February 01, 2015, 10:18:32 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hillsilly

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54
Photography Technique / Re: Macro at garden
« on: Today at 01:40:19 AM »
Check out a device called the "Plamp".  It is a clamp for holding plants still.

Where I am, shooting just after dawn helps as there tends to be less wind than later in the day.

Canon General / Re: Photographer Petitions Canon for Left Handed Camera
« on: January 27, 2015, 11:52:41 PM »
Another option would be a case (such as a partial underwater housing) where the shutter release button is moved to the left hand side and connected via a cable to the remote shutter release terminal.  You'd only have enough plastic to ergonomically mount the shutter button and gears, knobs and levers to access the buttons on the right hand side.  Building this around a simpler DSLR would simplify the design.

Before I retired, I was asked if I knew where I could find a left handed phone...
Being right handed, you don't really appreciate the number of things designed for right handed use. 

Drive in Australia and you can change gears in your Corolla with your left hand.
I understand the historical reasons, but I never saw the point of LHD cars.  Wouldn't it be safer for most people to hold onto the steering wheel with their right hand and change gears with their left hand?  But I suspect this follows a lot of comments from the left handers - you get used to using the equipment you have.  (And, in totally unrelated news, I picked up a 1997 NA MX5 last week.)

Interesting read.  If you ignore the whole "you must shoot in the Nat Geography School of Photography" style for your photos to be worthwhile, there's not much to disagree with: -

1.  DxOMark is just one of many factors to consider when choosing a camera.  And if you shoot Fuji or Canon, you are best off just ignoring it.

2.  How many of us have spent time and money on photography software only to come back to LR + PS?  Still, I do like my Silver Efex, Color Efex, Pictures to Exe etc etc.

3.  Personally, I'm starting to prefer photostacking to using the smallest possible apertures, but that might also just be saying something about my lenses.  But as anyone who shoots the occasional macro photo knows, diffraction isn't as bad as what many people believe.

4.  Your views on HDR probably align with your views on whether Nat Geo/documentary style of photography is the only permissible style or whether you think that one day, maybe one day not too far away, photography might become a legitimate art form in its own right.  OK, "art" might be pushing it.  Perhaps "craft".

5.  Not smart enough to fully understand The Matrix, but the fact that we're not all toting 1Dx's with 600/4 lenses and many of us seem to get by ok suggests that learning to use your current gear to the fullest is enough.  As Bob the Builder says, "Don't go blaming your toolbox".

Using a phone, it's difficult to take a good photo of your children in a dimly lit theatre or playing football, netball, cricket, basketball etc etc. Not saying it can't be done, but a DSLR or most recent mirrorless cameras will give you a consistently better result.  People will continue to pay for that. 

It is for the same reason that I suspect the SX520 is the most popular Canon camera on Amazon - it has a  42x Optical Zoom that would be very enticing to lot of people taking photos in the grandstands.  A decent zoom is lacking in camera phones - with most having about a 30mm lens (in 35mm eq.).  I've no stats to base this on, but I wouldn't be surprised if most first time DSLR buyers are moving up from such a camera when they start desiring better AF or low light performance.  Not that they are necessarily bad.  My sister had a SX50HS and it is a nice little camera to use.

In hindsight, I don't think anyone should be shocked by the decline in camera sales.  During the 2000's cameras enjoyed a massive hike in popularity as new technologies allowed us to increase our photographic skills at an extraordinary rate and interact more with photo sharing and social media.  It was an extraordinary time. and many people went through successive P&S, bridge and DSLRs in search for the best camera for them.  But now we all have cameras.  And from the late 2000's, most phone's have incorporated cameras that are acceptable to many people.  But this isn't news to anyone here.

It's been interesting reading through the responses to this topic and the ideas that have been generated.  But in my opinion, camera sale might level off, but there will always be a strong demand.

Parents who want to take better snapshots and recognise the AF and IQ benefits of a camera over their phone make up the vast bulk of Canon DSLR buyers.  These people have a reason to buy a camera (not necessarily a DSLR, but mirrorless as well) and I don't think the numbers of these people will change that much - and might even increase.  Any recent dip in sales is mostly because many people already own a camera that is "good enough".  But over time, camera sales should stay in line with population changes.

I also think Canon's current model range is appropriate to these buyers and there's not much more that needs to be done.  They just have to keep highlighting two points - AF & IQ.  If they can change the form factor to a smaller, more modern style without affecting AF, and continually improve wifi, networking and communications (and without making things too complicated) who wouldn't want one?

