainable from Speed Graphic. This I have used a couple of times on my D200 and I have yet to notice any dust spots on my pictures although I was plagued with this with my D70.
As far as I am aware, the D300 has a small sticky pad directly beneath the sensor which captures the dust shaken off during the cleaning process
An excellent site for all aspects of digital photography is - shortcourses.com/index.html
-
Tom,
Good site.
Have you purchased any of the books? If so, how did you find them?
Paddy
-
Tom,
Good site.
Have you purchased any of the books? If so, how did you find them?
Paddy
No, as a rule I do not buy photographic books. I hunt for web sites when I need information on specific points or for unbiased reports on cameras and lenses when used in the field. However, the contents of the camera manuals look impressive, but unless you can actually look at the book it's difficult to know how useful it would be. It would certainly be better than the guide books supplied with Nikon cameras !
I do subscribe to Outdoor Photography magazine which I find more akin to my interests and is also full of pretty pictures - so much so that my wife grabs it when it comes by the post. I have to wait until she has had a look at it.
-
I notice WareHouse Express do deferred payment for 9 months at the cash price. ;D
-
Re the Nikon lens, of which I wrote earlier, I ordered this lens from Purely Gadgets (PurelyGadgets.co.uk) on Friday last. As it hasn't arrived yet I sent an e-mail to enquire about the delay and was told that my order "is expected to be shipped out very soon". This is despite their website claim that orders will normally be delivered within 5 days and frequently ever faster.
Am I disappointed? You bet I am.
Anybody have any experience of dealing with this company?
Paddy
-
Not used Purely Gadgets, but they obviously don't have it in stock. I bought from Parkway and received it the next day.
BTW which is the most useful filter to protect a lens?
-
Anthony,
I ordered a clear "filter" with this lens. It is on no photographic significance, just simply to protect the lens front.
Paddy
-
Canon batteries I bought off Ebay recently arrived the next day before I had the cheque written!
-
Several of my lenses have UV/Haze filters which are basically clear and don't affect color, etc. There is almost continuous debate among photographers over whether this is a good practice or not. (Any piece of glass between the subject and the camera affecting image quality, vs. protecting lenses...)
-
Something has been puzzling me since I started using my wife's laptop and Windows Vista. How does the computer know which way I held my camera to take a pic? I no longer have to rotate pics. ??? :)
-
Anthony,vista knows everything,I told you it was different.
-
Actually the meta data that your camera records with each photograph includes the orientation at which you are taking the picture. It is instructing the photo program (photoshop?) you're using whether a horizontal or vertical orientation is the expected outcome. Vista doesn't know squat...
-
;D
-
Vista 64 bit knows less than squat. After using it for 6 months, I am now installing XP Pro. alongside it. I will then have the option of using current hardware which Vista 64 cannot operate. This means that I can, at last, use a scanner to digitize -( have I made up this word ? ) - part of my collection of 64,000 slides and probably as many negatives. I will lose 4 Gb. of RAM but I still will have more than enough to work with.
-
Well that's me telt. ::) I've never used Photoshop and just use the default programme. Maybe when I retire?
-
I will then have the option of using current hardware which Vista 64 cannot operate. This means that I can, at last, use a scanner to digitize
How about Vuescan (http://www.hamrick.com/) for scanning on Vista...
-
Its the drivers that don't exist for Vista 64 bit and Nikon have said that they do not plan to make them.
-
Re Nikon 105mm AF macro lens.
Back some while ago I sought advice on the forum regarding a macro lens. Many thanks to the many people who gave such clear cut and valuable advice. I have since, after some difficulties, purchased the lens and am delighted with it.
Originally I sought to purchase from a UK company called Purely Gadgets. Here in Ireland we might describe this company as a shower of wasters. They really gave me the run around. They hadn't a lens in stock yet took my money and it took quite a while to get this clarified and refund sorted.
I then dealt with a company called Walkers and they took the order and delivered within a few days. Excellent, no frills, no trouble service.
The lens is excellent and I am making great use of it though haven't the time at present to get out and take as many photographs as I would like - too busy at work.
Many thanks for all the help.
Paddy
-
Must investigate this lens. It seems to get better reviews than its replacement, the 105mm VR?
-
Anthony,
It is the VR version that I have purchased and I am very happy with it.
Paddy
-
Glad you're liking it Paddy. The more you use it, the warmer those feelings will be!
-
I have just bought a Cannon EOS 450D which came with a 18-55mm Zoom lens as standard, I also bought a EF100mm f/2.8 Macro zoom lens for plant photography which cost as much as the camera. Have I made a wise choice.? I can change it within 7 days if I want.
-
Michael
Janis Ruksans travelled in Iran with me this year. He had exactly the camera and macro lens you have and he was delighted with the results he obtained.
I had agonised over whether to buy the EOS 450D but in the end bought the EOS 400D.
The only potential concern is the 450D is heavier. But if you are not planning to climb mountains to photograph plants, this should not be a problem.
-
Thanks Arthur, if it is good enough for Janis Ruksans,it is good enough for me.
cheers.
-
Hi all, I'm now looking at buying another lens for my canon 20D having only used the standard kit lens so far (18-50mm). Not sure what to buy and could do with help and advice. I've been thinking alone the lines of either a fixed 50mm f2.5 canon macro, the 100mm f2.8 Canon macro or going for something with a zoom like the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG macro which my give me more use for other shots as well. i did consider the Canon 60mm 2.8 EFS macro which is meant to be a fantastic lens but of no use if I upgrade later to a full frame camera like the 5D when the new model comes out and the second hand price drops.
Any suggestions and example photo's greatly appreciated before spending my money.
Dave
-
If you're doing any photography IN the garden (as opposed to OF the garden), a macro will be indispensable. The difference between the 50 and 100mm will reveal itself in the "working distance", that is, you'll have to be closer to your subject with the shorter lens. This generally isn't too big a problem with flowers and plants, but may create problems with butterflies and little critters. The most important thing is that if be a 1:1 lens--that it goes to life-sized.
The other option is to add diopters or extension tubes to your other lenses to allow them to close-focus. After all, the only real distinction of a macro is that it close-focuses on its own. The trade-off is that adding ANY piece of glass between you and your subject will result in a slight degradation of the image (think of a view through a window and the same scene with the naked eye).
Either way expanding the way you're thinking about your photography is a great thing to do--and a major step in your art. (It is also wise to think about what you'll do down the road. A lens is an investment...)
-
Hi Carlo, would you say there is much difference in the quality of a zoom macro f2.8 (24-70mm) as apposed to a fixed 70mm/90mm/100mm f2.8 macro? The 'zoom' would allow more flexibility in certain circumstances. I'd love an 'L' Canon lens but they are way above my budget unfortunately. I'd rather not get extension tubes or diopters as I need to buy another lens anyway and might as well by something fit for the purpose intended.
Dave
-
Zoom lenses are going to have more glass (hence are also heavier)...and are less likely to go to 1:1. If you need the additional functionality presented by the focal length range, then consider it an option. My preference would be to have a fixed length.
I shoot with a Nikon D2X and have a 12-24, 18-200, 80-400 and 105 macro. These lenses cover nearly every situation except for really long-length telephoto work (e.g. birds, etc.). As you can see, a zoom macro--I have a hard time even visualizing that concept--would unnecessarily duplicate part of the range...
-
Dave,
I asked a very similar question some time back on this thread and on the advice of contributors, Carlo being one, I opted for the 105mm macro lens.
It is an excellent lens but did take me a little while to get used to. Like yourself, I had become very used to a zoom lens, using one on every other occasion besides macro shots.
I found focus with the 105mm macro was razor sharp but demanded great care in taking shots. A tripod is almost essential for good results, depth of field especially.
It's good, expensive, a little big and heavy maybe, but an outstanding lens.
Paddy
-
Hi Paddy, think my mind is just about made up now. Going to get the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro. Found an interesting article on the subject, short but hits the points spot on.
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/lens/best-macro-lens.shtml
-
Dave,
I've spent a while going through the site you listed above. It is excellent. Of course, I think it especially excellent that it says I choose the correct lens - good advice from forum members. Always worth asking a question!
Several articles on the site bring out, far better than I expressed it, just how fine a lens the Nikon 105mm really is. An outstanding lens that gives best results when used well. I suppose it is not one of the general purpose lens which serve all situations to a degree but maybe none to a standard we might regard as excellent.
I have no doubt you will enjoy your choice of lens.
Paddy
-
I found the section on metering modes especially interesting as I've lost count the amount of times I've had over exposed images and this could well be the reason why when I use plain background. Tomorrow is another day and I can't wait to try out a few different settings. I did try and join a city and guilds photography night class starting in September but left it too late and all places were taken. Will have to wait until January now.
Dave
-
OK I opted for the EFS 60mm macro in the end. It's got great reviews and price was the deciding factor as I got a nearly new one for £175.00. Very please with the results so far but focusing very close is going to take practice as a few times today I've switched over to manual to solve a hunting problem. I also changed the focusing from 9point to centre point as well to make it easier.
Next question. I've noticed there is now a nice collection of dust on my 20D sensor. Tested it at f22 with a white background and its not to healthy. Has anyone cleaned their own sensor and if yes, how difficult is it to do properly. I'm quite technically minded but would rather pay a camera shop than cock it up. Your thought please......
Dave
-
Dave,
I NEVER use auto-focus with my macro. Photographs up close--or even in the garden with busy backgrounds--are just to full of interest items of contrast. The camera doesn't know where to focus. For those who don't know what I mean, switch back and forth a few times on a macro photo. Eight or nine times out of ten, auto-focus will zip in and out burning up battery trying to figure out what to focus on. Using manual makes it that much more certain that you'll get an acceptable image. If you're not blurring the background significantly in your garden shots, the same thing will happen.
Since I seldom place my subject dead-center in the frame, center-weighted automatic focusing is of little use. If you elect to stay with AF, I'd reconsider 9-point or one of the other focusing options.
-
Hi Carlo
Do you clean your sensor yourself or get it done by a service centre?
Dave
-
I like my D300. With the auto focus on single spot mode I can move the focal point about so as it isn't in the centre of the picture. It certainly doesn't focus in and out like my D70. Haven't had the camera long enough to try out the automatic sensor cleaner.
-
Just been speaking to the pal who took me to Trinidad last year. He has just bought a D3 and has done a bit of research on lenses. He says the DX lenses do not do the camera justice so he intends to get something that will. I await with interest to see what he does end up with! :o
-
Michael, Heather Smith and Liam McCaughy both have this camera and as far as I know they really like it.
Where did you get yours? High Street or 'tinternet
-
oooooh, careful...
We're in danger of confusing the D300 and the D3. Both are top notch cameras from Nikon, but they are different animals all-together. I'm not totally certain, but I think the reason for the dissatisfaction with DX lenses on the D3 is this: the D3 is Nikon's first high-end (and it's the top of the entire line) FULL-FRAME digital SLR. DX lenses were made especially for the rest of the DSLR line (including the D300, and my D2X) which have a 1.4 conversion factor since the sensors are LESS than full frame. I have heard rumblings that whatever they did to the DX lenses to optimize them for the 1.4 conversion, makes them not as nice for the full frame camera.
I'd be interested in learning more about the specific reasons your friend expressed his opinion. It could make a big difference when I decide to pick up a second camera body...
-
Carlo I have a D300 and you are right the problem with DX lenses is that they are made for cameras that do not have full frame 35mm equivalent. The upshot is that although the D3 can use DX lenses that fringing would occur at the edges of the frame. I understand that the D3 is able to recognise DX lenses and takes a smaller frame the same as the D300 80 etcand gives the same no. of pixels when it is scaled down which kind of defeats the object . I looked at the D3 but at £3000 for the body well its a bit more than I need and want to spend. Though because Canon has full frames on it 1D and 5D its probably only a matter of time before they are all full frame so I would be careful about buying any more DX lenses
-
I like my D300. . . . . . . . . . Haven't had the camera long enough to try out the automatic sensor cleaner.
The 'Sensor cleaning' function does not, unfortunately, clean the sensor- it merely flips up the mirror to allow access for YOU to clean the sensor. Have fun!!
-
That would surprise me Heather. Many cameras have had mirror-lockup for years. A sensor-cleaning function would HAVE to do more. I don't have it on my camera, but I understand that it does dislodge a large percentage of the dust that accumulates.
I confess that I have not had the occasion to clean my own sensor. There are various cleaning "pens" and systems. Research on the web will turn up a number of sensor cleaning lessons...
-
I have had to clean the sensor on my D200. It was necesary to go through the menus and lock up the mirror in that way and then I used a pressurised air canister to clear the sensor. It worked perfectly.
One word of warning for anyone considering using these pressurised air canisters - the first spray from the nozzle will have some moisture droplets and so it is best to begin to spray away from the body and then bring the spray into the body. Fortunately, I didn't fall into this mistake myself as I had read instructions on an internet site which pointed out this danger.
The D200 does not have a sensor clearer. The D300 does. The sensor cleaner works by vibrating the sensor and dislodging the dust, I believe.
I agree with Carlo's comments on using manual focus with the macro lens. It certainly gives more consistent results.
Ian, the D3! Something to dream about for a while. As a friend who enthusiastically collects snowdrops said last spring when offered a very generous selection and refused some, "If I take them all now, I won't have anything to look forward to next year."
Paddy
-
I like my D300. . . . . . . . . . Haven't had the camera long enough to try out the automatic sensor cleaner.
The 'Sensor cleaning' function does not, unfortunately, clean the sensor- it merely flips up the mirror to allow access for YOU to clean the sensor. Have fun!!
That's not what the instructions say. My D70 flipped up it mirror for cleaning. The D300 vibrates the sensor cover supposedly shaking the dust off.
-
Anthony,
I have gone down the same route as you, upgrading from a D70 to D300 this year. I have always made a point of cleaning the sensor with compressed air when I've returned from a trip to prevent dust spots, and if you are careful to follow Paddy's advice it does not cause any problems.
The sensor shake feature has to be activated from the menu on the D300, and is well worth doing. It's supposed to use up some battery power but so far doesn't seem significant. It's difficult to take compressed air caninsters away on trip due to modern hold baggage restrictions when you are flying, and over the summer I found that some pictures were starting to show dust spots when I had only been away for two or three days. I turned on the automatic cleaner which vibrates the sensor every time you power up the camera and it solved the problem instantly - I'll not be turning it off.
The vibrating sensor shakes the dust particles on to an adhesive strip, so the camera will need to be serviced after some time to clean this up if nothing else, and given the complexity of cameras these days, that's probably not a bad thing to have done anyway.
Peter
-
I have spent most of today on the seacliffs at Yesnaby, Orkney. The scenery is magnificent and with a strong tide running the sea effects, aweinspiring. Of course, I had the camera out all of the time but I am aware that that the onshore wind was covering me, the camera and the car in a salt mist.
I always keep a UV filter over the lens of the camera and washed that as soon as we got back to the guest house we are staying in. Does anyone have any advice on cleaning the rest of the camera (Fuji Finepix S5700, an SLR type camera), or, does it need it? The filter certainly needed washing!
-
David, as you know I have the same model but I wouldn't describe it as an 'SLR type camera'. Apart from a little blower for the lens which I use every now and then, I use spectacle cleaner for the screen and the view finder and sometimes wipe the body over with a barely damp lint free cloth. I haven't found it needs more than that.
Good picture by the way.
-
Does anyone subscribe to 7dayshop.com newsletters? They have some great offers such as
8GB memory stick for £11
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=104559 (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=104559)
8GB CF memory card for £16
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=104068 (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=104068)
'Memory Stick card reader £3
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=101209 (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=101209)
-
David (Shaw).. what a lovely way to spend your birthday!
You weren't dangling Carol off those cliffs to get a better photo were you?! ::)
Weather looks remarkably good for your hols 8)
-
Maggie. not dangling but I did try persuading Carol to walk out on a particulary spectactuar promentary for a pic: I can't realy blame her for refusing - I wouldn't have gone either.
Still doesn't help to decide whether or not to take the salty camera into the bath or not!
-
Mark
I advise all my friends to look at www.7dayshop.com for photographic and computer supplies. Goods are all VAT free and always cheaper than elsewhere.
-
A correction to the last entry. Goods are only VAT free up to an individual value of £18 per item. If you order several items up to this value, they are despatched separately to take advantage of the small purchases concession. If the value on an item exceeds £18, then UK VAT will be levied. I have used this company since they started trading and have found them totally reliable.
-
My desktop, about 3 years old, is starting to run very slow when I'm editing photos. Normally I can edit a photo very quickly but it now takes 1 minute per full size image to crop, resize and resave. Any ideas how I can get the computer to run faster?
-
Without new hardware (or a new computer---three years is about life expectancy for a machine if you want to stay anywhere close to state of the art), I'd start by defragging the hard drive, cleaning off old files, storing what you don't need close at hand (especially the thousands of photos we take) on external hard drives, dumping your temporary files, cleaning out caches, etc. Almost all of this can be done from your "system tools" or whatever your brand of computing calls it.
-
Hi Mark, the only real way I've ever come across is to back everything up including your favourites and e-mail and get someone to format and re-install windows for you. It's a pain having to install all your other software but better than waiting all day for you computer to get a move on. I normally do this one a year but I had a manufacturers back up disk that sets everything back to how they supplied the system from the factory.
That was until about four weeks ago when it went bang and I now have a nice new PC. Went to my local PC shop and just bought the tower as I've got the monitor, mouse etc. Was surprised at the cost, only £175.00 for a machine that is twice the spec of my old one. Would have cost £60.00 more for windows but they could use the licence I had from the machine that went bang. Would have cost more to repair my old one. I asked while I was there how much they charge for re-installing windows and it was £38.50 which I thought was pretty good.
David
-
Well .. the PC is running out of memory very fast.
The hard drive is very small compared to what comes as standard these days. It's only 72GB of which only 8% is free.
My external hard drive, where I store my photos, is also very small compared to what is available now. It's 77GB and has only 10% free
My memory is only 1GB.
I've been looking at external and internal hard drives on Amazon. Does anyone know if it matters where the hard drive is?
-
Mark,
I'm having a problem with my internal hard drive. When I checked it via HDD Health.com it said it was very close to the end end of its life.
My computer is 6 years old and it would appear it is not possible to upgrade it easily. I have a 500G external hard drive for my genealogy so that is OK but the internal HDD drives everything else.
If you Google The Guardian & Technology & Ask Jack there are two requests for a similar problem.
It will depend on the age of your computer. External HDD are practically plug &
play and just depends on the depth of your pocket. I purchased a Freecom from Amazon.
Regards
Dorry
-
Dorry I'll look up the info later, thanks. Welcome to the forum!
Does anyone know if simply adding an extra 3GB of memory, very cheap from 7dayshop, will speed my computer?
-
Welcome, Dorry! As someone who has recently had sick pc problems, I sympathise with your dying machine..... :'(
-
Mark
A computer hard drive needs about 25% free space to run the operating system efficiently. From what you say, you are well in excess of this. You could replace the hard drive with a large capacity model , or, even better, if you have room in your casing for another hard drive, you could add 500 Gb. and this would solve the immediate problem of storage space. However, the operating life of a hard drive is about three years before failure. You are fast approaching this figure. Extra RAM will make a computer run more efficiently but not much faster. Your processor is what dictates the speed. A three year old motherboard may also be getting a bit creaky. Basically, you could be throwing good money after bad.
An external hard drive could be used to store all your pictures from your current hard drive leaving it with more space to operate windows. If you decide to update to a new computer, then the external hard drive can be plugged in to this and away you go.. Check out PC World for external drives. Aldi and Lidls are very competative for these items and have good spec. computers at bargain prices.
-
Question. Is it safe to put a digital camera through the x-ray machines at airports? Are all the machines up to standard now?. If I remember correctly I was told not to put my film camera through some of the machines,I think it was in Yugoslavia.
-
Question. Is it safe to put a digital camera through the x-ray machines at airports? Are all the machines up to standard now?. If I remember correctly I was told not to put my film camera through some of the machines,I think it was in Yugoslavia.
Mine has been through a number of times Michael without any problem. I may be wrong but I think x-ray machines used to have an effect on the film rather than on the camera.
-
It's O.K. to put digital cameras through x-ray machines. With film cameras and high speed film ( 800 ISO and upwards ), there was a danger of fogging.
On my round-the-world trip 4 years ago my digital and film cameras went through the x-ray machines 10 times and the digital and slide pictures were fine
-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Macro-Photography-Gardeners-Nature-Lovers/dp/0881928909/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225824110&sr=1-10 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Macro-Photography-Gardeners-Nature-Lovers/dp/0881928909/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225824110&sr=1-10)
Product Description
Gardeners and nature lovers delight in taking pictures - especially close-ups of flowers, butterflies, and insects. And though advances in digital camera technology have made taking, storing, and sharing photos easier than ever, taking top-quality pictures requires familiarity with both digital technology and the general principles of photography. "Macro Photography for Gardeners and Nature Lovers" provides exactly the information that aspiring photographers - no matter their level of skill - need to take their photos to the next level. Clear and concise chapters cover the basics of macro (close-up) photography, explain the features of current digital single-lens reflex cameras, show the many ways images can be composed, and share tips on digital effects, storage, and manipulation of imagery.Throughout the text, helpful tips, definitions, exercises, and case studies serve to demystify digital photography. Each lesson is supported by examples of the author's stunning photography. Whether taking photos of flowers and insects, compiling a photographic record of your garden, or simply sharing beautiful images with friends and family, everyone can become accomplished photographers of the world's small-scale wonders.
