which camera?

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Got my better half a Fuji S1 recently and she's over the moon with it

Water resistant, dustproof, 50x zoom, 1cm macro, battery lasts all day and some of the pictures she takes are amazing

A great semi-serious camera if you can find one, around 260 bananas

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

I used to be in a camera club a long time ago. When talks were given there often would be a few questions about the equipment used. This was in film days where there wasn't anywhere near as much scope for post processing as there is with digital and in some areas equipment did have more bearing on the quality of work the camera could produce but even then various film processing techniques could make a lot of difference to the final result.

Then comes composition and subjects etc.

These days people see wonderful pictures and expect to buy a dslr and produce the same results. Forgetting composition etc it really isn't as simple as that. Digital photo's can be changed dramatically via post processing and it's not that easy a skill to pick up. This can cause people to think that they will get better results by buying more expensive equipment. If only it was as simple as that. It is to a certain extent as far as lenses go but most images finish up so small compared with their full original size that they might have been shot using almost anything. Good job too as it makes the hobby more affordable. The cheaper lenses and even many of the expensive ones will show flaws when pixel peeping. In fact these days some cameras are using pixels that are so small that the lenses can't really resolve to that level. It saves them fitting an anti aliasing filter over the sensor.

There are some excellent tutorials on cambridge in colour on just about every aspect of photography. It's aim in life is to be a learning site. Best not to let it all over whelm you though but the answers to most questions are there and if not there is the forum. Lots and lots of PhotoShop users though. Posting photo's on there can be very useful. People might download them do some pp on them, repost and tell you what they did to them. That can be very useful. A few people like me do PP jpg's and only work from raw only when needed. Most work from raw. Personally I feel that is a sort of snobbery but each to their own etc.

John

–

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Fifteen years ago I was constantly being told the mantra that for publication jpegs were useless, and that you should always get uncompressed TIFFs or ideally RAW images.

I can confidently state that EVERY image in MEW passes through being a jpeg on its way to the printer

The difference is that these days you can set the quality threshold – many older cameras used to pump up the compression to fit more images on tiny memory cards. RAW or TIFF come into there own when you want to do significant post-processing, but for 99% of ordinary seeing the difference between a JPEG at high quality setting and a TIFF is hard.

That said, if you upload a jpeg to a site that uses excessive compression to reduce bandwidth the effects can be very demoralising!

By the by, advice for anyone offering images to MEW is leave the images as close to how they came from the camera (and don't put them in Word or let apple-products embed them in an email – both can spell death to quality and resolution).

[NJHParticipant @njh]

John

I don't see why you consider working from RAW to be "snobbery" ?

My cameras all produce RAW files and I import these to Lightroom for storage and processing. The RAW file contains all the data and , following processing , the image is converted to the appropriate format for the desired output. (Lightroom always retains the original RAW file and this can be processed in different ways as many times as you wish). The old argument against RAW was that files are big ( 20 meg each on my camera) and this was an issue in the early days when storage was a problem. As it is now storage on memory cards and hard drives is cheap – so why throw away information?

Norman

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Some compacts have pumped up the compression so much that if the image is looked at full size the detail isn't really there at all. Just looks like it is when it's reduced.

The usual argument on dlsr's for using raw is bit depth. They record to either 12 or 14 bits where as jpg's are 8 bit. The camera software maps the bits off the sensor into the jpg's colour space. Some even offer several different curves for doing this. Some people say that they don't want the camera to do this because they want their own arrangement of this and other similar factors. Few of these realise that cameras often do offer various options in this respect. Some argue that resolution is lost in jpg's. It is really but often this needn't prevent pretty extreme post processing to correct the curve the camera used. Not always though. Some people worry about quality factors when jpg's are saved – that's the degree of compression. Providing that is set at a level which doesn't alter the byte count of the original images by much further post processing wont be a problem. 1/2 it or anything like it and it will cause problems. I usually shoot jpg fine plus raw so that raw is available if needed. Ideally I also look on dpreview to see what the camera's colour curves do to the dark end. That is the tricky aspect of digital cameras as they have no where near the dynamic range of our eyes and often areas that looked fine by eye need bringing up. The other tricky aspect can be the bright end – if that's clipped off it's gone for ever and no amount of post processing will bring it back. Exposing that end correctly can make the dark end darker.

John

–

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

My Nikon Bridge has a cunning mode called 'active d-lighting' (sic) that compensates for the loss of dynamic range at the top and bottom when converting to 24-bit. I've only used it a few times on backlit subjects and it works really well despite the cheesy name.