For everyone else - ie us! - I'm not sure what the future holds.  While I'm reasonably bullish on the entry level market staying high, I'm not so confident about the enthusiast/pro segments.  How good does a 7D3, 5D4, IDX2 need to be to encourage a large number of people to drop their current cameras and upgrade?  With each new generation I think there will be less and less camera sales.  To counter this, we'll probably see longer periods of time between model releases with more improvements thrown in to generate more rumors and excitement. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Leica really worth it?
« on: January 02, 2015, 06:04:11 AM »
Hallo Hillsilly,

Have look at this:

Thanks, but I suspect we're talking at cross purposes.  The R system lenses that I mentioned are SLR lenses and are  different to the M system lenses.  The R lenses are just like your regular Canon SLR/DSLR lenses.  Most were very high quality for their time and there were even some rebadged Minolta lenses that are now fairly affordable on eBay.  Going back to the point about using them with mirrorless cameras, they usually have good optics, nice manual focusing mechanisms, manual aperture rings and as far as older, adapted lenses go, there isn't much better .  And if you're shooting APS-C, just add a speed booster (which exist for Leica R, but not Leica M) and you're essentially back to using the lenses as designed.  (Not that I'm necessarily saying adapted lenses are a great idea, but it is a useful side benefit)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Leica really worth it?
« on: January 01, 2015, 10:28:35 AM »
Thanks, surprised to hear that's the case given the R system has a longer flange distance than even Canon EF lenses (47mm vs 44mm).  Adapted lenses also suffer from the inherent problems associated with using an adapter and the hit to IQ, but you do hear of people using them successfully.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Leica really worth it?
« on: December 31, 2014, 09:57:16 PM »
I assume that the OP means the Leica M's, but there is another option if someone is curious about Leicas and wants to see if they are "worth it" - the Leica R's.  Used film bodies are very affordable and many lenses can fit onto Canon bodies with an adapter.  The R system also has the usual fisheyes, wide angle, super telephotos etc.  The lenses are also good to use on mirrorless cameras.

But to answer the query in general, Leica M's are great for travel, street shooting, portraits and landscapes.  They are fairly well made, reasonably compact, portable cameras and many of the lenses are at least equal to Canon L lenses in relation to image quality.  If the cameras and lenses were selling for less than half of what they currently sell for, there probably wouldn't be much debate.  But selling a lower volume, niche product, I can understand why Leica portrays itself as a luxury brand and aims to keep their price high.  Though, to me, I think you pay a little too much for the branding, mystique and mythology.  But then, Leica did "invent" photography...


EOS Bodies / Re: Noise - maybe it's good?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:51:20 AM »
I agree.  Noise is way, way down the list of attributes that I consider when deciding if I like a photo.

Canon General / Re: Pixma pro 10 or 100?
« on: December 15, 2014, 07:06:50 AM »
Thanks - Just realised I "misspoke" above.  The Chromalife test on the redriverpaper site is for the Pro100.  So maybe a better comparison for bare prints is 9-12 years for the pro-100 vs 30-40 years for Canon pigment ink per Wilhelm-Research.  And with both, you'll get extended lifespan with better framing and storage methods.

I'll find out how accurate the Pro100 prediction is in 10 years time. In any case, I can just reprint the photo.

Canon General / Re: Pixma pro 10 or 100?
« on: December 15, 2014, 04:02:50 AM »
I picked up a Pixma Pro 100 earlier this year at a good discount.  I'm an infrequent printer, only printing with it about once per month.  So far, I'm really impressed with the printer.  It produces very nice, vibrant, detailed prints.  But, deep down, I'm concerned about the longevity of the dye prints.  Therefore, I only use the printer for prints which I'm entering into competitions and want to look great for a short period.  For things which I want to last long term, I use a lab to print them on Kodak Endura, which should provide a lifespan easily surpassing any inkjet printer.

One of the benefits of the Pro 10 is that the pigment based ink is longer lasting than the the dye based ink in the Pro 100.  But just note that the Pro 10 images might still only last 9-12 years (per Redriverpaper site).  While they will last longer depending upon the framing material and how they are stored, in comparison, Kodak Endura (and Fuji Crystal Archive etc) should last 100+ years on display in a typical home environment and 200+ years in dark storage.  Dye vs Pigment lifespan is an important consideration, but if you are looking for an archival quality solution, there are better options.

Canon General / Re: Sensor life
« on: December 15, 2014, 03:21:01 AM »
Is there something like 'sensor hours' before it goes bad?
Why assume they will go bad?  Maybe we'll discover that sensors get better with age?  Perhaps in 100 years time artists will covet the sensors from the early 2000's for their colour shifts, dead pixels, CFA fading, sun damage, laser damage, accumulated background radiation exposure etc etc?  All of these should give each sensor a unique signature that sets it apart from the mainstream, making them very valuable.  In fact, I'm going to start stocking up now.

Reviews / Re: Are Gitzo's really overrated?!
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:03:11 AM »
When I look at my cheaper, non-Gitzo, 5 year old carbon fibre tripod with feet that keep falling off, tubes that pull straight out, and glue failing everywhere,  I often wonder if Gitzo's are overrated....

Lenses / Re: Lens Fungus - Advice Needed
« on: December 03, 2014, 03:59:15 AM »
If you don't see any deterioration in image quality, just learn to live with it.  The fungus is probably embedded in the glue holding the lens together.  Short of an expensive complete rebuild, a repair is just going to give you a temporary reprieve.  And if you list the lens accurately for sale, you won't get much interest.

I've had a number of lenses with fungus problems.  In my case, I suspect it is because I use my gear in the rain and I live in a hot, humid climate, creating an ideal environment.  One home remedy to try is to leave your lens out in the sun for a few days/week as some fungi don't like UV.  This won't fix up any etching currently there, but might hinder future growth.  (If you try this, place the lens on something which isn't inflammable.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54