-
Timber Press is hoping to get some copies of this book to me in time for the AGM on Saturday. The blurb that Mark quotes indicates that it could be a good book for people like me who have a 'compact' background rather than previous lifetime experience of an SLR.
-
Amazon has a 2GB memory stick for just over £2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Integral-2GB-Courier-USB-Drive/dp/B000KDSRAW/ref=sr_1_46?ie=UTF8&m=A23WPSRKLP38FA&s=generic&qid=1226502360&sr=1-46 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Integral-2GB-Courier-USB-Drive/dp/B000KDSRAW/ref=sr_1_46?ie=UTF8&m=A23WPSRKLP38FA&s=generic&qid=1226502360&sr=1-46)
-
Thanks Mark, I've just placed an order for the 4gb card.
Dave
-
TC,
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you.
As soon as you have programs handling large chunks of data like pictures, they can easily run out of memory and will start swapping data back and forth onto your hard disk (-s). This slows down enormously. A faster processor does nothing to alleviate this problem. More memory does.
Göte
-
Gote
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. Yes, more RAM will make the computer work more efficiently but surely it cannot make the system go faster than the speed of the processor, unless you overclock it. I would have thought that the addition of more RAM would have allowed the processor to work at its design speed without slowing down. It will eventually run out of steam if you keep adding to memory requirements. If you keep the RAM identical and increase the processor speed then it follows that this will make the process faster. If it does not, then it is pointless upgrading processors on new machines. We may as well stick with old technology.
I have 8Gb RAM on my computer on the Vista 64 bit side and 4Gb on the XP pro side and it never slows down, but I cannot say there is any noticable speed difference between the 8Gb and 4Gb systems.
-
Tom,
Of course you are right but also I am right. The practical speed of your system speed is a function of what you do, what Os you have and how much memory you have.
The CPU speed is the ceiling but usually computers do not work at this limit.
There is quite often a lot of suboptimizing at play. Some vendors tote Internet connections that are akin to have a fourlane motorway between your garage and the little village lane at the edge of your property. In my opinion the high CPU-speeds are a similar case.
If you want to see what the OS does to you, dig out a DOS program and run it in a DOS window. Then start the computer using a system diskette and run the same program. This means that you run under DOS; not under the installed OS. You are likely to find an increase in speed that is truly marvellous.
I have more than once found that programs like Photoshop are very sensitive to the amount of memory you have installed. If there is not enough memory, the program operates at snail's pace. If you are only handling pictures from a "normal" digital camera of say less than ten Megapixels you are fine in most modern computers but if you are running a scan of a large format negative (9x12cm or larger) you will need much more memory. I am unable to use the highest resolutions when scanning large format negatives because it nearly freezes that computer.
A hi resolution scan in a Canon 2710 of a 24x36mm will set you back of some 27MB. This is a magnitude of ten over normal digital cameras. Photoshop will need much more than that in available memory (on top of what the program uses itself) for many operations since it works in several layers. The result is that handling such files is very very slow if you do not have a lot of memory. It is of course worse if you have more than one program running at the same time.
I have two times increased memory in a computer. In both cases the computer speed increased. (By that I mean the the tasks were handled quicker) - It does work.
Göte
-
Anyone got the low-down on the new 24 mp (?) Nikons that are coming out soon?
-
Which would those be? They've already JUST released the D3 and D700, both fantastic cameras.
-
I dont think there is any need to go that big when photographing plants and family. My 10MP is very good. A 24 million pixel photo works out to be roughly 5550 pixels wide. That results in a photo that is 2x1.5m, 77x56 inches, 6.5x4.5 feet. Proffessionals may need it for advertising.
-
You don't have to blow up a pic to the size of a poster to appreciate fine detail.
-
If I understand correctly, the sensor in the new Nikon will be full frame 24x36mm or nearly so which means that you can use all the old lenses you have lying around. (Given adapters)
An oldfashioned fine grain film used to have over 100 lines per mm resolution. The camera lens could do about the same. The result is approximately equivalent to 5000 dots per square mm. A 35mm camera has a negative size of 864 square millimeters giving an equivalent of 4.2 megapixels. A 9*12 view camera would in the right hands give the equivalent of 52 megapixels.
5500 pixels spread over two meters would give about 2.75 pixels/mm or 70/inch. Normal printers have 300 dots per inch or much better so the width would be about 45 cm.
Usually we crop our pictures and suddenly the pixels disappear quickly.
If we percieve a picture as sharp is very subjective. If we can clearly see details we expect to see, it looks sharp even if an objective measure would disagree.
Göte
-
Increasing the number of pixels will allow us to get even closer to the subject by cropping without losing definition, always assuming you have the lens to cope.
There seems to be some doubt about whether Sony is willing to sell their 24.4 mp technology to Nikon, however.
-
Nikon already has two full-frame DSLR's, the aforementioned D3 and the D700. It's a little misleading to imply that older lenses can now be used BECAUSE they've finally got full-frame capability. Older lenses could always be used--even with the less-than-full-frame sensor. It's just that effective focal length is a multiple of the length stated on the barrel of the beast.
DX lenses, however, are another matter since they were designed specifically for the smaller sensor. There is apparently an issue about using them on a full-frame camera (something I'm looking into so that I can understand it better).
As for increased numbers of pixels...unless you're among those of us who shoot for publication, or have specialized needs, you don't need them. The vast majority of people making photographs are more than amply served by existing pixel counts.
-
I was late going digital and had a collection of nikon's and another slr set with all the lens..
I first used a canon G4 similar to slr functions still have it but now using a canon elp
the bought a compact canon sd700 is elp 6mpix it was rated right up there with the top slr
functions are all there... automatic mode is hard to beat
have been using it a few years now really handy and excellent results and fits on the waist belt with a holder.
just shut off the flash even in low lighting and ignore the warning and the pix are still very good..
-
Of course you can use a lens for a larger format. You can mount a 30 cm standard lens for 18x24 cm negative on a 35mm camera but you are only using a fraction of the usable field of definition. This used to be the poor mans telephotolens.
I agree absolutely that a long lens is valuable for closeup photography. Closeup photography is a misnomer. The pictures are better the further you are. It is the scale that is important. If you use a 4 times longer lens you can stand four times further away. This means that you can work in a less cramped position and you can use a tripod with less fuss. You also get less distracting background in the field of vision. The unfortunate situation is that most of the popular zoom lenses do not focus in the near field in the tele-position. My own digital camera has a zoom range of 12x. However, If I "close up" to the motif using the zoom, I have to move back to a distance of about two meter which of course defeats the purpose. I would thus need to add a 0.5 dipoptri lens to get the range into the 1-2m bracket but these are unavailable in the market. 2 Dioptries is the best I have found and then I am back crushing my plants with my knees.
However this is a disgression. I have a 21mm lens for a 35mm camera in the cupboard. If I am to use the full capabilities of this lens, I HAVE to have a full frame sensor. I also have an f1.4 lens. If I use this on an undersize sensor camera, it transforms to a telephotolens. The f 1.4 lens is most valuable for interiors in available light. In interiors we usually need a wide angle field because of the cramped conditions.
Thus a full frame sensor is a boon to those who have old high class equipment lying around. Personally I wuld be happy to sacrify some of the resolution in the sensor if we could find a sensor that is 4.5x6 cm or preferably 6.5x9cm since this would give us closeup freaks the possibility of using our view cameras - meaning that we can tilt the plane of focus and have complete control over scale It is easy to get the picture on the negative/sensor larger than life on a view camera. There are such contraptions on the market but they can only be used in studios since they work like scanners with a moving bar. (and they cost a fortune)
One point in this connection is that many things we do to our picture files like correcting perspective or changing the file format cause loss of definition.
The "Vast majority" has been conditioned to be happy with fuzzy pictures because they rarely see anything better. This is just as they have been conditioned to be happy with the kind of plants they get in the garden centers. TV is probably the biggest culprit. Moving pictures always look sharper than they are.
Göte
-
I could read you for hours, Gote.
-
Anyone got the low-down on the new 24 mp (?) Nikons that are coming out soon?
The camera is the Nikon D3x with a 25.4Mp sensor, 35.9 x 24mm. in size. I have been reading the specs. in the Nikon pro magazine and it certainly seems impressive, but it is far in excess of anything the average photographer would need and is aimed at the medium format market such as Hasselblad and Bronica users. At 75 Mb files, considerable computing power would be required. The camera is so new that it does not even appear on the Nikon website. I would imagine the price will be astronomical.
-
I would imagine the price will be astronomical.
That would be in keeping with a camera that will allow the printing of huge images that would probably be visible from Space, Tom!!
I cannot see any "ordinary" person being able to afford to print out ( bearing in mind all the dedicated equipment that would also be called for) such huge prints :o
-
................ but think of the detail that closeups would reveal?
-
................ but think of the detail that closeups would reveal?
I'm not bothered, Anthony, not only can I not afford the camera, I can't afford new spectacles either, so I couldn't see the detail anyway ::)
-
If you want fine detail, get a plate camera, use the new Kodak Ektar colour negative film and have it scanned professionally. This would probably give you a 1 Gb. file which would crash the average computer ! The new Nikon is aimed at photographers who produce shots for fashion magazines or for technical subjects. It's way above what is required for 10 x 8 prints. I am sure it will sell to some amateur photographers to whom "new gear" is a "must have". In many cases it is a form of male jewellery.
To draw an analogy, why have a car with a 4 litre engine and a top speed of 180mph when you cannot use its performance.
-
Well,
I am a camerafreak but this does not mean that I have the latest equipment. Among other bits and pieces I own an Original Anschütz 13x18 with a top shutter speed of 1/1200. Manufactured around 1905. It is quite good for some kinds of work.
I can assure you that there is a difference to be seen between the picture from a large formate camera and a small formate one also in 18x24 prints which is what I prefer for good pictures. Of course many are happy with the lower quality just as many are happier with Petunias than Soldanellas.
If you use large formate positive colour film, your normal flat bed scanner will give you excellent results. This combination will not only give you sharp images it will give better contrast range. I find that all digital cameras I have tried are deficit in gradation. The silver-based film is in my view superior when shooting white or near white flowers. It is not superior when shooting Ramondas they come out too red unless one uses a sharp infrared-cut out filter.
I think that excellence is a goal to strive for. Not because the equipment needed is ornamental but because it is a goal I want to strive for - does not mean I achieve it.
By the way, The performance of four litre car is not only in top speed as anyone who has driven one will know.
Göte
-
I can't say that I'm a camera freak, but I have published photographs (yes, for money) and hope to do a lot more of it. I won't buy a new camera just to have the latest and greatest, BUT if there is a visiually detectable difference...I'm all for it (given a budget that...someday...would allow it). For me it's a tool and not JUST a recording device. Few of us stuck with tape when CD's came along, and relatively few of us stil shoot film on a regular basis. Now people are migrating from DVD to Blu-Ray--and they say the difference is amazing...
-
My personal experience is that the best buy in photographic equipment used to be second hand professional quality. I am not sure that this is still true. All equipment is becoming increasingly complex and accordingly prone to breakdown. However, a 12.5mm 1:4.5 Zeiss Tessar from the thirties will give sharper pictures with less distorsion than the lenses usually supplied with digital cameras. Used with a bellows rack it will make an excellent closeup contraption for those who do not wish to be on their knees all the time.
It is the same for other tools by the way. My mortise chisels from the forties can be honed to much sharper edge than those I can buy today unless I buy a Japanese handforged one at an astronomical price.
Cars are a similar case. The drop in value that comes in the first couple of years has no bearing on the milage that can be had in the following years.
Have a nice weekend everybody
Göte
-
I was speaking to a friend this afternoon. He has a 12.8 mp Canon. He reckons it's barely enough if you want to blow it up to A3, and that doesn't take cropping into account. He's not a pro.
-
Gote
Have you ever located a photographic infra red cut-off filter? If so where from? I have been seeking one for ages and have never seen one listed except for scientific interference filters at a huge price.
Brian Wilson
Aberdeen
-
Try Speed graphic for filters. I am not sure of the type you mention but they have a B+W MRC UV Digital IR Blocking filter in their catalogue. If this is not what you want, you could try phoning. I have dealt with this firm for years and they always seem to come up with specialist equiment available no where else.
-
They tend to be expensive since the good ones are not dye filters but block by interference. The one I used to use many years ago was from Balzers. It was square and a little awkward to use but worked all right. Try to look inside a second hand dia-projector. Some of them used to be used to keep the pictures cooler and they were sometimes of good optical quality. Otherwise I can only suggest Google.
The sensitivity for IR is very high in some sensors for digital cameras. so there usually is a good filter inside. I assume this is why Ramondas come out better in digital photography. If you remove that filter you get a camera that takes pictures in the infrared. Some people use them for snooping.
Göte
-
There are so many more things that affect image quality than the number of pixels, but it is easy to lose track of this in the "pixel race" that seems to be happening. Camera movement (use a tripod), accuracy of focus (autofocus can be problematic), and depth of field are particular issues that can't be overlooked. In the days of photo enlargements, a lot of photos lost resolution in the process of making the enlargement, due to issues with the optics of the enlarger (or dust on the enlarger optics, etc. etc.). One great thing about digital technology is that I can now get much higher quality enlargements from scanning my old 35mm slides than I could get from standard enlargements in the olden days.
In my own conversion from film to digital a few years ago, there were a few ramifications of the sensor size that I didn't quite expect. One issue is that the size of the view in the camera viewfinder is much smaller with my digital SLR than it is with my old film SLR. So I find that it is more difficult to obtain the correct focus, especially in lower light conditions. This becomes more of a problem as my eyes get older. I presume that this would not be an issue with the new larger sensor cameras, but I haven't checked that out myself.
The other factor, which I consider beneficial, is a ramification of the need to apply a conversion factor to the lens focal length to get the effective focal length comparable to a 35mm film camera. Since I wanted to use a fixed focal length lens rather than a zoom, I purchased a 35mm lens. With a film camera this would be a wide angle lens, but on a digital SLR it is equivalent to a "normal" 55mm lens on a film SLR. The nice thing about it is that the 35mm lens is capable of focusing quite close to the subject, much more so than the typical 18" minimum distance with a 55mm film camera. So while the 35mm lens on my digital camera is not a true macro, it focuses close enough to make good photos of even the smallest flowers, but is still small and compact, and much less expensive than a macro lens. Plus, the optics are probably better than a multi-purpose zoom lens.
Ed
-
Ed,
Your comment on the difficulty of manual focusing through the viewfinder of the digital SRL cameras echoes my own experience and especially so, as you mention, in poor light. My eyesight has become a bit blurry over the last few years - those floating bits in the eye - and focusing can be a slow process which can be frustrating at times.
I went the macro lens way for flower photography, a Nikon 100mm, and I am very happy with it. It's a good quality lens, far better than my general purpose lens which is a zoom.
Paddy
-
The Panasonic Lumix that I use enlargs the picture in the viewfinder if I turn the focus ring in manual focus mode. That is very helpful.
I agree with Ed on all points except that I got good quality from my enlarger. (A pre-war Leitz)
I might add that I have to be careful when adapting the focus adjustment in the viewfinder to my glasses.
Göte
-
Can someone tell me what this means in plain English
The 70-300mm offers a lightweight and compact zoom lens with macro capability that can now be used with digital cameras. By flipping a macro switch in the focal length range of 180mm to 300mm, a maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 at a minimum focus distance as short as 95cm is obtained, enabling close-up shots of objects that normally require the use of a specially designed macro lens.
Does it mean from 95cm I could take a photo the same as my compact does from 1cm?
-
I think the short answer your last point is no Mark.
-
Mark, what is the lens you are referring to?
The idea of an add on lens that can be used with digital cameras is very interesting.
-
The paradox is that closeup pictures are best taken with a telephoto lens. It is very awkward to need to have the lens a couple of centimeters from the flower or whatever. The problem with long lenses is, however, that they often do not focus close enough. The old bellows view camera was the perfect choice. It was possible to rig up the camera with a 21cm lens 42 cm away from the flower and get a 1:1 picture on the negative.
The answer to the problem is to use the longest available tele setting on your lens and go so close that you get the framing you want. You will then find that the lens does not focus to that distance. The answer to that is to get an auxiliary lens in front of the one on your camera. Such lenses can be bought in camera stores or from the guy who sold you your spectacles. The camera store lens may come with a mount that is a slip on or screw on to your existing lens. Your optician can cut the blank lens to a size that allows you to fix it to your lens with tape.
If you camera is like mine it will focus down to 2m as a tele lens. If I put a 0.5 dioptri lens in front it will focus from 2m down to 1m. If I put on a 1 dioptri lens it will focus from 1m down to 666mm.
A 2 dioptri lens will give you the range 500mm down to 400mm.
My latest 35mm non-electronic camera also had this problem. I bought a designated 2.5 dioptri lens which I use(-d) for close up. This meant that I did it the other way round. I knew that I had to keep a distance of 0.4m (1/2.5) in order to get focus and I then used the zoom function to frame the picture.
A 0.5 or 2 dioptri lens does little in the way of refraction; especially if it sits in front of a telephoto lens which only uses the central field of vision. Thus we can forget about the aberrations caused by astigmatism. coma etc. A simple lens from the optician works well as long as it is centred and the optician can fix that.
Photo shops usually do not sell lenses less strong than 2 dioptries so if you want to use the 0.5-1m range the optician is your choice. It might be a little awkward to have to fix your lens with tape but it is better than having to kneel on your most precious plant in order to get close enough to another one.
I am not sere that I have expressed myself with enough clarity but please ask if you need.
Göte
-
Nikon D400
I came across this "rumour" when checking up on Nikon cameras. There are several other Pro. photographic sites with much the same information. It may be a controlled leak by Nikon to counter the latest Canon model.
-
Why, Tom, who would bother with a Canon?
Paddy
-
I do and always have,wouldn't let a Nikon through the door. :)
-
RE Nikon
Do they need a photographer or is it enough to humbly ask it to take a picture? ;D
The note about chromatic abberration is interesting. It means that they have found a way to correct for residual errors in a zoom lens by having a program that slightly changes the scale of the colours against each others. The question is does it work for more than one lens? I think no. It is important that it can be shut off for other lenses.
One day I will buy a digital camera that can use my old non-zoom lenses. They give superior pictures - especially in low light levels.
Göte
-
Nikon D400
I came across this "rumour" when checking up on Nikon cameras. There are several other Pro. photographic sites with much the same information. It may be a controlled leak by Nikon to counter the latest Canon model.
How strange. :-\ This seems to be in addition to the two new full frame Nikons, the D700 and the 24mp D3x.
-
Not Nikon, not Canon - just Fuji.
Finally decided to 'backgrade' rather than upgrade and purchased a refurbished Finepix s5700 from Fuji.
Brilliant small camera - super macro, 10X optical & 4.5x digital zoom and, with 2 year extended warranty just £75! (I reckon a lot of the refurbished Fuji cameras on ebay are bought this way.)
Had a s7000 for a long time but got fed up with the small screen. Good pics but just to small.
5700 has a 2.5" screen, is lightweight and feels really good.
First test is a week in the Algarve with the Bookeroos - will advise. (On the camera that is not the Bookeroos!)
JohnnyD
-
Göte
My understanding from other sources is that it will recognise individual Nikon lenses and apply the correction suitable for each lens.
Anthony
If you think on the current timescale for digital cameras, the D300 will have been in production for three years and be due for a replacement about November this year.
-
Anthony
If you think on the current timescale for digital cameras, the D300 will have been in production for three years and be due for a replacement about November this year.
Tom are you sure that it has been out for 3 years? I bought mine 6 months after the launch and iv'e not had it a year yet. I think the launch was November 2007. I wouldn't put it past Nikon to change again but after this camera received all the accolades it may be premature. After all for those wanting a full size sensor there is the new D700 ???
Won't be changing mine in a hurry anyway have barely worked out all of the functions
-
Göte
Anthony
If you think on the current timescale for digital cameras, the D300 will have been in production for three years and be due for a replacement about November this year.
It was four years before, and the D700 cames out last year.
-
I have just checked the release dates for the cameras with a Nikon site.
D200 released in November 2005
D300 released in August 2007
You got it right Ian. I assumed that with a possible release date of the "rumoured" D400 in November, Nikon's policy seems to be changing and updating a model approx. every three years. I'm afraid that at my age, I'm never quite sure what year it is !!!
The D700 is the poor man's D3x. The D400 will just be an upgraded D300 with new, improved features reflecting improvements in technology, and, no doubt, there will be a D500 after this. It's a bit like car manufacturers, they need to change models to keep us buying !
-
My rather modest small Canon Powershot (don't have it with me to check the model) got dropped on the floor by my dear daughter and probably can't be repaired or is not worth repairing. I want to take this opportunity to upgrade to something not quite so modest and I'm considering the Canon Powershot SX10IS. This is a model with a "vari-angle LCD" which is of interest, and a good zoom, but a wee bit heavy. Any experience/opinions?
-
Mick, you asked for details of how I colour-corrected the photos; this what works for me (those who are not technically minded may want to move on to the next posting!). ;)
Firstly I've been shooting RAW files, not JPEGs, which allows you to easily manipulate the colour balance later using computer software. With a hall like the one at Loughborough, where there is an orange interior light and increasing daylight with each row of benches as they get nearer to the windows, the first photo along each row is of a target which has pure black, pure white and mid-grey on it (I use a small collapsable one made by Lastolight which fits in my pocket, but you could probably use a mid-grey piece of card alone for acceptable results). This gives the light values for one side of the bench, and must then be repeated for the opposite side (using Loughborough as an example, the first row of benches is very orange as you enter the hall, the plants which are viewed from the far side will have some natural light coming over your shoulder, and the colour temperature of the light will be different). Then repeat this for each row of plants.