Neil

[norman valentineParticipant @normanvalentine78682]

Here is my problem, I was brought up on film photography. I own a Contax II with an F1.5 Sonnar lens, arguably the best ever camera made (that will start an argument!) a Fuji GW690, a Nikon D1. But, a big but, my best pictures come from a cheap digital compact camera. The trouble is I love the mechanics of those old cameras. I have been on a waiting list for over eight years to have my Contax camera overhauled by the acknowledged expert in the world. Only two more years to go! Yes, I know that it is not economically viable, but it makes me feel good,.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by norman valentine on 29/05/2016 17:31:02:

Here is my problem, I was brought up on film photography. I own a Contax II with an F1.5 Sonnar lens, arguably the best ever camera made (that will start an argument!) a Fuji GW690, a Nikon D1. But, a big but, my best pictures come from a cheap digital compact camera. The trouble is I love the mechanics of those old cameras. I have been on a waiting list for over eight years to have my Contax camera overhauled by the acknowledged expert in the world. Only two more years to go! Yes, I know that it is not economically viable, but it makes me feel good,.

I won't argue about the Sonnar. I have a Zeiss 135mm f3.5 Sonnar, even wide open it gives me pin-point stars right across the field.

Neil.

I found a review:

"Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135mm f/3.5 showed outstanding performance in the lab. Images were sharp from corner to corner throughout the tested aperture range. More importantly, performance was even both in the center and around borders, which is a major benefit in any lens. Actually, the lens produced one of the most consistent results among medium telephoto lenses tested to date. With no peaks or dips in performance, the lens is capable of producing outstanding 19in and very decent 24in prints throughout tested aperture settings – quite an achievement even for a telephoto fixed focal. Conclusion? With outstanding results across the frame and across aperture range, this 20+ year old lens design still goes strong and would put to test any modern lens."

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 29/05/2016 18:40:35

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

Having had access to a lens testing station at Leica I always tested any lens I was interested in and the resolution variations are amazing. Lenses of world renown show center sharpness but fall off rapidly on the edges. Stopping down always helped, but film speeds were not that fast in those days and the older films showed grain. In the early 80's I was shown film used by the military and NASA that were grainless and they are now out in the open as you might say. Some of the claims made were spectacular as they were used in satellites for spying purposes. They also lend themselves to digitising reducing noise etc.

The Tessar lens always showed well as it is essentially the same lens front and back and can even be used as an enlarging lens. All Leica lens showed well with the larger aperture lenses even better. the mark of a lens is how it passes light and colour and of course the lenses used on Digi. cameras are different to optical cameras.

Older lenses now are showing cement deterioation as they were cemented with Balsam, this can show as yellowing or separation. Modern cements are cured by UV. Older lenses also affected by fungus, showing as etching on the glass surface. This can be killed off with Hydrogen peroxide about 6% strength.The metal parts need treating also.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nick_G on 28/05/2016 17:08:39:

Posted by naughtyboy on 28/05/2016 14:16:47:

but has always wanted a proper camera with changeable lenses.

.

Here are 2 images taken with the G16 :-

And before anyone squeaks about a bit of skin more is visible by walking through any town on a summers afternoon.

Nick

Nick, I'd be chuffed to bits if I managed to take photos as good as these. I've seen many examples in books and the web of excellent images captured with with modest kit. What's the secret?

Cheers,

Dave

[martin perman 1Participant @martinperman1]

An attractive female for starters

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

I'll be interested in the answer to Dave's question too because given and G16 and the model plus the other things that will have been around wont just make pictures like these happen. Or much of Nick's work that is on the web as well.

John

–

[NJHParticipant @njh]

I suspect that the answer to Daves question about what is the secret of producing images like Nick is , in the words of Whistler :-

"A lifetimes experience" !

Norman

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Ajohnw on 29/05/2016 23:56:48:

John

–

.

**Facepalm.

Oh dear, oh dear. …………. Oh-deary-deary-me.

_____________________________________________

Just seen the questions. It's late now and off to bed. It will answer them in the morning.

Sweet dreams everyone, Nick

[NJHParticipant @njh]

John

Are you are saying that you have altered Nicks image and reposted it? – if so I consider that pretty poor form.

Edited By NJH on 30/05/2016 10:02:05

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Posted by NJH on 30/05/2016 09:58:03:

John

Are you are saying that you have altered Nicks image and reposted it? – if so I consider that pretty poor form.