When I get the photos home, I know that each sequence that follows from the target will have a colour balance that is the same. I then open the target photo in my software and alter it so the black is a true black, the white a true white, and so on. These settings can then be applied to the subsequent photos in that run until the next taget photo appears. I'm using Lightroom to do this, but it can be done in Photoshop CS2 onwards, as the picture originally opens in Adobe Bridge and the colour balance can be corrected here, but you have to note the settings manually and apply them to the photos in the sequence up to the next target photo; you can automate the process in Lightroom. I should imagine that you can do something similar in Photoshop Elements or Paintshop Pro, but I'm not familiar with these programs.
This gives you a reasonably good result using the above process, but I somtimes tweak things slightly from there based on how I remember the colours on the day - although the Dionysia hybrid of Paul Ranson's was a challange, as I had no idea what it would look like in natural light.
Well that's all there is to it - simple really when you know how! ;D
-
Thanks for that Peter. I thought it would be something along those lines but didn't account for the test card. Would it be possible to use the entry card at the side of the plants for a true white? I think i might have another go with mine for future reference. I think any further discussion should be in Photography thread otherwise Maggi will be on to us.
-
It is possible to make some adjustments after the fact, Mick. We use ACdSee to process pix and , using just 'Auto-Levels' and other tweaks under 'Adjust' I have come up with this from your pic of Dianes' fab Colchicum....... not perfect but with the orange removed......
[attach=1]
-
I tried to do what Peter describes but It did not work too well for me. Perhaps my colour charts were not suitable.
I now rely on Photoshop's automatic 'Level' command.
Residual colours I correct with the colour balance command.
If that does not work I go back and look at the colours individually in order to get a clue to whatis wrong..
I then correct each colour level.
Usually the first automatic step works beautifully but there are certain colours in the purple area that are difficult.
Göte
-
"Auto Levels" and "White Balance" are not one and the same. Auto levels changes your photograph so that you the colours are spread to give a range from white to black. You will see that the petals of the colchicums are very white indeed, over-exposed/burned out, while the stems of those flowers in shadow are black while, in fact, the stems are not black at all. Auto levels has spread the values so that you have from pure white to pure black.
White balance deals with the colour tinge that we get on photographs most noticably from indoor lighting, street lighting etc.
Shooting in "Raw" gives the greatest freedom to later manipulate the image.
Paddy
-
What is 'Raw' please?
-
David, these should help.
http://photo.net/learn/raw/
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_raw.html
-
What is 'Raw' please?
David,
RAW files are the files that the camera takes without any internal processing done by the camera software. It allows you to have total control over the picture, and with certain software programmes you can manipulate the image without the manipulations being applied until you export the image to a printer or other software programs which prevents the original image from being degraded each time it is opened up and altered - which is what happens with JPEG files. Think of it as being the digital version of a negative, which can be used again and again.
I tried to do what Peter describes but It did not work too well for me. Perhaps my colour charts were not suitable.
I now rely on Photoshop's automatic 'Level' command.
Göte,
The automatic Levels command in Photoshop will give you a passable average when used, but will often be wrong. What you could do is open up the levels dialogue box in Photoshop, and under the histogram you will see three eyedropper icons - one each for black, white and mid grey. If you click on the black one and find the darkest point in your picture (there's generally a dark shadow somewhere) and click on that area, then that will become the black point. Do the same for the white one (for those at shows the white of the class card can be used) and this will give a you a fairly good approximation of the light as it should be seen. You may still have to alter the hue of the picture slightly, but there will be less of this to do. It's the method that I used to use.
Peter
-
Thank you Helen and Peter, my education is again improved.
-
If I have a white card and that white is the whitest in the picture I can of course do this but this is what the automatic levels does is it not???
In my case the whitest part is usually the whitest highlight in a petal. I quite often do not want this to be a white point because this usually results in washed out structure.
I often find it necessary to increase contrast in the top 5% or so when dealing with white flowers.
In my belief hue problems will not be sufficiently corrected by using a white card simply because the information contained in the last high bits of information (RBG) is too coarse.
In my case, When photograping in the garden, the problems lie the lacking contrast depth in the camera. The automatic whitness control works beautifully and I rarely correct anything - except as I wrote on some purple colours.
The hue problems occur when I scan old pictures - especially from negatives. My 35mm negative scanner works reasonably well but is very slow. My flatbeds are faster but negatives are more difficult to correct.
I tried the coloured card method when documenting a number of paintings but found the results to be better if I just relied on the whitness control.
Göte
-
Yes, I must admit that using a white card can give you overexposed highlights if not used with care, but it is possible to rescue these by moving the grey point slider to the right. One advantage of using a manufactured target is there is not just black and white but a mid-grey (known to the photographic world as 18% grey, but the reason for that is a subject for another time!), and the method I'm using now utilising Adobe Lightroom actually uses the mid-grey rather than the balck and white points - it's the most successful I've been with photos from the Loughborough show.
The other approach would be to move the sliders on the levels histogram, making sure that you do not lose the highlight detail by not taking the slider all the way to the first pixels on the histogram.
I guess I'm just not in favour of "auto-"anything. You lose the element of control to whoever wrote the software: does he/she know what you intended to do when you processed your photograph? :-\
Of course these methods are more applicable to pictures where the colour temperature of the light is near to natural daylight. It would still be difficult to get accurate colour reproduction in the conditions of the Loughborough show hall (which is where this thread started) using Levels in Photoshop.
Peter
Is anyone still following this thread, or have I lost people along the way?
-
No, Peter,
I'm still following, just didn't have anything to add. The 18% grey card is the one I have found most reliable.
Paddy
-
I also use the method outlined by Peter for a quick but mostly satisfactory outcome. As we are dealing with white balance you can also use the colour temperature slider bar to good effect. I use Photoshop Elements but I think most editing programs have this facility
As Peter says in shooting RAW (very few compacts can do this) you can adjust the actual colour temperature to a specific light value measured in Kelvin. Bear in mind that the orange light is low temperature and that the bluer the light the hotter it is - confusing isn't it.
-
Peter,
Thinking it over I think I misunderstood you. You are right of course.
My biggest problem in digital photo - as opposed to scanning - is washed out highlights. I tend to underexpose by at least one full stop to alleviate the problem. I tried spotmetering once but the result was very erratic. I am contemplating taking out the old incident light meter and set exposure entirely manually. However, If I had that amount of time I could as well use silver halide instead.
My philosphy is: if the automatic feature is good enough in 8 cases I have more time over for the two tricky ones.
Göte
-
Göte,
I find washed out highlights are a problem too, probably most irritating when I take landscape pictures. A lot of my photos from last summer's trip to Switzerland had overexposed skies as the dynamic range of the scene was just too much for the camera sensor.
Of course you can cure the problem with a graduated filter, but although I always carry some, it's always too much trouble to take them out of the rucksack.
I have tended recently to start doing HDR (high dynamic range) pictures, where pictures are taken of the same scene on a tripod with a range of exposures to record the highlights right through to the shadows. This has the added advantage that it forces you to slow down and think about what you are photographing, which is what the large format photogrpahers say smugly when they only take two or three exposures in a day. These can then be merged on the computer over the long winter evenings (Photoshop 2 and above automate the process for you) to give very good results. But I know what you are thinking - I should really get tha rucksack of my back and take the filters out! ;D
Peter
-
HDR is an intriguing solution to the problem, but requires the use of a tripod and is best when little or NO movement is occurring (and is usually done with 5-7 or more images). Might be easier to expose once for the foreground elements and once for the sky, then use the sky from one and the ground from the other to create the image your eye can see.
-
The best results will undoubtedly be using a view camera with a 6x9 back and transparancy film. Then to scan and manipulate at will. I COULD do that but I do not have the time. (Or I am too lazy) There was a time when the photographer had to bring his darkroom into the field, make the plate on site and expose it wet for immediate development. Compared with that most efforts are nothing.
Göte
-
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 G AFS VR IFED zoom
Does anybody use this lens?
I am thinking of purchasing a general purpose everyday lens and have being reading reviews of this one and am wondering if anybody has experience with it.
Paddy
-
Jings. Don't do things by halves do you Paddy? :o
-
But, Anthony, I'm worth it!
And, I'm only thinking of it - I'll do this for at least a few months before deciding and could very well continue with the lens I have in use at present. Just happens there is the possibility of a nice present coming my way shortly so, you can't blame me for dreaming a little.
Paddy
-
Paddy
I have tried this lens with a view to buying it. Apart from the weight and price, I could not fault it. It is reckoned to be one of the best pieces of glass Nikon has ever produced.
However, to get the best out of its autofocus, it really needs to be coupled with the D300 and above. This makes an expensive outlay extremely expensive. Now that Nikon have bumped up their prices by 40% in the UK, it is not really value for money. However, in the Euro zone, the prices are more stable. If you have the money and can have a definite use for it, get one. It is also a lens which rates a pemium on the second hand market.
-
Many thanks, Tom.
How do you think it would go with the D200?
You say, "have a definite use for it" - I had general use in mind, in other words as the lens most often attached to the body. Your thoughts on this?
Paddy
-
Paddy
A good deal of my photography deals with birds in flight and fast moving aircraft. In my experience, Nikon's autofocus always lagged behind Canons system until the D200, but it was still not on a par with the combination of Canons cameras and lenses. With the advent of the D3, D700 AND D300 and the new lens designs, they have now taken the lead. If you look at sports, wildlife and press photographers, they are moving from Canon to Nikon. Nikon's autofocus is reckoned to be better than Canon's, at present. If you are using the D200 then autofocus will work perfectly well for most situations. It only struggles at times with fast moving objects. The D300 would cope much better in these conditions with less failures although there is no such camera that will always work perfectly in autofocus. The 70-200 would work well with the D200 as it has a built in motor which reacts much faster to changes in focus. What I meant to say was that the D300+70-200 is a better combination than D200+70-200.
A 70-200 is not a general use lens. It equates to 105-300 in 35mm terms. It's really not much use for plants except in special cases.
A general use lens would be in the region of 24-70, equating to 42-105. I notice that Nikon have brought out a new lens in the DX fitting -usable only on digital cameras- labelled AF-S DX 18-105 VR/SWM. This would appear to be a good range of focal lengths for general use.
In Nikon's web site, they list the 70-200 under telephoto lenses. As I said, it depends on the subjects you wish to photograph. I don't think you would enjoy carrying your camera with the 70-200 attached as it would probably strangle you after a while.
-
A very popular lens here in the US has been the AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 G ED. Many people put it on and never take it off. I have several others, but if I'm traveling and not doing something special, I can take the camera and this one lens and cover most situations.
-
Being strangled would be a consideration to bear in mind.
Many thanks, Tom, good advise, greatly appreciated.
I presently use the kit lens, 18 - 200, which came with the D200 for general use and a 100mm lens for close up work on flowers and thought the 70-200 would give me wider opportunties. Re weight, the 100mm is quite a heavy piece compared to the 18-200, definitely know you have something very solid in your hand and is best used on a tripod.
Post Scriptum: I have just noticed Carlo's comments as I was about to post this. Carlo, the lens you mention is the one I presently use almost all the time and it is a very useful one, covering most situations very adequately.
Paddy
-
As an aside to this universal praise for Nikon (Nikkor) lenses, can I caution that there are problems with the sometimes superb Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-135mm ED lens that is often packaged with the Nikon D80. Mine (and many others according to the web) has failed in the field and the autofocus sensors refuse to work. I have tried all the 'repair' options (cleaning the sensors, trying other lenses, etc.), but it seems I must now return it to Nikon and pay them a fixed fee simply to 'get a report and a quote for goodness knows how much' for the replacement of a tiny sensor that I know has failed. Anyone else been afflicted and actually managed to get a sensible quote? :'(
It is, of course, just weeks out of warranty!
-
On a much more modest level, I did end up buying the Canon Powershot SX10IS. I have had very little time to play with it, but I am very happy so far. It seems to be just what I was looking for - good colours, good macro, very high quality point&click + much more for when I finally have time to read the (unprinted) manual!
Acer palmatum 'Butterfly' this morning.
-
Paddy,
If you've got the 18-200, why consider the 70-200? That 's a tremendous amount of overlap for a slight gain in speed.
-
On a much more modest level, I did end up buying the Canon Powershot SX10IS. I have had very little time to play with it, but I am very happy so far. It seems to be just what I was looking for - good colours, good macro, very high quality point&click + much more for when I finally have time to read the (unprinted) manual!
Acer palmatum 'Butterfly' this morning.
Chloe, you have no idea how pleased I am to find there are "real" people reading this thread, too ;)..... I was despairing of a post in a language I can understand :-\..... and I like your Acer flowers, too!!
I have a feeling that there IS a meaningful and useful discussion going on here, even if it is all flying WAY over my head!
-
Are you referring to Nikonii pseudocameron, pseudotobin, pseudobalistrieri and pseudobookerii, Maggi?
-
Nothing "pseudo" about them.... I'm as sure as I can be that they are all REAL!! ;)
-
Carlo,
Perhaps, there is a little of the "toys for boys" in my considerations. It does strike me as an excellent lens, better quality than the 18 - 200 that I am presently using and with better speeds, as you say.
I'm only thinking - I do a lot of this before spending my money.
Paddy
-
As do I, I've got several lines of thought going at the moment myself...
-
I think the advice in this thread (or should we be renaming it bayonet? ::)) very useful.
-
Anthony,
The advantage of this thread and the advice contained therein is that the people who offer the advice are practical users of the cameras or equipment mentioned and also most probably have similar uses for their cameras. This is what makes it so good. There are plenty of reviews one can read about this lens, for example, but a few words from someone who has actually handled it is far more beneficial. Also, the word of people on this thread is more trustworthy - no commercial involvement etc.
Certainly, I took the advice offered when considering a macro lens for flower photography and have been delighted with it ever since.
Paddy
-
Those of you who have seen my pictures will know that I am very much a point and shoot person. I use a Fuji FinePix S5700 digital compact and restrict myself to auto settings or to the range of specialist settings built into the camera. I do have trouble with blues but I seem to have more trouble with reds which, for the mainpart, seem to come out a shocking pink shade. Can anyone tell me how I can improve this, but not too many big words please ;D
-
David,
I'm not familiar with your camera though I did use a Fuji finepix 9900(or some such) for about a year.
Is there, by chance, a control on your camera for "White balance"? Setting this to the prevailing light conditions would help get the colour tints correct. You may have a control knob for sun, shade, shadow or the likes. This is the white balance setting.
You could also edit the photographs on the computer to correct the colour balance but if you can set the camera to do it properly in the first place it would obviously be much better.
Paddy
P.S. David, I had a look on the internet at the specifications for the S5700 and it seem you have 7 settings for white balance! So, next time, set the appropriate white balance setting before you shoot!
-
White balance MAY assist with the problem, but if all your other colors are coming out spot on, then post-processing with Lightroom, Photoshop or another of the image manipulation programs is the only resort to getting true color represented (and it's quite easy...).
-
Thanks for that Paddy, I'll have a read of the instruction book and then give it a go.
Thanks Carlo I did have try at amending the colour with Irfanview but it wasn't very successful, still, it is free ;D
-
David
I am not familiar with your particular camera, but if you can alter the white balance manually instead of the preset levels you will get better results. Reds and deep pinks can be a big problen to render correctly but I have found that if you can take the photo in slight shade rather than in sunlight the colours are much better.
Eric
-
I have exactly the same problem David with my Panasonic Lumix LC 70. The pure scarlets are generally a little pale but the rich crimson shades come out, as you say, a (garish) shocking pink.
-
I think Eric has hit the nail on the head - take the photograph when the light is most suitable. For me, whites or bright yellow are the nuisance. In bright sunshine they very easily turn out overexposed, burned out. If I want to take photographs of flowers of this colour in the garden I do it early in the morning or late at evening when the light is gentler. I find it is often better to take flowers of this colour in the shade.
Of course, when you are visiting a garden you have to take conditions as you find them and using a shade or reflector does make you look a twat.
Paddy
-
David I have had the same problem even with a Nikon d300. I understand that some reds and yellows are a particular problem and confuse the camera into overexposing. I am sure white balance is not the answer (I have tried) and the wisdom (from recent books read on the subject) seems to be to shoot your shots by bracketing your exposures to underexpose by say 2/3 of a F stop and even a full F stop. Even if you overdo this it is easy to rectify in Photoshop or whatever program you use afterwards. Overexposure is usually impossible to correct because the photo will have burnt out highlights. Hope this helps
-
Overexposure seems to be the biggest problem. One reason for that is that we take photos where the important part is a little light colured blob in a mass of green. I set down 1.3 stops when taking photos of white or near white flowers. To use spot metering is not of much help since the result is a verry erratic exposure if the subject is not big enough or the aim is not perfect.
The best way is probably to use an incident light exposure meter and set the exposure manually.
Göte
-
A fascinating topic, David. Just as a matter of interest I went into the garden this very hot and sunny morning and selected the brightest yellow flower (Meconopsis cambrica) and the most brilliant red (a potentilla) to photograph. These are the results straight from the camera, which was set on auto on the macro setting. Not much use to man or beast but it occupied a few minutes for me. ;D
I should have added that these were taken with the Nikon D80 for what it is worth.
-
Cliff,
Both of these flowers have startlingly strong colour and I think your photographs are a little underexposed. They don't show the vibrancy of the colours of these plants.
What do you think?
Paddy
-
I totally agree, Paddy. Perhaps this proves the theory that reds should be captured in a modicum of shade? Both set-ups were subjected to the brightest sunlight. With hindsight I would have attempted some corrective procedures - this may have given a semblance of worth to the experiment? :D
-
Funny...I get a vibrant red AND a vibrant yellow. Sure it's not your monitor that's the problem???
In addition, putting the red flower so close to the yellow will shift the color of each because of reflected light from the other, which may account for part of what you're noticing.
I wonder what the results would be if you diffused the direct sunlight?
-
Perhaps, Carlo.
Paddy
-
For what it is worth; I see the two red/yellow shots as well exposed and as giving a colour which I would guess to be true. ::)
-
It looks OK to me too but monitors are not all the same and we cannot really get an EXACT comparision of reflected light from the petals and the luminant light from the monitor. The one is subtractive and the other is additive.
Göte
-
Oh for the days of 35mm transparencies when all photos came out like peas from a pod. ;D ;D ;D
But a long wait for the results. :(
Eric
-
The one is subtractive and the other is additive.
Göte
Yes, it all multiplies the problem, doesn't it? ;D
-
Funny...I get a vibrant red AND a vibrant yellow. Sure it's not your monitor that's the problem???
In addition, putting the red flower so close to the yellow will shift the color of each because of reflected light from the other, which may account for part of what you're noticing.
Carlo, you are, of course, right. I submitted the images via my laptop and have since viewed the pictures on my 24" iMac - the difference is startling. As with digital projectors and projection screens monitors can vary greatly. Each of us becomes accustomed to our own visual parameters and we make comparisons at our peril. :D
-
Thanks for all the helpful replies folks. I need to do some reading and then have a go at something something red.
-
Hi all ,
has anyone expierince with this camera :
Canon ixus 870 IS
thank you in advance
Hans
-
Mark Smyth has the Canon 900 Ti ...
and Brian Ellis uses a Canon Ixus 700......
if that is any help.... :-\
EDIT: I have moved some posts about which cameras folks are using to a new thread ,
here: http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=3434.msg107621#new
-
Hans my 900ti is brillant and I see no reason why your choice wont be equally good
-
Hans my 900ti is brillant and I see no reason why your choice wont be equally good
Thank you Maggi and Mark :D
-
HANS
If you google canon ixus 870 is, you will find the site"trusted reviews". This gives a review of the camera and may be of some use.
-
Thank you Tom :D
I have found a lot of tests also on german website - all very good ;D
but my problem was to find a seller :-[ :-[ :-[
now I have one ordered and I will report later ::)
-
and Brian Ellis uses a Canon Ixus 700......
if that is any help.... :-\
Just seen this Hans, yes I am very pleased with mine too! ;D
-
Thanks Brian !
I'm waiting now ::) ::) ::)
-
I have 8 packets of 10 sheets of 35mm slide archive. Each sheet holds 20 slides. Is anyone still using 35mm slide film? You can have these for free except for the postage.
-
I have been toying with the idea of changing my fuji finepix for a Canon Powershot SX10is. Is there anyone coming to the Discussion weekend with one of these who would let me experiement with for the duration of the weekend. I know its a lot to expect but I would like to try before I buy and there doesn't seem to be any other way. I will ofcourse provide my own card.
-
I have an SLR Canon and the Canon 900ti. They 900ti is a brilliant little camera which fits in your jeans pocket easily, takes good macro and the foliage setting is great. I would recommend this point and shoot to anyone. Also ideal for nights out as its so small.
David
-
I have long term loan of a Sanyo PLC SU50S LCD projector. Yellow and some greens are showing too bright. I've googled the problem but no-one has mentioned it.
Any idea what is wrong or how to sort it out?
-
Hi Mark
We are signed is as Maggi but it is Ian here.
Press the menu button on the projector and search the screen for the colour settings/balance option.
Clicking on that should allow you to adjust the balance to suit your needs.
Use a suitable picture to adjust with.
Most of the digital projectors come optimised for showing DVDs and films and so need some adjustment to give us the best results with plant pictures.
cheers
ian
-
Thanks Ian. I'll set it up now and see what happens. Should I set it using a photo that is wrong?
-
Yes, Mark , that's a good move, then check of course with various others showing wide colour ranges to test.
-
In order to store print sized pictures on my camera whilst away on holiday I have started to look at 2Gb cards. Why is it that some that are suitable are in the price range £12 to £15 and others cost £25 to £30? These were on the Tesco rack and the information given seemed to be identical. Is there any benefit in paying the higher price?
-
David, you can buy adequate 8Gb cards for less than those 2Gb cards in Tesco!
http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&source=hp&q=8gb+sd+card&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=10630702064500389780&ei=OVLXSu-RFNzOjAenioHdCA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB0Q8wIwAw#ps-sellers
-
I've always favored staying with a known brand...here the best would be SanDisk or Lexar. That said, prices can vary on those as well. I use SanDisk Extreme III 8 gig and 2 gig. There are newer and bigger cards available, but I haven't had to replace a single one.
-
I've always favored staying with a known brand...
I agree totally, Carlo - but Tesco sell their own brand cards and I'm certain that Kingston would be as reliable as those? I use a reasonable variety of cards (inexpensive Christmas presents from the grandchildren; expensive cards for important projects, etc.) and I also haven't had one fail on me (touch wood). Incidentally, I also use both Nikon and cheap imitation batteries and the only one of those to fail was the genuine article.
-
Hi All
Best and by far the cheapest place to purchase memory cards (and many other things too)
is 7dayshop.com ;) ;) ;) Give them a try.
Eric
-
I have been thinking about David's query and it may be more sensible to tackle the problem from a different perspective? Instead of concentrating on utilising these cards as 'reusable' media perhaps David might consider buying less expensive 8Gb cards and retaining them as back-ups for each individual holiday, botanising tour, etc.?
For less than the price of one 36 shot transparency film, he could capture over 1000 images (on Fine) and have all his original images stored independently on the ultimate space-saving media that could, if necessary, always be reused in the future?
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Cliff's latest idea also seems a lot easier than backing up the pictures onto CD. From responses, I assume that prce does not have much to do with quality and so it is OK to order the cheapest.
-
An external hard drive would also provide a cheap back up for photograph storage. Quite cheap at the moment.
Paddy
-
David, you can buy adequate 8Gb cards for less than those 2Gb cards in Tesco!
http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&source=hp&q=8gb+sd+card&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=10630702064500389780&ei=OVLXSu-RFNzOjAenioHdCA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB0Q8wIwAw#ps-sellers
You should check to make sure that your camera is compatible with SDHC memory cards, which are the cards that have the higher capacity. I ran into this problem while on vacation this summer; I bought an 8 GB SDHC card for her older Canon point-and-shoot, but when it wouldn't work I wondered why. The design, shape, and markings on the cad are the same, except for the extra "HD" on the card and packaging. We had to go back to the store and return it and then buy a 2 GB regular SD memory card, which turned out to be a bit of a hassle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital for more info.
My understanding is that CD's or DVD's are the most reliable archival storage medium for digital photography; memory cards and external hard drives are both subject to some probability of failure, especially as they age. This is a real issue for me, being a long time loyal Kodachrome user...
Ed
-
My 8GB card cost under £10 if I remember correctly.
This reminds me to ask again - why doesn't my PC recognise my 8GB SD card? I have slots for cards on the front of my computer. Compact Flash is OK as are various sizes of SD cards
I can vouch for 7dayshop. They have some excellent offers just now for memory sticks
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=6&type=0&man=0&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp= (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=6&type=0&man=0&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp=)
-
One more plug. Offtek for memory
http://www.offtek.co.uk/ (http://www.offtek.co.uk/)
-
I saw an advert in the Guardian for a digital microscope that allows you to download into your computer, just like from a camera. Just wondered if anyone knows whether this would give more detail of flowers?
-
Chris, Ian Pryde was speaking to Ian about a version of this he had seen advertised, much more expensive... then he saw this Guardian offer and sent for it... thinks it's great.... I'm not sure if he thinks he will go for the other option, to get mbetter lens etc.... perhaps he will read this and report himself?
-
Why is it that some that are suitable are in the price range £12 to £15 and others cost £25 to £30? These were on the Tesco rack and the information given seemed to be identical. Is there any benefit in paying the higher price?
Reliability, speed. Those 2 are the most important factors for price differences. By speed I mean the speed in which the card accepts and releases data. In general the higher speeds are only interesting for those that photograph in burst mode and take many pictures after another. Point-and-shoot models generally don't have these settings. Higher speeds are also interesting for people that are not patient when they download the pix from the card to the harddrive. Speeds are mostely noted as "133x", "400x" or "class ..". The higher numbers, the faster the cards. Even with high megapixel digital SLR 133x speed is enough to write from the camera buffer to the card.
Reliability is not only in terms of tolerance of heat and air humidity level but also extra features within the cards that are for dataprotection or datarecovery. In general professional photographers stick to the more upmarket brands like SanDisk and Lexar. Although there are many, many brands of memory cards, there are only a handful of manufacturers that produce the memory chips that are inside the cards. Samsung being one of the bigger players and most are located in Taiwan. Kingston for instance does not produce its own memory chips, it buys them and puts them in a casing with their own software and extra features. The chips themselves also come in different qualities hence the different prices and choices apart from the actual memory size.
You also can't always use the higher capacity memory cards in every camera. The camera needs to be able to "see" the larger amount of memory and write to it. If the camera doesn't support the higher capacity cards it might be worthwhile to visit the website of the camera manufacturer to see if there are any new firmware upgrades available for that model to dowload. Firmware upgrades are made available by manufacturers to keep their cameras up to date within the limits of the technical design of that model. A large part of a digital camera is software and by upgrading this software it might be the higher capacity cards will be recognised and can be written to.
Contrary to what is said, there is NO true reliable back-up medium. The best thing to do is store important pictures at different locations and on different media. How reliable a CD is for instance depends on the brand of the CD and the brand of the writer used to back-up. A picture backed-up with a Plextor writer on Imation will last a lot longer than on a Tesco CD written with an el cheapo CD writer. ANY media degrades over time. A CD/DVD consists of a metallic layer and a polymer outside. This polymer is just a form of plastic and plastic degrades through enviromental influences. So CD's can also become unreadable. The quality of the polymer and the accuracy of the writer that burned the "holes" in the metallic layer of the CD determines the duration of the backup on CD. Harddrives are based on magnetism, that also degrades over time. And every time data is written to or from a memory chip these read/write actions degrade the chip too.
When I do fieldwork I have 3 Sandisk Extreme IV cards with me and everytime I have filled them up I download them onto a hard drive based portable imagetank (Epson P-series), that could be in the middle of Nepal. I rather use 3 4GB cards then one 16 Gb, even from a very reliable manufacturer like Sandisk. If I only have 1 big card and that fails when I am in the middle of nowhere, I have a serious problem....When I am back in civilisation I download the pictures as soon as I can on the harddrive of 2 computers and after imageprocessing I write it to DVD too. One copy is stored as fail safe at my parents house.
-
The one I've seen advertised is in the Radio Times, its £29.99 and magnifies 200 times. Looks like a pen to hold, and says you can download into your computer using a hub. I'd be fascinated to see some images thus produced....
-
The one Ian has a print out of the specs. for is the AnMo Dinolite AM413T USB Digital Microscope ... try this link:
http://www.absolute-data-services.co.uk/dinolite_am413t.htm
or this to see others
http://www.absolute-data-services.co.uk/dino-lite_usb_digital_microscopes.htm
-
wow, big difference in price eh? Wonder why? it still says magnifying 200x and looks pretty much the same as the one in the radio times picture, but there must be a difference for 10x the price... will be interesting to watch developments of this.
-
The small pocket size digital cameras have so small inlet apertures that they can capture the image in any normal microscope or telescope.
I have made a simple device that allows me to place the camera on the top of the microscope where it lies steady during the exposure.
The BIG problem is that any microscope has a depth of field that is negligible and that there is no way to control the aperture. Even at the lowest magnification, the top and bottom of an Allium seed will not be sharp at the same time.
Magnification means of course that something becomes bigger and when we talk about telescopes it is easy to define. The picture through the telescope looks X times bigger than without the telescope.
When we identify magnification of a microscope we mean that the picture seen through the microscope looks X times bigger than the same object when looking at a distance of 25cm.
However, a device as those described here has no defined magnification. Larger than what??? The only reasonable definition would be that the picture on the sensor is X times bigger than the object photographed. The problem lies in that it is not really a microscope but a close up camera. Any old-fashioned bellows view camera is able to take pictures where the picture on the negative is many times larger than the object but then we can also enlarge the negative Thus the device has no well defined magnification.
Before buying a device that costs 250 quid, one needs to think it over. As I said at the beginning, the depth of field is the big obstacle. If we want to have a large picture of a small object we will find that the depth of field is limiting the usefulness. A good microscope has a diaphragm that can close the aperture when it is used in a transmitted light situation. However, if we close the diaphragm in order to increase depth of field, we get diffraction so the picture becomes less sharp.
In my opinion, the best way to define what we want in close up photography is to define the picture frame on the object. If we want a 1cm wide flower to fill the picture we need a device that makes one cm fill the frame in the camera. Suppose we have a 35mm system camera with a bellows extension. This means that the distance between the lens and the film plane shall be 2.4 times the distance between the lens and the flower. This is irrespectively of whether we have a standard 50mm lens or a 200mm telephoto.
The easy way for someone who wants to take close-up pictures with a simple digital camera is to use a pocket lens. Get a lens of 5-10 dioptries = focal length 20-10 cm. Fix the lens to the camera lens (sticky tape will probably do) Put the object slightly closer to the lens than the focal length of the lens. Use the zoom to get the right frame and shoot. In most cases you will need a tripod or some other device to keep the contraption steady.
The high figures of magnification are tempting but to the average “flower photographer” they are useless. I have found that when I put a small camera on a dissecting microscope, I get the best results with 10x magnification and medium telephoto setting on the zoom. (Photographing seeds)
I am unsure whether I have expressed myself clearly but I am happy to answer any questions (next week).
Cheers
Göte.
-
Why is it that some that are suitable are in the price range £12 to £15 and others cost £25 to £30? These were on the Tesco rack and the information given seemed to be identical. Is there any benefit in paying the higher price?
Contrary to what is said, there is NO true reliable back-up medium. The best thing to do is store important pictures at different locations and on different media. How reliable a CD is for instance depends on the brand of the CD and the brand of the writer used to back-up. A picture backed-up with a Plextor writer on Imation will last a lot longer than on a Tesco CD written with an el cheapo CD writer. ANY media degrades over time. A CD/DVD consists of a metallic layer and a polymer outside. This polymer is just a form of plastic and plastic degrades through enviromental influences. So CD's can also become unreadable. The quality of the polymer and the accuracy of the writer that burned the "holes" in the metallic layer of the CD determines the duration of the backup on CD. Harddrives are based on magnetism, that also degrades over time. And every time data is written to or from a memory chip these read/write actions degrade the chip too.
The only long term way to save data is to copy them to a new medium before the old medium has degraded. (and do this repeatedly) If the medium is a hard disk, this is not a big deal to do. Even if it takes a full day or two it can be done without constant supervision. If it is on CDs memory cards or (horror) diskettes the operation is very labourious. Presently a separate hard disk, only used as backup and stored in a safe place (vault) seems the most cost effective way but even that one needs to be rewritten at regular intervals.
Would you agree Pascal?
Cheers
Göte
-
I prefer hard disks too. Easiest to work with and cheapest per GB. If the hardrives are in raid it is even better. But I have to admit I also mis-use the network storage at work for this, one of the advantages of working in IT.... ;)
-
The Canon all singing IXUS 200 IS - my next camera if/when I have the money - is down £50 to £200 on Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002LSI1K0/ref=s9_wishf_gw_t?ie=UTF8&coliid=IQLYFYK5PMW6Q&colid=2CT51NM83R93S&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_r=1S4EA4QX5YKQG84XRE9G&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=469296553&pf_rd_i=468294 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002LSI1K0/ref=s9_wishf_gw_t?ie=UTF8&coliid=IQLYFYK5PMW6Q&colid=2CT51NM83R93S&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_r=1S4EA4QX5YKQG84XRE9G&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=469296553&pf_rd_i=468294)
-
The Canon all singing IXUS 200 IS - my next camera if/when I have the money
Do you know how it is at macros Mark?
-
yes, about 2 cm
-
Any suggestions for an inexpensive and easy-to-use digital SLR camera? Any particular bargains anyone has seen recently? Looking mainly for something for plant photography, so good close-up, but also for general use.
-
Martin, I'm afraid you will have to define a price bracket before any useful advice can be given
-
I wasn't giving a price bracket, hoping to see just how low-priced but still good it's possible to go, but I take the point. I was thinking under £500, which I know is a bit limiting. I was really just wondering if anyone had seen any really good bargains around. But not to worry, I can do a bit of hunting around the usual outlets.
-
Look at Park Cameras website. They are showing the new Nikon D3100 +18-55 VR lens for £419.99. The specification on this camera is higher than the D300s which sells at over double the price.
The CANON EOS 1000D with 18-55 IS lens is £369.95 in Jessops.
The CANON EOS 1100D with 18-55 IS lens is £459.95 in Jessops. This has a higher spec. but you are also paying for HD video
You cannot really go wrong buying into Nikon/Canon as the are highly reliable and well made. A 10 Megapixel sensor is more than adequate for normal use and will give you good quality pictures.
-
Thanks Tom. I'll take a look at those. I was thinking about looking at Canons. The compact digital Canon I've had for a few years now has been very good for what it is.
-
Some advice please.At the moment I use a friend's Nikon D 3000 to learn to use digital and I am very disappointed with the "reds" that are not "true".Even the violets become blue.Yet some red colors are right(like a tomato).The D 3000 is basic but do you have the same problems if you go higher up in the range and what model should you advice.I'd like not to have to use photoshop too often.
About the price:I don't have to buy the lens so I can spend a bit more on the digital stuff but please nothing too expensive.
-
Hi John,
I too use a Nikon, the D80, and must say that I have few problems with reds, oranges or violets. Bright yellows are always difficult, especially at shows, but this is not so much a colour problem but more a simple exposure issue.
An image taken at Disneyland, Paris over the Easter weekend ...
-
It could be that the "capture" of the picture is using a saturated program and needs post capture adjustment using a photo program. Before using the camera, it gives you the choice of setting sharpness, contrast, colour reproduction, saturation and hue. It could be that the picture taking mode has been set up incorrectly. Only by reading the instruction book and looking at how the camera is set up and trying different combinations will you be able to see if it is a camera fault. Another way is to reset the camera controls to default level.
Digital cameras have a huge of picture recording possibilities that was not possible with film. With slide film it was a case of what you saw was what you got.
With Digital, it is only the starting point. I would be most surprised if the D3000 would regularly produce sub standard pictures. It is more likely due to the set-up.
-
Speaking from experience (!) I would say that the first thing to learn about when you get your first digital SLR is white balance. The auto white balance setting does not always produce the desired result - I find with my Canon, landscape photos that include a lot of green foliage typically are too blue when it is cloudy, and a bit too red when it is sunny. Using the custom white balance function is pretty easy (all you really need in terms of extra equipment is an old-fashioned gray card), or if you shoot all of your photos as RAW files it is really easy to adjust white balance in the post-processing phase. If you just shoot jpg files is is a bit more difficult to get the color right but not impossible.
When I first got my digital SLR, I somehow accidentally set the white balance from auto to manual/fluorescent. Not realizing what I had done, I wondered why all my outdoor photos seemed more than a bit on the bluish side. It was several months before I figured out what I had done!
Ed
-
John,
You don't say whether your colour problems occur when you are viewing the pictures on a monitor, or when you are printing them. There's several places where things can go wrong: in-camera settings, computer/monitor communication or computer/printer communication
Firstly if the problem stems from the camera, it has probably been moved away from the basic settings. You say that the camera belongs to a friend, so I would check this first, and ask to borrow the instruction book so that you can reset to the factory settings if desired/you are allowed. It's always a counsel of perfection to fully read the manual, but I've never got past page 60 (out of over 380 :o) of the manual for my D300, but have now taken over 13,000 photos with it.
If your reds appear wrong on the monitor, is it just photos taken with this camera (assuming that the camera settings are correct), or do other photos or pictures from the web look wrong also? In this case you would need to recalibrate your monitor. There's a basic system for doing this in Photoshop, which you seem to have - let me know if you need any help with this.
If it's the printing at fault, then if you are printing yourself, are you using Photoshop to talk to the printer and set the colour whilst at the same time using the printer's colour management to do the same thing? This can cause some awful conflicts and false colours (been there, done that.... :-\). Also with printing, I've given up using third-party inks as I've never been happy with the results (my problem was yellows); yes, manufacturer's own inks are probably more expensive by weight than gold (maybe not after the recent price increases), but you do get what you pay for. If you are having them printed commercially, then try a different lab, sometimes their printers will cause a colour problem for you.
As for cameras, you probably won't want to go up to the D300 I use, but as you seem to have Nikon fit lenses, I can say that my son-in-law uses a D90 and gets excellent results with it.
-
While photography questions are topical, perhaps I could ask another: resizing photographs to put them up on the web is a job I find tedious. Can anybody suggest a quick way to deal with resizing a large number of shots? Is there any way to deal with a batch of photographs and treat them all in the same way - select a group of photographs and resize them all in the same manner and then save to a different folder. I use Adobe Photoshop CS2.
Paddy
-
Paddy,
Indeed there is a very simple way. You need to create an 'action' then record the steps you want to follow - such as 'file open, resize, sharpen, file save, file close' then save the action. Then do File, automate, batch and select your saved action. Choose the parameters you want then hit OK. The action will run on all the files in the input directory you selected and save the output to the destination directory. Assuming the two are different you will keep your originals unmodified.
Let me know if you have any questions - best to just try it out - PS isn't especially intuitive but if you keep fiddling you usually get the desired result.
Best,
John
-
Paddy,
Indeed there is a very simple way. You need to create an 'action' then record the steps you want to follow - such as 'file open, resize, sharpen, file save, file close' then save the action. Then do File, automate, batch and select your saved action. Choose the parameters you want then hit OK. The action will run on all the files in the input directory you selected and save the output to the destination directory. Assuming the two are different you will keep your originals unmodified.
Let me know if you have any questions - best to just try it out - PS isn't especially intuitive but if you keep fiddling you usually get the desired result.
Best,
John
Wonderful news, John ... would you happen to know the procedure for Macs? ??? ??? ???
-
If Photoshop runs on a Mac then it is the same, I would imagine. If not then......sorry......no. I've used PS for ever and never needed anything other than PS, and Irfan View for quick looks at image attachments etc.
Best,
J.
-
Cliff,
You will need to open the 'Actions' palate (Window>Actions in Photoshop CS2) - I keep it docked with the Histroy palate on the side of the screen. There is a keyboard shortcut on a PC (Alt+F9), but I don't know what the Mac equivalent of Alt is.
I just used Photoshop help once the actions palate was open to create actions for simple resizing/sharpening for posting on the website. I keep the long side of the image to 900 pixels, so that I needed a vertical and a horizontal format action. Mind you I've been applying the actions individually, but now that John has shown us how to batch process a group of images, I'll be revising that...... ;)
-
I've used PS for ever and never needed anything other than PS, and Irfan View for quick looks at image attachments etc.
IrfanView, which is available as a free download, has batch processing functions - re-sizing, re-naming, etc. The functions may not be as good as Photoshop, but it is free...
Ed
-
Wonderful news, John ... would you happen to know the procedure for Macs? ??? ??? ???
Cliff - it is possible to automate repetitive tasks on a Mac although it is many years since I did it, & not with images. Look up 'automate' on Mac Help. It now seems quite complicated.
-
Many thanks John, Peter and Gerry.
-
"bulborum" - Roland de Boer, has this note in his signature : To make easy and fast small pictures http://www.efpage.de/eTinypic.html and has written before about the ease of this system .... not sure about its use on a Mac though.
-
Many thanks, John. I'll give that a try. Paddy
-
Paddy, et al,
Before going through the exercise of creating actions, see if the "save for web" function will do what you need. You should be able to choose resolution, sizing options, etc. and apply them to batches of photographs.
-
Thank you all.May be I stick to my very good 44years old SLR as long as film is available.But Fred as nearly convinced me to try the not so expensive Fuji S1730 for a start.Or is it not a good idea?
Your comments please.
-
The PS 'save for web' function is great and I use it as part of my standard 'Web Save' action set that I use to batch process all my images once I have them as jpgs. Unless I'm mistaken, the PS 'save for web' function still needs to be part of an action set if you want to use it in batch or 'automate' mode.
J.
-
Paddy will editing en masse allow you to crop out what you dont want?
I enjoy editing photos and have been siting for a long time editing those from the Fermi and Will trip
-
I don't like to use an "edit all" function because I like to crop my photos to how I want them.
Ian is a much better photographer than I and can frame his photos better so is able to make use of a bulk re-size for the Forum but I can't cope with that.... my pix need all the help they can get :-X
-
Mark, I would edit photographs individually but after than would like to batch edit for size - reducing all to, say, 700 on the long size for websites.
Paddy
-
This website gives very simple instructions for batch resizing photographs in Adobe Photoshop and is very easy to follow and turns a drudge of a job into a few clicks.
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-to-batch-resize-in-photoshop
Recommendation: In the dialogue window you are asked where you want the resized files saved. I find it best to save to the file from which they came. Photoshop will automatically create a sub-folder and save all the resized photographs there.
Paddy
-
I recently bought a couple of adaptors that allow me to use my old lenses with my Canon EOS 500D.
One of these is an 18cm Sonnar 2.8. Originally made in DDR I believe. This allows me to take "closeups" from a tripod in 2m distance meaning that I do not need to contort myself.
The lack of depth of field is of course noticeable but after some calculation I came to the result that f:11 would be optimal.
The problem in closing down the diafragm to smaller diameters is that the wave nature of light will blur the picture.
I show here two pictures taken immediately after each others. One using f:11 the other using f:32.
It is very clear how the depth of field is slightly improved in the f:32 but the sharpness is gone.
Hope this is of interest to someone:
The plant is Epimedium brachyrrhizum.
Cheers
Göte
-
I thought that I would try the batch resizing in Photoshop but it is not available in Photoshop 7 ! Back to the time consuming drudge again.
-
Picasa will do batch resizing and transfer them to whatever photo software you use. It works for me with Adobe photo elements. Just highlight them,save them in the tray and then export to to your photo software. Picasa is free to download.
-
My Nikon Coolpix 8700 started behaving erratically last week. I had a customized programme set at aperture priority, unexpectedly the command button would not adjust the aperture settings. Next day in Custom 1 the focus button refused to work but the Lock button would focus. Then the same happened to Custom 2 shutter priority. I was still able to photograph in Auto and Scene modes. Then the shutter button refused to work. Nikon replied with the usual instructions straight from the manual despite being told of the erratic behaviour. Now they suggest I send it to Toronto for a free estimate. Is this a common totentanz or can it be re-programmed or repaired at a reasonable price?
I have not dropped it into any flagons of ale or onto the greenhouse's cement floor.
johnw
-
John,
I will be of little help I'm sure, when I suggest that the majority of cameras have a 'return to factory settings' configuration. I presume that Nikon also suggested this course of action? Sometimes it proves necessary to try this procedure three or four times to override any electronic malfunctions (which may have been caused by all manner of unidentifiable events), though (by the sound of it) this is simply a faulty model!
On a different tack - may I thank you for introducing me to the wonderful word ... 'totentanz' , which perfectly describes my gait, general clumsiness and malfunctioning brain (and your unfortunate Nikon).
... And 'Yes', I do realise it can mean 'dance of death'!!! :D
-
Thanks Cliff. Nikon had recommended doing a "Reset all" which I did quite a few times but to no avail. Once reset then it was impossible to get back to the necessary settings with the failure of functions and buttons. The Coolpix is now Toronto bound to Nikon.
I know that gait as I often am so afflicted on rough terrain:
Nun hebt sich der Schenkel, nun wackelt das Bein, Now waggles the leg, and now wriggles the thigh,
Gebärden da gibt es vertrackte; As the troop with strange gestures advance, (Goethe from Totentanz)
johnw
-
I have series of lenses going to waste in the attic - Canon and Sigma 50mm macro, 105mm macro, 28-70mm, 70-210mm, 75-300mm for my Canon EOS600 which I havent used in a long time.
If I buy a Canon DSLR body will these lenses work?
-
Yes, but not at the same focal lengths as with the film camera. My daughter has broken the screen on her camera. She needs a new one, but one with a rechargeable battery, not one that uses AA batteries, as these are unreliable. Based on experience of two cameras, they either lose their charge or the connections fail and the camera is therefore a liability.
-
Yes, but not at the same focal lengths as with the film camera. My daughter has broken the screen on her camera. She needs a new one, but one with a rechargeable battery, not one that uses AA batteries, as these are unreliable. Based on experience of two cameras, they either lose their charge or the connections fail and the camera is therefore a liability.
What?? Not same focal length ??
Surely you men the distance from focus plane to lens mount??
Canon electronic cameras are slightly shorter than the older type. Thus you can use adapter rings. Simple ones will need manual focus and manual aperture control but I believe you can buy rings that give all the bells and whistles. I now use my old lenses with M-thread to my new camera and it works very well.
Göte
-
I had a Canon A95 which took AA cells, no problem, always thought AA cells where easy to get hold of. I did use the high capacity version of the AA batteries, last longer between charges.
On lenses. The size of the image sensor comes into play, so on the low cost Sony Alphas it is about 2/3 rd the size of a 35mm film frame, result is that a 200mm lens on film becomes equivalent to a 300mm one.
Lots of lens adapters on ebay, along with a market in lenses which will tell you how useful old lenses are.
-
Equivalent is the word.
Göte
-
7dayshop don't ship to Europe and also don't stock the particular Panasonic camera battery I am looking for. Can anyone recommend another online shop in the UK or elsewhere in Europe with good battery/recharger prices?
-
There are several suppliers in the UK who supply batteries, however I do not know if they ship to Portugal. You could try Budgetbatteries.co.uk, Mail order batteries.com or Amazon
Most of these companies sell cheaper equivalent batteries to the Pansonic range.
The best idea is to search on Google for Camera batteries, identify your battery type, check the price and then see if the sell outside the UK. There is usually an email address on the site.
-
Chloe,
I can recommend Premier-Ink (www.premier-ink.co.uk/) - a good source of cheap, non-manufacturer batteries - or Wex photographic (www.warehouseexpress.com/Home/default.aspx). However I'm not sure whather either of them ship outside the UK.
You could also try Speedgraphic (www.speedgraphic.co.uk) who do ship to mainland Europe, but I'm not sure whather they would have your battery in stock.
I bought from all of these companies previously and they all have a very good service.
Peter
-
Chloe, an address with good recommendations on the net, where I would buy is:
http://www.replacedirect.nl/apparaat/27942/digitale-camera/interne-accus.html (http://www.replacedirect.nl/apparaat/27942/digitale-camera/interne-accus.html)
They have about all batteries you may think of and I think they send EU wide, just send them a mail and ask. Dhe Dutch will mostly speak English as well :)
On the next link you will find all batteries of Panasonic:
http://www.replacedirect.nl/apparaat/48166/panasonic/interne-accus.html (http://www.replacedirect.nl/apparaat/48166/panasonic/interne-accus.html)
-
Amazon ship worldwide, but check that the supplier puts "international shipping rates" and not "domestic shipping rates" in their ad.
-
Thank you all for your ideas. I ended up buying what I needed via Amazon (bought last night, already "shipped" before 9.00 am), but the various links have been bookmarked for future reference. Panasonic DMC-FP1 - in case anyone is wondering. A nice little camera that has the great advantage of no protruding lens to be broken when it falls on the floor or is in daughter's jacket pocket :)
-
Hi all-- hopefully I am not repeating something already covered, but I did a quick search and didn't see quite this question.....
I got a Nikon D3100 (dslr) as an early Christmas present and enjoying it so far, but I will need more than the kit 18-55 lens to do everything I am used to (my Panasonic lumix can go from macro focus right on the subject to 18x telephoto, and I use the full range all the time)... With the 18-55, I cannot get as close to the subject as I am used to, but I can get close enough, with good image quality and cropping, so that's not a big issue, but I am used to going from close-up to distance so that I can capture distant landscape features etc within seconds while shooting plants, and often go back and forth from one photo to the next...
Sure, carrying around two cameras is one solution- but not a comfortable one, nor am I keen on the idea of changing lenses in the field- where its often windy, dusty, muddy etc (if I wanted to change lenses a lot, I might get the 55-200 or 70-300 to add to my 18-55)..
So, I've been thinking about the 18-200 which should cover most of my needs- I could get a macro for use around home if needed, but really would rather have just one lens in the field...
So, -comments on my conclusions are welcome, but my question mainly is about price/source- this lens as seen locally is over $800, which is rich for my budget! Any reliable places online to buy name brand lenses for less I say online because I am not near any large city, though if anyone in Alberta knows a good place in Edmonton or Calgary, I could make a trip for a good deal)? (also, I know Amazon, of course) What about used lenses-good value or risk? Are there any cheaper compatible lenses worth the money?
-
Hello Cohan,
I use a Nikon D300 which is the predecessor to your D3100. I use an 18 - 200 AF-S Nikkor DX VR. I find it a very versatile lens and quite useful for plant photography as well as landscape and wildlife photography. You can frame your shot very easily. Closest focusing distance is 0.5 m which in reality is not too much of a disadvantage.
I have a AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D for closeup work. It is relatively cheap with not too much glass to cart around. Closest focusing distance is 0.22m which means you get to grovel around in the mud quite a bit.
When I am in the field I try not to change lens too frequently which means deciding what you wish to photograph on the day.
hope this is helpful
-
Following David's generous info,' I tend to use a Sigma DC 17-70mm with my Nikon D80 and seldom consider changing it in the field.
I have other lenses that, like David, I rarely cart around, and they tend to remain at home in my camera bag (which is another blithering nuisance), along with my tripod (used twice in twenty years), flash unit (three times) and camera case. Travel light is the mantra, just the camera, a spare battery and three memory cards for each day in the mountains (oh - and Sue, of course)!
-
While there is talk of cameras and lenses, may I put in a word wearing my IRG Editor's hat?
We are fortunate to have so many talented photographers around the forum...but... (you knew there was a but coming there, didn't you?).... but, there is a distinct lack of photos taken in portrait format. The vast majority are taken in landacape/ horizontal format. May I ask you folks to take a moment when out with your cameras to give a though to this and turn your camera... whichever make and model it might be, therough 90 degrees and try some portrait/vertical style shots?
Aprat from casting a new eye on things for you... it would be a great help for me in searching for photos for the front page of the IRG!!
Yes, a vertical shot can be contrived from some horizontal format pix, but I prefer not to play around with the work of the photogrpahers in that way, if it is at all possible to avoid that. Since the portrait format is the one which fits our IRG cover so nicely, it would be really exciting if more of you would shoot a few in that style!! ;) ;)
-
Maggi, I'm certain that all the wonderful photographers on this forum have many fine examples of alpine flowers and their habitats in portrait format that don't tend to see the light of day because 'most' editors, publishers and designers require or demand landscape format. The unique requirements of IRG give us an opportunity to display images that have remained long hidden. The problem is always knowing exactly what subject you might need for each edition?
-
I hope you are correct, Cliff... and that millions of great shots are waiting to be used. I am finding though that some folks seem to have very few portrait shots so thought a little note might help!
Mostly of course, a cover shot will be linked to an article though this next issue will have an unrelated shot as a cover- just "because" !!
Just as I would urge folks to submit fab pix, I would widen that to suggest that submissions of short articles for inclusion are more than welcome. More the merrier. We try to tackler all sorts of things... our over-riding idea being to whet the appetities of the reader to appreciate these flowers and wild places and want to make great gardens.
-
Following David's generous info,' I tend to use a Sigma DC 17-70mm with my Nikon D80 and seldom consider changing it in the field.
I have other lenses that, like David, I rarely cart around, and they tend to remain at home in my camera bag (which is another blithering nuisance), along with my tripod (used twice in twenty years), flash unit (three times) and camera case. Travel light is the mantra, just the camera, a spare battery and three memory cards for each day in the mountains (oh - and Sue, of course)!
I agree with Cliff the 17- 70 Sigma is a great choice and is also my weapon of choice. It is a zoom and a macro all in one. Beware a longer telephoto requires much higher shutter speeds to remove the likelihood of camera shake meaning that low light shots are more challenging with longer lenses.
-
Hey Maggie I've found one!!!!!!!
Mike
-
There you go... colourful photo of an old classic.... just what I'm saying!
Thanks Mike. :)
-
Having been away for a couple of days, I've just caught up on this thread and feel that I ought to present the other view of interchangeable lenses.
Several years ago I was on a landscape photography course where we were urged not "to be 'precious' about our camera/lenses - they're only a tool and you do have it insured don't you?" This caused me to look at my equipment in a different light and I now have no hesitation in changing lenses in the field - with the exception of being near to the sea, where salt spray can get into the camera and there I would follow the previous contributors' advice. I find that if I am going on any trip, a good clean of all the equipment before setting out, which includes cleaning the inside of the camera and the rear of the lenses with compressed air (available in cans), followed by regular cleaning at the end of each day with a blower brush when away (I don't think cans of compressed air would be welcomed by airline security these days) and another thorough cleaning at the end of the trip avoids virtually all problems. Also remember that many SLR's these days can be set to shake the sensor when the camera powers up to dislodge any dust particles onto a sticky pad that traps them.
When you are in the field, yes, you turn your back to the wind and change the lens quickly to avoid dust being blown in, but I wouldn't let it stop me changing the lens to get the effect that I want. You will get the odd dust particle appearing occasionally, but by taking a picture of a blank surface (paper, hotel wall, etc) at the end of each day and scrutinising it carefully, you can check whether there have been any particles appearing in the pictures for that day and ensure that it isn't there for the next day so that there is not too much computer work to do removing spots at the end of a trip. Incidentally most of the major specks that I have found in pictures have been caused by minute bits of metal being worn away from the lens mount and getting onto the sensor - it wasn't the wind that put them there!
Compressed air cans need to be used carefully to avoid the propellant being expelled onto the sensor, but you will get find fewer problems caused by this than saliva on the sensor caused by blowing on it - yes, it always happens. ;) Once you get these smears on a sensor, you need to clean the sensor properly, either having it done professionally, or buying special sensor brushes and fluids to do it yourself (I can recommend products from the Canadian firm Visible Dust for this, having cleaned two camera's sensors now, they also have a great antistatic brush for keeping dust particles off the sensor).
The downside to all this is that you then end up carrying a lot of kit around (hence the specialist camera insurance!) - I find that food for the day has to go into a bum-bag carried under my photo-rucksack if I'm just doing a relatively easy day in spring/summer in the mountains. Winter/long-distance/remote walking is another thing altogether, and I would take the appropriate kit for that that, and then cram in camera, and whatever lenses I have space for/might conceivably use.
-
I have a very hard time photographing close up of flowers. I have a Nikon Coolpix 8800 which can take pictures to 2" As you can see from the attached image the background is in focus but not the flower.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
-
I had a look at the specs. for the 8800 It talks about 9 manual focus areas and 5 auto areas. Without access to the manual, it appears that you have just pointed the camera at the flower and it has assumed that you wanted the whole area in focus - not the foreground. I initially had this problem with the coolpix P5000 until I read the instructions closely and found a sub - program in the menu for close - up shots. Have a good look at your instruction book and it will more than likely tell what is required for close up mode. It's always a good idea to try all the programs in a camera so you can see what they do and how it suits your needs.
-
Arnold the answer is that the autofocus system looks for areas of sharp contrast to focus on and as the flower is much of the same colour the camera has looked to focus on the leaves in the background.
This is a very common problem when taking such pictures with auto focus cameras.
The solution:-
If your camera has a setting that allows you to select the area to focus on then choose the central zone. However even that does not always work so another option is using manual focus if your camera allows.
Another solution I use is to bring your hand into where the flower is focus and hold the shutter button,half down, remove your hand and take the picture.
And one last option is to focus on something else at the same distance then hold the focus as you re frame the flower, check it looks in focus and take the picture.
As the exposure settings will be taken at the same time it needs to be something that has a similar light value will not adversely affect the exposure - your hand is as near as you will get to neutral for this purpose.
Hope this helps.
-
Ian:
Makes sense. It seems that at higher light levels the problem is not so pronounced.
-
Thanks for the input, all!
David- sounds like the 18-200 should work okay for me.. getting a specialised macro lens is not going to happen for now (well, the 18-200 will have to wait a bit for that matter..lol)
Cliff, I agree I don't wish to carry a lot of stuff around-- when on foot near home or cycling nearby (especially cycling- mostly on gravel roads- super dusty!) I really wouldn't want to carry/change anything... some sites we visit on the road wouldn't be as bad- I could change equipment inside the vehicle if needed-- but even still-- I go from close-up to macro from one shot to the next, and back, and forth, and back.... So maybe longterm I will need to adjust something, but I'd really like to have one versatile lens... funny that I could do it with my cheaper camera...lol
Peter- insurance? wouldn't even know where to look for it!.... Your maintenance regime sounds great, but I have to say it sounds beyond me at the moment.. something worthwhile to aspire to :)
Maggi- I take lots of photos in portrait format, but rarely post them as such, since they look much smaller onscreen!! Not that I think I have many subjects appropriate for the IRG cover, so not that important..lol
-
Arnold: my camera not focusing on what I wanted was my #1 reason to get a DSLR. After I could see what it was up to I learnt to set the auto focus to a single spot in the middle of the frame :) but I do often turn it off for very close up pictures.
Cohan: You can get screw on close-up lenses as an alternative to a macro. I got a set of four for 10 quid on ebay. Resulting quality was acceptable.
-
Arnold
I have used a Nikon coolpix 8800 for many years & had no real problems with close up shots.
Go into SCENE mode then MENU & select Close up. When you then press the accept button your screen changes to one marked with a selection of brackets. With the arrows around the central button you can select a bracket which is closest to the subject you wish to photograph. I also believe the closest you can have the camera to the subject is about 9 inches.
Hope this is useful.
Mike
-
Forgot to include this close up.
Mike
-
Comment/query from non-techy type (me :-[):
I understand about the focus area and so on.... but in addition....with a digital camera, is it not just as easy to get close definition by not trying to get physically so close to the subject, but by getting "quite" close to the subject and then magnifying the desired area from the resulting picture?
Don't know if I've explained that very well, but you clever folks may be able to interpret my meaning...... :)
-
Maggi - you're comparing 'digital zoom' with physical zoom.
You can take any digital image and zoom it up - software generates more pixels for you. It does this by saying, if this pixel has value 2 and the one next to it value 3, I can insert a new pixel with value 2.5 between them. Problem is that in reality the point between the two pixels might have a different value to the average.
As you digitally zoom in, you see lots more pixels but not necessarily more information.
Physical zoom with lenses and sensors with more pixels sets off with more real information about the target, hence better quality.
Good macro lenses offer 1:1 resolution, one pixel of the target ends up on one pixel of the sensor in the camera. Or an inch of target ends up on an inch of sensor.
It is true though that one often takes high resolution photos and ends up reducing the resolution to post the image on the forum, and you might as well have set off taking the photo from further away in the first place or with a non-macro lens.
-
Yes, I think I follow that, David , thanks.
If one is having trouble getting a satisfactory result at a physical distance of two inches, though, would it not be possible to get the desired effect at say 9 inches and then crop the picture to concentrate the image?
edit: I mean to capture the image in good focus and then crop to emphasise the intended centre of attention?
-
Yes, I think I follow that, David , thanks.
If one is having trouble getting a satisfactory result at a physical distance of two inches, though, would it not be possible to get the desired effect at say 9 inches and then crop the picture to concentrate the image?
edit: I mean to capture the image in good focus and then crop to emphasise the intended centre of attention?
Some interesting comments here. Compacts are always problematical in gaining good focus for close ups probably because they are designed for snapshots and not close up flower photography.
Being very close to a subject will mean that the depth of field (that is the distance over which focus can be achieved) is much less when closer to the subject and when really close the amount can be a couple of mm which is minuscule. I find that if I want greater depth of focus in taking say a Crocus it is better to move back from the subject and crop the final result. And providing there is no camera shake the image will be just as sharp to the eye and more of the flower will be in focus. After all most cameras now have 12 million pixels so with the tiny files we post here it probably makes little difference
-
Maggi,
Yes you are correct in thinking that you can crop the image to get the result you want, and it will be fine for use on the web, small prints, etc. It's only when you want to make large prints (A4, A3, etc) that you would find that the image suffered through cropping.
You would be able to get the image of the flower sharp this way, the only problem with compact cameras is the limited ability to obtain a different depth of field, i.e. to get the flower sharp, but the background out of focus so that the flower you want to depict stands out.
-
Many thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff to me, Guys... much appreciated... I'm sure others will have learned from you, too.
-
Mike:
If I back the camera up there is less of a focus proble. My handbook says 1.5 inches for close-up.
-
Maggi - put it this way, if the image coming out of the camera is 4000 pixels wide and all you want is to put something 400 pixels wide on the forum, you don't care if the flower only takes up a tenth of the frame.
Another aspect is that all these photos are compressed using JPEG, and often some sharpness is lost in that process.
But if you want maximum detail, or the flowers are very small you end up very close to the target with a suitable lens.
Immediately after I bought my close up lenses I bought a tripod and a shutter release cable - you want a greater depth of field, so you want to take longer exposures.
Below is a picture of a teasel, as close as I could get with my 18-70mm lens, about a foot. What comes out of the Sony A200 is 3872 pixels wide. I have reduced it to 20% to upload here. The second photo is a piece of the original with no reduction in size, 500 pixels wide. Third photo was taken with the close-up lens fitted, again it is reduced to 20%. Finally see that bug - the last photo shows it at maximum size - close up lens photo with no reduction. You can read off the pixel dimensions below.
-
Every picture worth a thousand words, David! 8)
-
Arnold
just had a try with Scene/Close up, and about 2inches from the lens seems to be as close as mine will go.
You could try moving away from the subject and using the zoom to go in close as that would also, in scene mode, increase the depth of field as the lens stops down.
Mike
-
There are several considerations i closeup photo
#1: It is a question of information. As pointed out above. Your software can insert missing pixels but not create information that was not there. If we increase the number of pixels using appropriate software and then decrease the scale (by viewing from further away or otherwise) we are back to square zero. We want to have as much information in the picture as possible so therefore we try to use as much of the sensor as possible. The so called digital zoom is nothing but cropping in the camera. You can as well use a pair of scissors on the print.
#2: The depth of field in the subject depends upon the scale of magnification - not on the distance to the subject. A 250mm lens 2.5 meters away will give the same depth of field as a 25mm lens 25 cm away.
#3: A closeup picture does not need to be close. If we look to an oldfashioned plate camera with bellows we get the same size on the negative with 250mm lens 2.5 meters away as with a 25mm lens 25 cm away. The old camera (including also 35mm with fixed focus lens) focuses closeup by increasing the lens-film distance. If you wanted higher magnification the negative you simply moved the lens away from the film - using the bellows or rings or whatever. Modern zoom lenses do not focus by changing the distance between lens and sensor so this simple method is not feasible. The lens manufacturer sometimes sacrifies the ability of close focussing in tele-mode so the photographer has to use wideangle and get uncomfortably close to the subject.
For this reason it is much better to use additional closeup lenses with tele-setting as recommended above. The alternative is to get a special macro lens and that is many times more expensive.
#4: If we want to increase depth of field we can
A: Stop down the lens (if the camera allows this; most do). This has two disadvantages: Longer exposure time (use a tripod and hope the day is not windy) And loss of definition due to diffraction if we stop down too much (as I have shown in an earlier post). Maximum definition is usually achieved at f:11 or thereabouts. Stopping down to f:22 is, however, usually acceptable. (There used to be an f:44 club of landscape photographers but they used negative formats of 18x24cm and did not enlarge their pictures very much)
B: Use less magnification on the film/sensor. This is of course to step back in magnification of the subject but if we use a fine grained film or a sensor with higly packed sensors we get an improvement. The drawback is the lower sensitivity to low light levels. The smaller pixels/silver halide grains do not catch as many photons as the bigger ones. The high degree of pixel packing (in pixels/mm2) is the reason why depth of field is quite good in many modern small digital cameras.
My advice is always: Use a tripod. Fill the frame. Use the longest lens available and the longest distance that will fill your frame. If the lens does not focus down to that distance use a cheap closeup lens in front.
I hope I have not expressed myself too cloudily.
Göte
-
Excellent summary Göte.
I would just add one thing for those with too much (computer) time on their hands. As the optimum aperture for maximum sharpness is in the range f8-f11 (because the lens maunfacturers design them that way), then if this isn't going to give you front-to-back sharpness of the subject you can take a series of images with slightly different points of focus and merge them in the computer - a procedure known as focus stacking. There are even relatively inexpensive progammes that will preform the job for you whilst you make a cup of coffee or go and do some light weeding. ;)
-
I recall reading a good post by Göte in which he showed the effect of diffraction at small aperture. Alas I've failed to find it again.
Attached are two sets of three photos taken at f2.8, f11 and f32, the first set show that as the aperture decreases depth of field increases. The second set show sharpness peaks in the middle.
Photos are of a 1mm laser printed grid, taken with Minolta 50mm f2.8 macro lens at closest focusing distance.
-
Excellent summary Göte.
I would just add one thing for those with too much (computer) time on their hands. As the optimum aperture for maximum sharpness is in the range f8-f11 (because the lens maunfacturers design them that way), then if this isn't going to give you front-to-back sharpness of the subject you can take a series of images with slightly different points of focus and merge them in the computer - a procedure known as focus stacking. There are even relatively inexpensive progammes that will preform the job for you whilst you make a cup of coffee or go and do some light weeding. ;)
Thank you. I assume that such a program will also re-center the pictures since ther will be inevitable movement between each exposure.
Göte
-
I recall reading a good post by Göte in which he showed the effect of diffraction at small aperture. Alas I've failed to find it again.
Attached are two sets of three photos taken at f2.8, f11 and f32, the first set show that as the aperture decreases depth of field increases. The second set show sharpness peaks in the middle.
Photos are of a 1mm laser printed grid, taken with Minolta 50mm f2.8 macro lens at closest focusing distance.
I think your pictures show the point more clearly than mine did. I get the impression that 2.8 is nearly better than 11 (if we disregard the effect of the distance) that is a very good lens indeed.
Göte
-
I cannot trace that post you mention from Göte ... might it have been in the "old" Forum? :-\
-
I cannot trace that post you mention from Göte ... might it have been in the "old" Forum? :-\
It was this summer but showed Epimedium I think. I have not the time to dig it up today
By the way have anice weekend all of you
Göte
-
Hi,
This is Göte's example
http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=54.msg200906#msg200906
I just needed the clue 'epimdium'.
-
Well done, David.
The search didn't find it for me .... it did with Epimedium brachyrrhizum but not with epimedium alone. Blasted thing is temperamental!
-
I assume that such a program will also re-center the pictures since ther will be inevitable movement between each exposure.
I had to check that Göte , as the program that I use (Helicon Focus) was developed for macrophotography Out of doors, I've only used it on fungi which don't usually move in the wind. However, according to the website it does align images automatically. (You can tell that I havene't used the program much yet)
-
I must admit to no photographic knowledge whatsoever and I must be thick to boot, but I only understand around one word in every ten on these pages ;D
-
There is a good article on focus stacking here:
http://www.laurieknight.net/article
describes various pieces of software, some of which are free, here:
http://www.laurieknight.net/article/view/7
Maggi: I used Google to find the article.
-
I only have a pocket camera which is OK for most things, but I find it really hard to get good focused pictures of bright yellow flowers >:( >:( >:( >:(. Particularly upsetting as some of these are to my mind the most lovely. ??? ??? ??? Any tips?
-
Really haven't a clue Ron but I do wonder if my grey background helps on mine which really aren't the best in any case.
-
Seems I can get the little square thing to say its focused David, but then when I look at the picture I took it isn't :(. I think because I'm using a basic camera its getting fooled by the uniformity of the yellow colour and getting no depth. But then ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Ron, does your camera allow you to press your shutter button down half way to get your subject in focus, and then to continue pressing down when you're satisfied? I talk a lot of cobblers, don't understand it myself, perhaps one of the technocrats will come to the rescue ;D
-
It does David, but it doesnt seem to be able to differentiate between subtle differences in yellow! As a colour scientist I could understand if this was in the grey area, or it was been messed up by red, as our eyes are, but no, yellow is my problem :'( :'( :'(. And its a Nikon :P :P
-
I have awful problems with reds which come out as horrendous pinks.
-
Ron are you using the macro icon for close shots? Do you know how close your camera allows you to get? What camera are you using?
-
Does anyone have an idea about the quality of the Canon Power Shot SX 40 HS?
I am thinking off buying this one. It has 35 x optical zoom and adjustable display.
I would appreciate your comments.
Lina.
-
Hi Mark,
Its only a Nikon S3100, and it doesnt seem to want me to be closer than about 8". Which is OK. For everything else. I simple crop and sort it. But with yellows... no good! :( :( Maybe just cheap!
-
"Macro
Close up shots are not a strong point of this camera. You will need to be around 10cm away from your subject before the Coolpix S3100 is able to focus. That is more than three times the distance some cameras in this category can manage. As long as you are at that distance the camera is able to produce an impressive level of detail, but without cropping your shots will look a lot more distant than with most digital camera macro shots."
-
Thank you so much Mark for bothering to go into this detail on my behalf! :) :)
I really appreciate it. Will do my best from 10 cm. Thank you. :) :) :)
-
Please note the review came off a camera review web site
-
ok. Thanks anyway for bothering, ;)
-
I too am looking for a camera that takes decent macro shots. Something around $500. My Nikon Coolpix 8200 was a great camera but a bit too complicated, it gave up the ghost last year whilst friends have the 5700 still going strong. Nikon offered $35 off another camera; it cost $42 to send them the camera for analysis!
Any recommendations?
johnw
-
I have awful problems with reds which come out as horrendous pinks.
David - You're not alone. The experts were never been able to come up with a solution for me. If the red is a particularly good one and with a sheen the red would come out pink and the sheen white. I tried umbrellas and everything else.
The old Pentax MX using Velvia film had no such problem.
johnw
-
I have awful problems with reds which come out as horrendous pinks.
David - You're not alone. The experts were never been able to come up with a solution for me. If the red is a particularly good one and with a sheen the red would come out pink and the sheen white. I tried umbrellas and everything else.
The old Pentax MX using Velvia film had no such problem.
johnw
I'm pretty sure there is a way around the problem John but it's sure to mean fiddling with settings (all my stuff is done on auto or on one of the settings "fixed" in the camera). I even think it's been explained here before, but in terms I didn't understand.
-
John,
If you're looking for a basic compact camera, the Panasonic Lumix series cameras have been quite good for us. They focus down to 5cm and we have been using one at work - a dental practice - for close ups of teeth. I specifically bought the basic models which could be used totally on automatic (FS10 then, but they're onto FS16 now) as my partner at work is not a camera buff - that's putting it kindly ;), and he can get good results. I bought one for my wife (they had moved onto to FS14 by then) and she's found it to be excellent in all sorts of general use. The basic Lumix FS models here cost around £84 (? $132 or so)
-
I find the relatively inexpensive Canon Powershot A720IS (there's probably a later model) perfectly adequate for my simple needs. Macro shots improved considerably when, following Ian Y's advice, I set the camera to 'spot' metering rather than using 'auto'.
-
What I appreciate is the possibility to use the screen in different positions. Specially when you take pictures in a very low position it makes it much easier.
Not many cameras have this.
Lina
-
I find the relatively inexpensive Canon Powershot A720IS (there's probably a later model) perfectly adequate for my simple needs. Macro shots improved considerably when, following Ian Y's advice, I set the camera to 'spot' metering rather than using 'auto'.
I've looked in the manual for my Fuji Finepix S5700 and can't find anything about 'spot' metering. Could it be described as something else?
-
I find the relatively inexpensive Canon Powershot A720IS (there's probably a later model) perfectly adequate for my simple needs. Macro shots improved considerably when, following Ian Y's advice, I set the camera to 'spot' metering rather than using 'auto'.
I've looked in the manual for my Fuji Finepix S5700 and can't find anything about 'spot' metering. Could it be described as something else?
Search me David. In the index to my camera manual it is found under 'metering modes'. It seems to restrict the auto metering to a small area ('spot') in the centre of the screen.
-
Had a look (under BD's tutelage) on the Fuji S5700 online manual... seesm it only offers auto metering. :-X
-
On the Panasonic Lumix, I still use mine as well as the new Nikon, but will note that colour saturation is a bit poor--not terrible, but I often increase saturation a bit in editing, especially for red/pink/purple colours; violets tend to come out too blue, deep pinks come out a bit faded or more bluey and (at least with free editing software I have) cannot be fully corrected without making the whole image too red... again, not terrible, but if you found a comparable camera with better colour, it would be nice...
On the plus side, its easy to use, and focuses easily very close (often end up bumping the flowers I am shooting, and still in focus) it has good spot focus and spot metering which I could not operate without... the model I have also has 18x optical zoom which is also very good ..
-
Had a look (under BD's tutelage) on the Fuji S5700 online manual... seesm it only offers auto metering. :-X
Ta for that Maggi.
-
Well, after deciding to go for the Nikon 18-200mm lens ( rather more than I'd have like to spend, though its tax refund!) I find it's not available! At least locally, sold out everywhere, one clerk said it had something to do with floods in Japan over the last several months damaging Nikon warehouses?? I may yet find it online, though a number of the retailers I've seen offering it there were also sold out...
Does anyone have opinions on the Sigma lenses for Nikon? specifically the same, 18-200mm-- any drawbacks to this substitute (significantly cheaper- from just over $400 to $499, compared to $799 to $869 for the Nikon)? Does the AF work properly for Nikon D3100? (or what about Tamron? I've seen that less than Sigma..)
-
Hi Cohan,
Though I haven't got a nikon, I can tell you my experience with a cheaper substitute sigma lens for canon. Once, but never again. I may unfortunately have got a bad lens exemplar and am of course not representative of other's experiences, but I simply don't use it anymore.
The results were all but regular, and sometimes just even worse. How many times was I disappointed when seeing the pics on the computer screen. The big problem is that I couldn't rely on the lens anymore to take the shots, which is quite problematic...
-
The Sigma 18-200 is not in the same class as the Nikon model, but the price reflects this. Sigma lenses can be as good as the brand leaders but quality can vary. The standard range of Nikon lenses are built for professional use. The mechanical parts are built to withstand heavy use day after day. Stringent quality control weeds out lens elements which do not come up to spec. Producing a quality zoom with up to 12 elements is a tricky operation. I think that the quality control of Sigma lenses is probably not as high. A batch of lenses could contain excellant to mediocre examples. I would suggest that you look, on the web, for test reports and base your judgement on this.
-
The Sigma 18-200 is not in the same class as the Nikon model, but the price reflects this. Sigma lenses can be as good as the brand leaders but quality can vary. The standard range of Nikon lenses are built for professional use. The mechanical parts are built to withstand heavy use day after day. Stringent quality control weeds out lens elements which do not come up to spec. Producing a quality zoom with up to 12 elements is a tricky operation. I think that the quality control of Sigma lenses is probably not as high. A batch of lenses could contain excellant to mediocre examples. I would suggest that you look, on the web, for test reports and base your judgement on this.
i agree totally with all that you say, Tom and can concur that Sigma do produce some excellent lenses among other less salubrious models. I regularly use a Sigma DC 17-70mm 1:2.8-4.5 Macro HSM on my Nikon D80 and have been very satisfied with the results. Please don't let less than flattering reports on some lenses put you off the Sigma brand altogether.
-
I would have thought that the 18-200mm lens range is a difficult one for manufacturers, covering the wide angle to short telephoto range, and the Nikon lens, whilst more expensive, would give you the quality. As ever, you get what you pay for.
Having said that, I use Sigma's 10-20mm and 70-300mm lenses and find them to be very good, especially the 70-300 for which I have a dedicated supplementary lens for closeups (they don't make them any more, unfortunately)
-
I suppose it's a case of which technology is the weakest link? It used to be the film, then the number of pixels, now it's the lens. I often wonder the sense in putting an 8 mega-pixel capability in a mobile phone if the lens is smaller than a Smartie?!
-
Well, after deciding to go for the Nikon 18-200mm lens ( rather more than I'd have like to spend, though its tax refund!) I find it's not available! At least locally, sold out everywhere, one clerk said it had something to do with floods in Japan over the last several months damaging Nikon warehouses?? I may yet find it online, though a number of the retailers I've seen offering it there were also sold out...
Does anyone have opinions on the Sigma lenses for Nikon? specifically the same, 18-200mm-- any drawbacks to this substitute (significantly cheaper- from just over $400 to $499, compared to $799 to $869 for the Nikon)? Does the AF work properly for Nikon D3100? (or what about Tamron? I've seen that less than Sigma..)
Have you tried eBay for the Nikon lens? I bought mine on eBay 18 months ago. It was relatively cheap ("grey" market probably) so if it ever goes wrong and needs repairing, I don't know if the Nikon dealers will touch it, but that's a risk I'm prepared to take. There's a "manufacturer refurbished" model on sale for $660 from a USA Nikon dealer Cameta Camera on the site right now which might fit the bill?
Before I took the plunge with this lens, I canvassed Harry Jans' opinion, knowing he's a Nikon camera user. However, he uses the 50mm macro and the 18-200mm Sigma lenses, and we all know the superb quality of his photos.
-
Hi,
I'd not heard of "focus stacking" until Peter Maguire mentioned it in this thread four weeks back. I got a copy of CombineZP (it is free) and I've had a go. It is interesting, below is a picture of what I like to think of as Naricssus pseudonarcissus ssp pseudonarcissus, the result of combining 10 photos.
Rather than move the camera I kept everything fixed and changed the focus. It seems to me the software is happier if the target is surrounded by background.
Why might the photo below be different to what one would get from a single shot - because it is in focus from the tip of the trumpet to the petals at the back. Could one have achieved the same result without focus stacking - probably because the photo had to be scaled down to 35% for upload here, by getting further away I could have had greater depth of field and still had a big enough image to upload.
-
Thanks for comments, all..
I have looked at Ebay, briefly, ( a few days or more back) and didn't see anything (except one of the Canadian camera retailers).. I'd hesitate to buy from an unknown seller there..
It sounds like the general opinion of Sigma 18-200 is not bad, from mentions here and what I've seen elsewhere?
The suggestion that not all Sigma lenses would be of equal quality- does this mean one 18-200 may not be as good as the next (and then, how do you know???) or that 18-200 might be better or worse than a different Sigma lens?
At the moment, it doesn't really seem as if buying the Nikon 18-200lens is an option, since it seems unavailable everywhere I've looked (even those that initially list it say its out of stock , or would need to be ordered- I doubt they can, since one regional store here told me all their Alberta stores have it on back order, and a couple of others say they have been trying to get it for months)..
However, I've started to get nervous about the whole idea of the single lens- while I still really don't like the idea of having to change lenses every few minutes ( I constantly go from macro to 18x on my old camera), I'm worried about the close-up capability of these 18-200 lenses, with minimum focus distances 45- 50 cm.... While I am not doing professional photos nor much printing currently, I do find it bothersome if I cannot get really sharp close shots of tiny flowers (I expect to be able to focus on matchhead size objects)..am I going to be frustrated with an 18-200?
If I have to resign myself to changing lenses in the field, I have also looked at the Nikon 40mm micro (supposed to be good for close-ups?) with the 55-300.. both seem to be available, and cheaper in combination than the 18-200 alone....
I'm trying to make a good choice here, since once this purchase is made, there will be no other lenses bought in the near future!
thanks for any further thoughts/advice
-
Hello Cohan,
I use a Nikon 18-200 lens as my standard lens: it is a very versatile lens useful for landscape and plant photography for what it is it is not very expensive and appears to be available here in NZ. However for more critical closeup photography I use a Nikon D AF 60 mm micro lens. Since I purchased it several years ago they have introduced a Nikon AF-S 60mm Micro f2.8G ED,Nikon AF-S 85mm DX Micro f3.5G VR and Nikon AF-S 40mm f2.8 G micro which I cannot comment on as I have not used them. I bought the 60mm lens as it was the smallest (and cheapest) macro lens they produced at the time. I figured as it was the least complicated and they were probably able to get it right. All my recent plant postings have been taken with the 60 mm lens and the landscape shots with the 18-200 VR zoom lens. I do use a tripod for my plant shots.
-
Cohan,
If you are looking at macro lenses, then you could consider the Tamron 90mm macro lens (which probably clouds the issue a little further!). It gives a good 1:1 reprodution and is generally well regarded in comparative tests in camera magazines over here - I've been using one for many years now, and probably all of the close up pictures I've posted here (certainly the close-ups taken at shows) have been taken with this lens.
Some people over here prefer the the Sigma 150mm macro which is equally good, slightly more expensive, but has a longer each if you want to do close-ups of insects. Flowers, of course, don't fly away. ;)
I don't know how the price of these lenses compare with Nikon's 40mm macro, but their quality is certainly fine.
-
I use on my D300 the Micro Nikor 105 mm. The lens is of a high quality and I have made about 50000 pictures with this lens.
I have had also the 60 mm micro but for flowers the 105 mm is better.
Ton
-
I have a D300 with the 105 Micro Nikor and find it very good.
-
I have been looking for suppliers of the Nikon 18-200 in the UK. There does seem to be a problem with supply If you are still interested in this lens, have you considered trying the UK.
I had a look at Greys of Westminsters site and they are quoting a UK price of £619.00 for this model. That would be £513.00 exclusive of UK VAT. I make this about 813 Canadian Dollars. This firm export world-wide and their reputation is beyond reproach. However you would be stuck with freight, insurance and Canadian Duty and sales tax. It's just an idea.
-
Thanks again!
David, I have seen (online) the 60mm micro- its more expensive than the 40mm- that's about $299, and the 60mm over $500.. I haven't priced the 105mm.. I know the real 'macro' lenses I've looked at are out of my price range..
Peter, Ton and Anthony, thanks- a few more to check out! Back to the research tonight :)
The total budget currently is btwn $850 to $900, so if I am able to find a Nikon 18-200, that will be the only lens bought! However, if I were to get the Nikon 40mm at $300, then I could manage a 55-300 (on sale under $400), or the Sigma 18-200mm at $499..
I'm less worried about perfection in the telephoto- I suspect any of these options with the N D3100 will be better than the Panasonic Lumix (non SLR) 18x I've been using... But the Panasonic does give me crisp, close macro...(I should qualify that!! 'sufficiently crisp,close macro for my needs so far! As I say, if I can get good focus on matchhead size flowers, I'm happy!)
-
I have a wee moan. I have an Olympus "Tough TG-810 14 Mpixel" (which I got from Hong Kong via Google - half price). It replaces another Olympus model which was stolen by some lowlife. Both fitted into a pocket, so were handy for family days out. My moan is this: they both have black rechargeable batteries, but my original 4 Mpixel camera could go for a week on one charge; this one doesn't last a morning on one charge, which makes it virtually useless if you are going out for the day! :(
-
Is that not simply a dud battery you have there, Anthony?
-
I am looking to replace my dated FinePix S7000 camera. I find the ‘bridge’ type of camera an ideal compromise between compact and DSLR for my needs. Initially I was looking into an upgrade of the same make, but it is rather bulky and because of the superior telephoto lens it weighs more than my current one.
At the Stirling show I was shown a recently acquired Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48 by Carol & Ian Bainbridge who seem quite pleased with it, but they are still assessing it. Does anyone have this camera and would they recommend it? Any other suggestions please?
-
Is that not simply a dud battery you have there, Anthony?
I'll buy a spare and we'll see.
-
I think this must be the only topic of any length on the Forum, in which thre has been no diversion or off-topic posting. I'd better go now then, before that record is lost. :)
-
If someone went off thread we would bayonet them Lesley! 8)
-
Maureen, I have the Panasonic Lumix FZ18, so I guess the one you mention is a newer model...
I've been very happy with mine, except the colour tends to be a bit unsaturated- not terrible, but if you are trying to represent exact flower colours its generally not as deep colour as it should be, and magenta/violet shades don't come out quite right (true of many digital cameras, so you'd have to compare carefully).. Its possible they've improved the sensor of the new one..
-
Thank you Cohan for sharing your experience - I will keep doing some more research before committing myself. The magenta/violet problem was just as bad in the days of film cameras too, Ramonda myconi being a classic example for never reproducing the true colour.
-
I've always found that true reds are difficult as well, because they always come out pinky in any digital photos. It's almost like the primaries are the hardest ones, with the blues, reds and yellows all having problems, while the pastels and mixes are so often easy. Of course purple isn't a primary, and that is so hard to get. Maybe it is just photography in general that I'm stuffing up. ::) :D
-
Just like in film days, with different films having different bias, there is a difference with the different sensors in different digital cameras as well.. I think the Sony I had before the Panasonic was better with violets, though I don't remember for sure..
I think my new Nikon DSLR has better colour reproduction in general, though it's not flowering season yet, so I have not shot a wide range of colours to test it! I'm hoping I can get good colours on Dodecatheon this year!!
-
Ian gets annoyed trying to capture the "true" purple shades of colour of Tecophilaea cyanocrocus violacea. It always shows as too blue. There's a typically blue example in this week's Bulb Log. :-X
-
Talking about colour - you should have all your devices configured with the correct colour profiles (a sort of software configuration file). That's the monitor, printer and software rendering the image. The camera may include a profile or you may need to tell the software to assume the correct one.
The other problem is that colour perception depends on the viewing conditions, like taking items out of shops to see them in daylight.
I've got a book over and inch thick on my desk "the reproduction of colour" there are probably 100's more, it is a tricky subject.
-
Colour rendition from cameras (digital ) depends on so many things. Even different lenses can have an effect That's why Photoshop was produced. I have to look at every picture I take and decide if the colours seem realistic to me.
-
I am very becoming increasingly keen on exploring my plants and flowers from an insects point of view. I knew how to do this in the past with film, but have not got a clue now we are in the digital age. Does anyone have any experience with, or can point me in the right direction of, digital UV photography please?
-
Good thinking Ronm :D
Does this help?
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev01UV.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev01UV.html)
-
Thanks Fred. It starts me off. ;D
As a complete 'point and shoot' guy these days, I'm hoping to find someone who can maybe hold my hand. I know insects, and a little about plants, but digital photography ........ ::) ::)
[ now if I could just catch a picture of that breeze .... :-X] :o ;D
-
Toying with the idea of replacing my five year old camera (Fuji FinePix S5700). Ruled out SLR on the grounds that my photographic knowledge is, to say the least, negligible, and it would take me a long time to learn and SLR would be capable of far more than I would use. Thinking about Fuji FinePix HS30EXR (Review below) which also might test my skill!
http://www.trustedreviews.com/fujifilm-finepix-hs30exr_Digital-Camera_review (http://www.trustedreviews.com/fujifilm-finepix-hs30exr_Digital-Camera_review)
Has anyone got one or is anyone else thinking about getting one?
-
David
Reading the review it seems a good enough camera for general use. It can cover nearly all aspects of photography in one package. OK it may not produce the same quality as a top SLR but unless you are a entering photo competitions, you probably would not notice the difference.
To me, the main advantage is portability. This camera is all you need - no extra lenses to lug around.
I now find the weight of my Nikon SLR problematic. Years ago I would carry a camera bag with extra lenses, weighing 45lbs, up mountains. Now it sits in the back of the car and I only use the SLR when I have a specific use for it. Most of the time I carry a small compact camera in my pocket as I am not up to carting heavy weights on the off-chance that I may see something special that needs a particular lens.
My brain has finally conceded that I am no longer a fit teenager !
-
My point and shoot Canon IXUS 230 is fabulous
......and £40 cheaper
-
Tom, many thanks for your help.
-
David did you watch the Gadget Show this week? They tested bridge cameras. You can add telephoto lenses to them
Olympus Pen Lite E-PL3 £280
Samsung NX1000 £400
-
No Mark didn't watch it I'm not particularly into in gadgets! Why would I need another telephoto lens anyway, as Tom says it's only to cart around. After all my camera usually only comes out to take a few pics in the garden and the greenhouse?
The review I read on the Fuji HS30EXR that I'm toying with buying mentioned something called "RAW" that it was capable of handling. I haven't a clue what "RAW" is can anyone tell me please (words should be of no more than two syllables ;D )
-
David,
"Raw" is one of the file formats in which photographs may be saved on your camera and then computer. Its advantage over the more common jpeg is that it allows greater/easier manipulation of the image when you load it onto your computer.
That's the general gist at any rate.
-
David - cameras usually save pictures as JPEG files (.jpg, .jpeg), JPEG is a "lossy" format, to get compression some information is lost.
RAW amounts to saving exactly what comes out of the camera sensor.
In addition JPEG only saves 8 bits per pixel (256 brightness levels), RAW will save the full resolution perhaps 10 or 12 bits per pixels (10 bits equals 1024 levels). This means you have more scope for processing pictures when you get home, perhaps pulling detail out of the shadows.
Other comments. There's a lot of chat about the compact point and shoot camera being dead - killed by the improving cameras in phones.
Many of the bridge cameras have significant zoom capacity - probably as much as is sensible, you can't have massive zoom and it be any use.
DSLRs are seemingly getting lighter, the ones with no mirrors and you can use "super zoom" lenses which cover a very wide range, meaning you don't have to carry a bag full of lenses. Still a lot of trouble.
For Canon compact cameras there is a project "chdk" which via software adds loads of interesting features, including RAW - Google for more info.
-
If a magazine wants to buy an image they often ask for a raw file
-
David
Forget about RAW unless you wish to spend time on your computer processing and tweaking your pictures. At 16Mp, a jpeg will be more than adequate and I doubt you would see much difference.
If you take and keep your pictures in RAW, then you will probably need larger Sd cards and a larger Hard drive to store the resultant pictures.
As far as I can remember, RAW takes about three times the storage of jpegs.
I tried RAW for a while and then gave up as it was gobbling up space on my hard drive.
-
For something to be added into the mix - I have a Canon SX50HS, which is a bridge camera, and you can save images in RAW if needed. It has a number of functions of a DSLR. I have only had it a little while, as my other one died on me, so cannot give it a full review under all circumstances yet, but am satisfied at present.
Susan
-
RAW is better, just like a DSLR is better, but like a DSLR the amount gained is not in proportion to the effort.
Once I wrote programs that were less than 256 bytes long, and counted every byte. A few weeks ago I bought a 2TB drive, that's two million million bytes - I suspect people don't bother about how much space stuff takes any more.
I had a Canon Powershot A95, I am surprised to find that new Powershots don't have all the features that had, like a viewfinder and manual focus. Mine had nearly all the things you can twiddle on a DSLR.
Worse, people having seen me with the huge clutter that goes with a DSLR now don't believe that older photos were taken with such a modest camera.
-
If a magazine wants to buy an image they often ask for a raw file
RAW is all very well but they'd have to accept COOKED from me and probably BURNT as well. ;D
-
David P
I have 3 x 500Gb hard drives on my computer, 1x 2TB external hard drive, 1 x 750 Gb external hard drive and a hard drive casing which can play the hard drives from my previous computer using USB.2 ports. Even with this, I am still running out of space !
For about a year, I have been trying to scan my slides and negatives from almost 60 years of photography. It seemed a good idea at the time to record them as TIFF files.
I wondered why I was running out of space until I saw the TIFFS were coming in at 160 Mb from 35mm slides/negs. I have given up that idea and now use jpegs - even they are running at 20Mb. Thankfully the Nikon SUPERCOOLSCAN 5000ED can handle these at one per minute including the filter process to remove dust, scratches etc.
However putting them through photoshop to bring them up to a good level takes a bit of time and a lot of processing power. I find my 8Gb of RAM just about enough.
To add to the burden by using RAW for my SLR would bring down my system!
-
RAW is all very well but they'd have to accept COOKED from me and probably BURNT as well. ;D
Well done Lesley ;D
-
The Canon I have does have a viewfinder with a little wheel at the side to sharpen the view, and manual focus, although I find that a bit fiddly. That is what I miss most from my old pre digital SLR.
It has its own battery which means I no longer have to take a number of AA batteries with me. Just so long as it doesn't run out halfway through a day of garden visiting!
Susan
-
TC - sounds like you're making good use of the current technology. A few more TB storage would not cost much (about 40 quid per TB) and next year will be free :)
In the bad old days you would have been scanning your slides at lower resolution to save space.
For comparison with your TIFFs (160MB) the raw files on my 10Mpix DSLR are 8.8MB. Means film holds a lot more data.
-
Thanks David, Paddy and Tom for help on the "RAW" issue. At least I know what it is now.
-
RAW is better, just like a DSLR is better, but like a DSLR the amount gained is not in proportion to the effort.
While I would agree there is much truth in that I would not agree entirely. I switched to RAW some years ago and there are definite benefits and some drawbacks. I think it rather depends on how much you are into photography. RAW will not suit many people because there is a time factor in processing the pictures but you do have considerably more control over them as it contains all the information recorded by the sensor un-edited unlike a jpg. I find the control over white balance and exposure particularly useful. Most of us take photos on auto white balance and the camera doesn't always get it exactly right. I noticed my snow pictures had a definite blue tinge to them, probably because I tend to under expose shots, but a tweak on WB brought it right. Control over exposure is also beneficial as is enhancing under exposed areas.
One of the things to be gained from a DSLR and I think is worth the effort. Picture quality. As far as I am concerned It is definitely better. Picture quality depends on the glass in front of the sensor. A lens costing £1000 and more should, I would think, give a far better result than a fixed lens on a compact or bridge camera. Looking at the resulting picture at 100% would show that.
You do need more storage but I don't keep my RAW pictures on the computer but on external hard drives. The computer only has the finished result as a jpg which will never be re-edited.
At the end of the day its horses for courses. Isn't it good there is so much choice.
-
I think the point was that jpegs would suit David N.better than going down the DSLR/ RAW way. I would think that most people on the forum are not into photo processing on their computer as a way of life. A reasonable quality camera that they can carry about without the burden of extra lenses, filters flashguns, which weigh a ton, suits most people. The pictures are either viewed on a screen or printed 6x4. The quality inherent in A DSLR does not show until you are at A4 level. Again, cost is a consideration. QUALITY IS NOT CHEAP !
-
We thought 6" x 4" had gone the way of all flesh until we came to New Zealand, then we had to search for shops that actually sold 7" x 5" paper and albums. Our photograph albums have been 7" x 5" for well over 20 years. The cost of 7" x 5" reprints in photographic shops here is considerably more, disproportionate to the increase in size of paper but presumably reflecting the popular size here. :(
-
Can anyone recommend a miniature - 'table top' - tripod for use with a Canon camera? Amazon seem to offer several quite cheaply but it's not clear whether there is anything to choose between them.
-
My "old" DSLR (a Canon Digital Rebel Xti) is 7 years old now, and I decided it was time to upgrade my camera. I've purchased a Nikon D600, which is a FX or "full frame" digital SLR, meaning that the sensor is the same size as a 35mm film negative or slide. While one of the advantages over the "standard" DX format is the greater pixel count and ability to printer larger enlargements, I have to admit that for me one of the motives was the larger size of the view in the viewfinder, which allows for a better ability to compose, check focus, etc., through the viewfinder. The D600 is a great improvement over the Canon DX format, though it is still not as good in this regard as my 35 year old Olympus OM1! Anyway, I bring this up because right now the D600 is being discontinued (the replacement D610 has only minimal differences), and good discounts can be had before the stock runs out. At my local Best Buy store, the body only was for sale for $1500 - quite a bit less than the $2000 list price for the D610. Still a lot of money for a camera, but I figure it is worth it when I consider how much effort it takes to travel to a scenic location or good wildflower spot.
Ed
-
Ed:
I picked up the D600 last year. I have a 105 macro lens and the combination is a bit heavy.
For me it's a great piece of equipment.
Too many bells and whistles at times.
Check here for prices that I found were about the best around. http://www.rythercamera.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=64_2372_2152_1211 (http://www.rythercamera.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=64_2372_2152_1211)
-
Yes, the D600 is definitely larger and heavier than the Canon Digital Rebel, but I got a 50 mm f1.8 lens, which is quite small, so the combination is not too heavy. That should work for me. The User's Manual runs to 340 pages, so there is a lot of complexity there, my hope is that I can figure out pretty quickly how to do the things I need to do (white balance, image quality adjustments, and the like) and gradually go from there. But it is definitely a complex piece of technology.
Ed
-
No discount here in New Zealand. $3,949.00 :( http://www.harveynorman.co.nz/cameras/digital-slrs/nikon-d600-digital-slr-with-24-82mm-lens.html?gclid=CNvoj5ntrLsCFZWUfgodzkgAzw (http://www.harveynorman.co.nz/cameras/digital-slrs/nikon-d600-digital-slr-with-24-82mm-lens.html?gclid=CNvoj5ntrLsCFZWUfgodzkgAzw)
-
I'm considering a new DSLR - the attraction of full frame is that lenses will then work with the results expected for their focal length in other words a 50 mm lens will not give (equivalent of) 75 mm results (as it will on an APS size sensor).
Must have been a wrench moving from Canon to Nikon and leaving all the non-compatible kit behind, lenses, flashes etc.
Time for an open hardware standard that will put all the big brands out of business :)
-
I believe the D600 is compatible with all of Nikon's SLR lenses, even for old film cameras (though focus and exposure may be manual).
The switch from Canon is not that big of a deal - I had only purchased a couple of lenses, and since they were DX lenses I'd need to buy new lenses even if I got a Canon FX camera.
As I recall, the first SLR I purchased cost about $250 in 1973. With inflation in the US that is about $1300 in today's $$. So really we are now able to get much more advanced technology for a similar (ballpark) cost today.
Ed
-
I have a Sony alpha - they're compatible with all the old Minolta lenses going way back - but there is something called 'sensor flare' - a digital sensor reflects more light than film, the light hits the back of the lens and is reflected producing an artifact. Doesn't happen with all lenses or in all situations.
Adding coatings to reduce this is one reason there are new versions of old lens designs.
I only know the situation on Sony/Minolta.
-
I like the DXO mark for cameras here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings)
compares the sensors from 100's of DSLRs over years. The Nikon D600 is just about the best on that score.
-
An old version of Photoshop...CS2 ...is available FREE from the Adobe site. THIS IS NOT A PIRATE COPY !! although 7 years old it is still functional for all average users.
See the site below. I have been using Photoshop 7 for years and this is a bit more user friendly.
It downloads and installs easily. The download is about 340Mb.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-get-photoshop-for-free/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-get-photoshop-for-free/)
-
I received an email from NIKON stating that there is a problem with spots on images taken with the Nikon D600. They are offering to pay for the shipping back and forth to have the camera serviced. See below. I have noticed spot on some of my images.
Dear Arnold,
Thank you for choosing Nikon for your photography needs.
Nikon Inc. is contacting you regarding your D600 D-SLR camera. As you may be aware, Nikon Inc. recently issued a Technical Service Advisory for Users of the Nikon D600 D-SLR camera.
This Advisory related that some users of Nikon’s D600 D-SLR camera have reported the appearance of tiny spots on certain of their images. Not all users have experienced this issue. Nikon has thoroughly evaluated these reports and has determined that these spots are caused by dust particles which may become visible when the camera is used in certain circumstances and/or with certain settings. It is a well-known fact that the presence of dust particles cannot be completely avoided when using a D-SLR camera even after normal sensor cleaning procedures, because of a number of factors including components moving at high speeds when images are taken, the use of interchangeable lenses and the different environments in which a D-SLR camera may be used. As part of its customer-service commitment, Nikon is providing a customer-service measure to reduce the potential impact of dust particles on images taken by its D600 D-SLR cameras.
Nikon has resolved this by making available to you (even if Nikon’s product warranty has expired) this customer-service measure, which includes the inspection, cleaning and replacement of the shutter assembly and related parts of your camera, FREE OF CHARGE as well as the cost of shipping your D600 camera to Nikon and its return to you. Once again, please understand that regardless of this service, your D600 camera as is the case with all D-SLR cameras, will continue to require normal periodic sensor cleanings.
-
This is a well known problem with the D600. There have been many complaints in the photographic press about this. I had thought of upgrading but decided against it until something had been done about this. It has !!
The D610 has been introduce fairly recently as an upgrade to the D600 and this "problem" seems to have been solved although Nikon did not admit there was a problem with the sensor. From the correspondence you received, they now finally have acknowledged this.
-
Perhaps today would be a good day for Cindy to treat you to a new camera, Tom? Many Happy returns of the day!! :-*
-
Thanks for that Maggie. I just wrote down my age on a piece of paper and looked at it. How did I get to be this old. It must have sneaked up on me when I was not looking.
I have now reached the stage where I don't really want anything. It's just more things to clutter up the house. Apart from Cindy's clothes which take up 3/4 of all the wardrobe space, my space is taken up by 6 guitars, 2 banjos, a ukulele, didgeridoo, mandolin, tom toms and a small harmonica.
Most of my camera equipment sits in the boot of the car with the remainder in two drawers in the spare bedroom chest of drawers
I have even found clothes with C&A's labels with a collar size which I have not been able to wear for 40 years !! Even a couple of nylon shirts which glow in the dark when you take them off.
I am sure the V&A Museum would welcome these historical items !
-
Don't worry about getting old, Tom - it's so much better than the alternative! ;)
-
Don't really want to go off topic here, it's one of few which remain pretty much as stated :) but I must say that it amazes me that so many young people say "I don't want ever to become old." The only alternative, as Maggi suggests, is dying young. Do they want to do that? After all, young doesn't go on for ever - except of course, the I and M kind. ;D
-
A belated Happy Birthday Tom. How do you get away with six guitars I had to struggle to get one?
-
David
The secret is to buy it BEFORE you contemplate marriage. I had an old plywood one when skiffle started. Then I bought a top of the range model (Martin 000-18) with my first few salary cheques in 1961. A long neck banjo -( Pete Seeger model) followed in 1962.
A long period of time elapsed before I bought my next one...after I retired in 2000 and the kids had married and left home. We at last had money to spend on ourselves.
Next it was a S/H Raimundo classic guitar. After that I had the bit between my teeth. I had Andy Perkins to make up a banjo for me with a wide finger board and whyte lady top..
Next I got Moon Guitars to make me a guitar with some special wood I had stored away for over 40 years. You can see a picture of it on his website under photos.
I decided I wanted a better classic guitar so an Esteve model in Madagascar Rosewood was obtained. The next was a Weissenborn model , then a Kala ukulele. My son gave me a didgeridoo and a set of tom-toms for Christmas presents.
All I need to do now is to learn to play them all !!!
-
David
The secret is to buy it BEFORE you contemplate marriage.................
Good Lord Tom, I was 70 before I decided to learn to play. I'm on my second guitar now, a not very expensive acoustic, Yamaha FG700Ms, but a lovely tone. The learning is very slow though!
-
Given that it is Primula time in the greenhouse and I'm doing more than my normal bit of photography maybe I could ask for a bit of advice. Most of my Primulas, but not all, are at the pale blue/violet end of the spectrum and I find it difficult to get the colours not to look washed-out. They look even more washed-out on my camera screen. I have a relatively simple point and shoot (Fuji FinePix S5700) and use the built-in menu for flower photography or, if I want to use macro the Auto menu, the flower menu won't allow macro. Is there something else available on my type of camera that I could use to giver better colour definition.
Since I have no photographic skill or knowledge I hope the above makes sense and if anyone can help please take into account my own limitations.
-
David, is it just the flowers that look washed out/pale, or does it affect the whole picture?
If it's the whole picture, you could have accidentally pressed the exposure compensation button (bottom right hand side on the back, it has a +/- sign on it). They may be even more washed out on the camera screen if you've increased the brightness of the monitor too much - you'll go though batteries more quickly as a result.
If it's just the flowers then it may be that the sensor is not responding to that colour in the same way as our eyes. Not much you can do about that.
I'm surprised that you can't use the 'flower' menu for macro - that's supposed to be the button to use for close ups!
-
David - how about showing us an example of what you're not happy with. Another idea might be to see if there is a "white balance" setting you can change.
Perhaps the special modes like "flower" are only sets of values that you can set yourself in other modes.
-
If it's just the flowers then it may be that the sensor is not responding to that colour in the same way as our eyes. Not much you can do about that.
I'm surprised that you can't use the 'flower' menu for macro - that's supposed to be the button to use for close ups!
I've a form of Iris reticulata and a Romulea (linaresii graeca) of a purple which photographs really strangely no matter what I try so I certainly agree! And I've a seedling from a red Ranunculus asiaticus which has a distinct purple cast to my eyes but if I photograph it next to a normal red flowered plant they look identical.
The flower setting on my Canon is intended for close-ups but limits the aperture setting to a wider value than I'd like, so I can't get as good a depth of field as I can using 'aperture priority'. I never use it.
-
Photography Classes with SRGC Plant Photographer
Sat 7 & 14 June: 0930-1545hrs at RBGE Digital Plant Photography I with Liz Cole
Sat 28 June: 0930-1545 at RBGE Digital Plant Photography II with Liz Cole
Contact RBGE on 0131 248 2937 or education@rbge.org.uk to book a place.
-
David, is it just the flowers that look washed out/pale, or does it affect the whole picture?
If it's the whole picture, you could have accidentally pressed the exposure compensation button (bottom right hand side on the back, it has a +/- sign on it). They may be even more washed out on the camera screen if you've increased the brightness of the monitor too much - you'll go though batteries more quickly as a result.
If it's just the flowers then it may be that the sensor is not responding to that colour in the same way as our eyes. Not much you can do about that.
I'm surprised that you can't use the 'flower' menu for macro - that's supposed to be the button to use for close ups!
Peter, many thanks for responding. No, it's not the whole of the picture that looks washed out. My pictures are usually of flowers, taken in the greenhouse, to post on The Forum and consist of flowers and a bit of the pot they were in. The pot always comes out true but the flowers often looked washed out especially at the blue/lilac end of the spectrum but also, like Darren, a picture of a red flower takes on a hint of white rather than a rich red.
I checked today and I hadn't pressed the exposure compensation button by mistake. I have to admit that until you mentioned it I didn't know it was there, not the least what it was for! I was wrong when I said that it wasn't possible for me to use the macro facility when using the built in flower menu. In fact macro is there but the usual flower icon denoting macro doesn't show on the camera screen in flower mode. As it didn't show I assumed it wasn't there and have always moved the setting to Auto to use macro. I should read the manual but it's not the easiest set of instructions to understand.
Today I found that, certainly in Auto mode, it is possible to change from 'standard colour setting' to something called 'Chrome', although this is not possible in Flower mode, and I shall give that a try next week.
Maybe you are right and I am getting the best I can from the camera. I think I should have a camera day and just wander around the garden taking pictures with all the settings available on the camera and see what's best. The thing is I'm almost certain to forget what settings I've been using ::)
David, thanks also for responding. If you have time take a look at the most recent pics I've posted in the Primula 2014 thread. The camera does have a white balance thingy but I've never understood it and haven't used it. Maybe I should read it again and give it a try!
-
David,
Your pictures of Primula 'Joan Hughes' in the Primula 2014 thread are indeed washed out in colour - the closed bud in the centre of the picture is nearer to the colour of my plants. I notice that your pictures show a great range of contract (dark to light) and you say that you are taking them in the greenhouse. It may be that the range of contrast is too great for the camera, so it might be worth trying photographing the same plant in the greenhouse and in a shadier site where the contrast will be less to see if that improves things.
Looking at reviews of the camera on the web they all date from around 2007, which in digital terms is almost prehistoric times, so it may be that the older sensor and processor in the camera are not quite able to match what we have come to expect from digital cameras over the past few years.
You could also try changing the metering to spot metering as your subjects are mostly centered in the pictures you take and then the camera will not try to average out the exposure. It's on page 82 of your manual. I looked at the online version in case you were wondering. ;)
As for macro settings, the camera will focus down to 1cm when in super macro mode (page 66 of the manual), but only at wide angle focal length. To get that close, you have to zoom out, then use the analogue zoom, i.e. walk closer! ;D
That should give you a few ideas to keep you busy. Good luck.
-
Peter, I'm very grateful to you for taking the time and the trouble to give me a very full reply.
Yes, you're right the colour of the unopened bud in the centre of my picture is the nearest to the actual colour of my plant. My camera is coming up to seven years old and I think I shall have to start looking around for a replacement. Recommendations anyone, but not DSLR! Provided it doesn't chuck it down on Monday I'm going to have go at the spot metering and will report back.
-
I decided to upgrade my camera and bought a Nikon D610 with a Lexar SDHC 16Gb 600x speed card.
The results have been variable. Some of the shots have shown serious faults in exposure reminiscent of " shutter bounce" encountered with my old Zenith 3M of 50 years ago.
I don't think it is the camera's shutter but more likely to be a corrupt SD Card or some fault in my USB 3 Card reader.
However, the card reader has performed faultlessly prior to this with a Compact Flash Card.
I will have to do a series of tests with the camera to see if I can isolate the fault.
Has anyone encountered this problem before.
-
Tom,
That could be a corrupt SD card, but it would be unusual with a new card, and Lexar are a good make. I can't see the card reader being at fault. It might be worth borrowing another SD card or buying a small capacity one ot see if the problem occurs with that
At a guess, that looks to possibly be a problem with the internal camera firmware. The images seem to have variable colour temperature in different parts of the picture, and in the two pictures you've shown, the affected area is different, so it seems that the camera isn't interpreting the information from the sensor properly.
I think you're right, it isn't the shutter as the shutter blinds move along the long axis of the picture, and the faults run in different directions, the meconopsis showing four different regions of colour temperature/exposure.
You could try downloading updated firmware from the Nikon website, (actually, I've just checked that and there are no firmware updates for the D610 yet) but it looks like you may have got a faulty camera and you will have to get it (or major bits of it) replaced under warranty from Nikon. It's a highly rated camera, you shouldn't be getting pictures like that.
-
Gorilla Pods come in a range of weights and sizes. I bought one specifically for a DSLR which was useless - fit for a compact maybe. I can see a studio use for them but the marketing is all about being lightweight for the field. They also suggest wrapping the legs round tree branches but, we haven't got any. ::)
-
Thanks Peter however problem now solved. I contacted Lexar and they told me to format the card as per the following :-
Please follow these instructions to format your flash card using windows.
1. Open my computer and right click on the drive letter/icon corresponding to the flash card.
2. From the pop out menu select ‘Format’
3. In the format window select the following, File System = FAT32, Allocation Size = Default, Volume Label = < Type a label of choice>, Quick Format Box = Unchecked.
4. Click start.
5. You will then receive a message when formatting is complete.
The formatting took about 3 minutes
This did the trick. I have never had to format a card before using it in a camera...now I know.
As an adjunct. The D610 produces the goods. The detail in the pictures is a huge leap from my D200.
I haven't had time to try it out properly as I am still trying to work my way through the 356 page instruction manual !
Today we went up to Loch Doon birdwatching and I took some pictures of Common Sandpipers, hand held at 1/500th @F5.3, ISO 900 at 500mm
The small picture is full frame and the second was cropped by 50%
In a 2 hour period we had a nesting Osprey, 4 Buzzards, Cuckoo, Meadow/Tree pipits, Wheatears, Stonechats, Willow Warblers, Common Sandpipers, Swallows , House Martins, Mistle Thrush, Bullfinch, Goosander, Common Gulls, Chaffinch, Snipe, Pied Wagtail and Black Grouse-----the latter on it's lekking ground. Not bad for a day that started out wet but was pleasantly warm by the late afternoon. Even the midges forgot to come out !
-
Good to hear you've solved the problem Tom.
As a matter of interest, do you re-format flash cards every time you want to get rid of older files, or just delete the pictures? I've always understood that it is best to re-format the card using the camera menu to wipe off old images: never had a problem with any of my cards using this approach, and it's quick.
-
It depends. When I have downloaded the pictures onto the PC and check that they are in My Pictures ,I delete the file on the card reader...effectively formatting the card.
Some other times, I just reformat the card in the camera. Both work equally.
What struck me about the reply from Lexar was the need to format the card BEFORE using it for the first time. I had never done this before and I never had any trouble with either my D70, D200 or Coolpix 5000.
-
I seem to remember having to format a card before using it in my Canon some years ago and have just automatically done it with new cards since. I also always reformat the card in the camera to avoid any problems.
-
I spoke too soon ! I went out an hour ago to take some pictures with my 60mm macro lens. Of the 7 pictures taken, 3 had colour banding again.
Emails off to Lexar and Nikon !
-
Good luck! :-\
Just for reference Tom, deleting the file from the card in Windows Explorer or whatever is not quite the same as reformatting the card. There's a technical explanation that I couldn't remember but I found a useful link here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2918464802/to-format-or-to-delete (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2918464802/to-format-or-to-delete)
I always use a routine of: download all pictures > back up the download (you can never be too careful!) > re-format the card in the camera.
-
I never reformat cards - I don't hold any strong opinion about that being the right thing to do or not.
Cards have a finite lifetime, they can only be written so many times. Presumably if formatting does anything it is writing and bringing the day when the card fails closer.
One plus to formatting is that it will reinitialise the directory structure, it is likely that software will be faster/more reliable setting off from a new state. OTOH deleting all files will not be much different. If you think the camera has bugs in its software then reformatting is sensible (I've not seen bugs in camera software, but I have frequently in phones).
I've seen comments about formatting before, but only regarding cameras, does anyone using the same cards in computers (etc.) regularly reformat them.
-
I've seen comments about formatting before, but only regarding cameras, does anyone using the same cards in computers (etc.) regularly reformat them.
SD cards and the others including the USB thumb-drives all contain basically the same chips. While the really do have finite life, it is on the order of 50-100k write cycles. That would be 3-4 times a day for 50-100 years. Mostly what happens to destroy them is excessive heat, static charges or even such unlikely events as cosmic ray penetration.
Handling them in hot, dry conditions which allows easy static generation is the worst thing you can do generally.
Thus said, I have rarely reformatted a card but always remove the photos after transfer to the computer.
Geo
-
Thanks David and George, it's useful to know the background to these things.
However I'll probably still continue to format the CF cards in my camera, old habits die hard...... ;)
I have for some time now established a routine that any card that finds it's way back to my camera bag and that contains images is only there because it's already been backed up to two hard drives so can be safely wiped.
-
Never used FAT32 for years for formatting any drive or cards or sticks always use NTFS - particularly if you are using large cards
Also using NTFS you normally get more free space on your storage device than using FAT32
-
Never used FAT32 for years for formatting any drive or cards or sticks always use NTFS - particularly if you are using large cards
Also using NTFS you normally get more free space on your storage device than using FAT32
Agreed for any MSWindows uses, this is the only one to use.
The windows side of my Mac and the BU drive for it is NTFS, and the Mac side and the Time Machine drive is Mac OS Extended. With proper apps, I can rapidly access any of the drives from either side of the street.
-
I have been mucking about with various SD cards and have now come to the conclusion that the fault must be in the card reader. I have uploaded pictures direct from the camera and then uploaded the same bunch with my Sweex USB 3.0 card reader. Two of these were faulty as can be seen on the attached. It looks as if I will have to buy a new card reader.
-
As I don't want to lug about an SLR combination on trips up hills I'd welcome some advice on the most appropriate camera that I could slip into a pocket and yet take some decent photographs to illustrate habitat as focusing down to macro level for detail.
I had a Canon IXUS 750 which produced reasonable pictures but alas was thirsty in its battery use and never seemed to reproduce well red and blue hues. It did however have reasonable macro capabilities.
Grateful if someone could advise on best for flower/habitat shots. When I've been into the likes of Jessops the sales pitches focus on features that I don't think I'll need such as video. I simply want something that can provide a good degree of definition, long battery life, macro and widish angle and can be easily transported. Thanks
-
Just taken delivery of a new camera today, Sony DSC HX400V. I'd had my Fuji S5700 for nearly ten years and haven't they got complicated since then? It will take me for ever to remember what all the function icons on the various screens mean. I did think if I asked it to nip downstairs and get me a glass of something warming it might just do it!
-
Just taken delivery of a new camera today, Sony DSC HX400V. I'd had my Fuji S5700 for nearly ten years and haven't they got complicated since then? It will take me for ever to remember what all the function icons on the various screens mean. I did think if I asked it to nip downstairs and get me a glass of something warming it might just do it!
Zeiss lense - nice - its got GPS as well so it knows where you are..............
Got another Nikon bridge about 18 months ago and it took me a week to look throught the various menu's - 99.8% of it I have never used
Enjoy
-
I shan't be troubling either the Wireless or the GPS 'departments'. I think the trouble is that manufacturers try to lash-in so much new stuff just to appeal to the technophobes out there (and thus sell more new cameras) that much of what is there becomes unnecessary to the typical user and unintelligible to the likes of me. I tried to get the cheaper version without GPS and wireless but it wasn't available.
Although this is a bit bigger than my old Fuji I did want something that was a bit 'chunky'. Although many of the Compacts would be just as equal to my limited needs they do seem to get smaller (there go the technophobes again). I'm sure to have spread something that would fit into my shirt pocket all over the greenhouse floor, or drop it in the garden.
-
But aren't you a technophobe? ;)
Just think, if you misplace your new camera you can send it an email and ask where it is.
-
But aren't you a technophobe
No one is further from being a technophobe than I am Steve. Only this morning it cost me £25 to have a light bulb changed in the oven.i spent nearly two hours yesterday trying to get the lens cover off with no success.
Today I spent a couple of hours bemoaning the fact that my new camera had no macro programme before I found that provided it's on 'auto' the lens is good enough to get within a centimetre of the source without the need for a special programme.
-
David - try the dick and harry for technophile ........
-
Ahhhhhhhh! Got me 'phobes' and me 'philes' in a twist. It's an age thing of course.
-
Not to worry, David - it could have been worse! ;) ;D
-
It could have, me elastic could have gone as well :o
-
The weather being what it is I haven't had any opportunity to play outside with my new camera (Sony DSC HX400V Bridge Camera). Readers may have seen that there is no dedicated macro programme on the camera. There are three distinct Auto programmes; Programme Auto which sets aperture and shutter speed; Superior Auto, shoots auto while reducing blurring and noise, and Intelligent Auto which identifies the scenes characteristics and settings and shoots accordingly.
Today the kitchen acted as a studio with some house plants lined up as subjects. I used the Intelligent Auto referred to above, the camera was hand-held and no flash was used. The lighting was as may be found in anyone's kitchen on a darkish January day. The settings came out as 1/60 F3.2 ISO 80.
Some results below, others on the following post.
Cyclamen 2 shot as close I could get without touching the petals. Out of focus a bit on the petal nearest the camera but it was hand-held?
Iris 1, I thought the standards nearest to the window were a little out of focus.
-
Final three>
-
I'm still undecided to change of camera. I own olympus E-M1, 5 and the nice XZ-2. I'm in love with the olympus colors for several years. The E-M5 give similar results compared to the compact XZ-2, i use it with a 12-50mm/macro and a 45mm. To be honest the 45mm is sharper than the XZ-2 lens. The E-M1 is pretty well design but again i don't see so much difference in the photos compared to the E-M5 switching the same lenses.
When i look at Steve's photos shooted with a 7D and a 100mm plus his talent, i should say let's sell on all the m4/3 cameras.
But there's a but, i don't want to carry heavy bags during treks.
So after hours of reading forums and blog i found that Fuji camera looks like a good compromise.
Does anyone of you already photograph with a X-T1 or T10? any advice is welcome.
-
Wow Yann you're wayyyyyyyy above my price range.
-
They were all bought second hands for 1/3 of the street price.. don't worry ;D
-
After the work i ran to a cameras shop and gave a try to the X-T1.
That's a dslr killer with a wonderfull ergonomy.
Manual focus is pretty fast and details are nicely organised in the viewfinder. I now understand the enthusiasm among this camera. Now need some savings to pay this camera.
-
After the work i ran to a cameras shop and gave a try to the X-T1.
That's a dslr killer with a wonderfull ergonomy.
Manual focus is pretty fast and details are nicely organised in the viewfinder. I now understand the enthusiasm among this camera. Now need some savings to pay this camera.
Yann - it is a really good camera - bit old school looking - I still have a canon t-90 - ring flash and macro lense somewhere - just waiting for a museum...........and a mint A1 and F1 with full motordrives. Never seem to part with old cameras
-
Is there any micro 4/3 users who own the 60mm macro from Olympus among the forum?
I've an oportunity to exchange a Lumix 30mm macro with this on : any feedback is welcome.
-
Keep in mind that the olympus lenses don't have optical image stabilization built in. I just bought an Olympus EM10M2 and the 60mm macro. I looked at the Panasonic Lumix 30mm macro, also, and they both are very good. Ultimately, I chose the Olympus 60mm because I like the longer focal length, and the OIS isn't so important since Olympus already has in body image stabilization. According to DXOmark, both are sharp lenses. I have had one day to to test the olympus lens (in fluorescent light), and it is very sharp in macro. (Haven't tried any regular shots yet.) So I am certainly not proficient with it yet, but I am impressed. Mine is the newest version, and the lens does not extend when focusing (it stays the same size).
The second photo is cropped to 748 x 561 pixels, unprocessed from a 4608 x 3456 pic. No special lighting, ISO 3200, 1/80 second, f8, exposure bias +2. I can't say that was the best choice of settings, but that is what they are.
-
Rick thanks for your report.
I'll get the 60 mm this week end for testing.
Also used a 60 mm from Sigma but it wasn't so sharp and luminous as the Pana can delivers.
up : lumix 30, down : Sigma 60 at same focal
[attachimg=1]
-
Can any of you techy folk recommend a GPS to use with my Nikon D3300 on Himalayan treks during which we are away from a power source for about 35 days?
Until now I have been using a JOBO photoGPS4 which, on one charge from a USB port, takes 4000 GPS captures over about 35 days. It fits onto the hot shoe with no additional cable, so it is not necessary to have the side of the camera open which seems a bad idea in wet Himalayan conditions. It is ready to use instantly unlike our hand held Garmin which always takes several minutes to locate sufficient satellites. Latitudes and longitudes are stunningly accurate except in tight valleys, altitudes are a bit variable, but acceptable. The GPS captures are matched to the photographs and written into the metadata after one returns from the trip and a KMZ file is produced too. Sadly the software to do this is no longer supported by the company which wrote it, so essentially the device has become obsolete.
I cannot find any product which anywhere near matches the battery life of the JOBO and its amazing performance. Can anyone suggest an alternative, please?
-
My very old tripod is in need of replacement. Can anyone recommend a tripod type for photographing alpines in habitat? Obviously something that can get close to the ground. Would it be better to get a "minipod" of some sort perhaps which would also save on weight or is a larger type really essential and if so what type of head is good for this kind of photography? Any suggestions very welcome.
Thanks
-
My very old tripod is in need of replacement. Can anyone recommend a tripod type for photographing alpines in habitat? Obviously something that can get close to the ground.
Take a look at 7day shop DS-055. It will go flat to the ground, and the independent leg controls mean you can set it on uneven ground. It folds quite small for carrying. There's a video on the page showing all the features.
https://www.7dayshop.com/products/7dayshop-tripods-travel-pro-tripod-for-professional-photo-video-use-includes-case-DS-055 (https://www.7dayshop.com/products/7dayshop-tripods-travel-pro-tripod-for-professional-photo-video-use-includes-case-DS-055)
-
Thanks Diane- this looked interesting but sadly is now listed as "unavailable".
Cheers
-
Paul
Try this source........patersonphotographic.com/benbo-tripods.htm. I have two Benbo tripods. One that extends to 6 feet and could hold a Bren gun if required and the other is a baby Benbo which I used for photographing bee orchids in Greece. It can be lowered to about 3" from the ground. I cannot use it at ground level now because of back and knee problems.
They are certainly worth considering.
-
Rick, what sort of photo setup are you using to shoot the seeds?
In answer to James's question (in another thread) about what I use to photograph seeds:
I use an Olympus OMD E-M10markII with the 60mm macro lens. One of the big reasons I chose this camera to purchase was its incredible in-body stabilization. For these Echinocereus seed, the first pic was taken with a tripod under fluorescent light inside (ISO 200 1/40sec. f/5.6 +3EV). The second hand held outside on a sunny day, just inside the shade (ISO 200 1/50sec. f/5.6 +1EV). After some time and experience, I find that getting as close as possible isn't always the best thing overall when dealing with such tiny subjects, as setting adjustments need to be made that don't result in better pics most of the time (at least for the way I shoot). These were the original full file pics and the cropped ones you saw:
[attach=1] [attach=2]
[attach=3] [attach=4]
But the set up worked well even the first day I tried it:
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=54.msg350599#msg350599 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=54.msg350599#msg350599)
-
I replaced my e-m1 with a lumix G9 and the stab is even better with the 60mm macro lens.
I compared with a Canon R + 100mm stabilized, same subject and same distance and 2/3 of my photos with the canon where a few blurred and not as sharp as with the G9.
camera stab + lens stab = killing combo
During my last travels i met a woman using a nikon Z7 she was previously using a panasonic G80 and she told the stab was better in the panasonic and she regretted many features such as inside body focus stacking.
deep bokeh is the only thing that really miss with micro 4/3 (MFT) but when travelling it's the perfect lightweight package.
-
That's interesting, Yann. When I bought my camera, they all said never to have both the in-body stabilization and lens stabilization "on" at the same time. And, at the time I bought my Olympus, Panasonic didn't have IBS at all on any of its cameras, only lens stabilization. It could/would follow that a newer stabilization method would likely be better. Also assume that assume that using both stabilizations at the same time would only work within the same brand. Not an Olympus camera with a Panasonic lens, for instance.
How did you like the in-camera focus stacking on the em-1, and how does it compare with focus stacking in a standard photo editing program?