Edited By NJH on 30/05/2016 10:02:05

Yes I have to illustrate a point for Dave. Basically when people look at shots it's nigh impossible to tell what has been done to them. If you open both shots in fresh tabs and click between the 2 you will clearly see the difference. The scope in this sort of direction is almost endless.

I doubt if Nick objects otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Very few people do providing there is some point in the modification. If he does no problem. It should be easy to remove it.

In this case he might tell us that settings on the camera produced the result. It is capable of doing a number of things. Or he may have done work himself or ………….. there are a number of possibilities even that this is just what came out of the camera. I do doubt that though other than if it was set up to do it.

I doubt if Nick likes the result – I don't either but needed to show a very distinct difference. Even so giving how some screens are there is a slight chance that some might see no difference.

John

–

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 29/05/2016 20:04:35:

.

What's the secret?

Cheers,

Dave

.

Without trying to sound flipant. There really is not one other than knowing how to stack the odds in ones favour and an idea of what type of images you have a chance of getting away with when using such kit. – There are many such instances in engineering. – Very often it's all in the initial setup.

If for e.g. the image had been a illuminated by back lighting I would not have got away with using such kit.

The images are actually a very simple ones. A black backdrop, a pretty face and a single light source. In this case it's from a Bowen beauty dish with a diffuser attached high and right of the model. (the shadows tell the story) A beauty dish gives a soft (ish) light source while remaining very directional. They do however have a quite a small 'sweet spot' in the light they project so you cannot have the model moving around too much.

A common mistake is people charging around with their credit cards after reading the latest review or listening to others at their camera club or an internet forum. They then go and buy the latest (usually very expensive) camera body. Then having blown most of their budget end up sticking a cheaper lens onto it.! ……….. While all along there was nothing wrong with the very capable kit they already possessed. – If someone has money burning a whole in their pocket very often they would be far better off spending it on quality but simple lighting kit. They will usually get far more bang for their buck.

Personally I much prefer using a natural light source. But one has to remain practical. ………… I live in the UK

Nick

[NJHParticipant @njh]

John

If you wish to illustrate a point I suggest that you do so on your own images and not on someone else's – you doubt if Nick objects – do you know him? You say that you doubt that he likes the result – again why do it then? If you have points to make post your own images and demonstrate your points on these.

Norman

Edited By NJH on 30/05/2016 11:36:55

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by martin perman on 29/05/2016 21:07:54:

An attractive female for starters

.

Yup. I always lose and lack any enthusiasm if a Miss Piggy impersonator pitches up to have her picture taken.

I don't shoot many models these days and this was done as a favour to the girl as she is a long standing and valued friend of mine. She is a similar age to my son and when they are both at mine at the same time they usually nip to the shop. ……………………. I have not idea which obviously distant branch of Tesco's they go to as they are usually gone for several hours and return having forgotten what they originally and so importantly intended to urgently buy. No attention span the youth of today it seems.

Nick

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nick_G on 30/05/2016 11:27:14:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 29/05/2016 20:04:35:

.

What's the secret?

Cheers,

Dave

.

Without trying to sound flipant. There really is not one other than knowing how to stack the odds in ones favour and an idea of what type of images you have a chance of getting away with when using such kit. – There are many such instances in engineering. – Very often it's all in the initial setup.

…

Nick

Thanks Nick, as always talent and experience count for a lot.

My own most satisfying images depend heavily on technique rather than talent. They take a fair bit of setting up and often rely heavily on post-processing. Although It's all been done better by someone else I still enjoy startling the family with "how did he do that" photos.

Here's a challenge for AJohnW who has permission do what he likes to any of my pictures: please use this self portrait to make me look like George Clooney

This is an "x-ray" photo of my mobile phone:

And proof that I cannot be trusted with alcohol and an airgun:

Cheers,

Dave

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Nice one Dave – as far as the challenge though it might be easier to start with George Clooney and make him look like you! 😈

Norman

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by NJH on 30/05/2016 12:36:23:

Nice one Dave – as far as the challenge though it might be easier to start with George Clooney and make him look like you! 😈

Norman

Only too true I'm afraid!

Which reminds me of another mystery. Why does the camera love people like film stars whilst hating me so much? All photos of me have me mid-blink, yawning, looking the wrong way, or apparently competing for first place in a gurning contest. And saying "cheese" makes me even worse.

Dave

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Posted by Nick_G on 30/05/2016 11:27:14:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 29/05/2016 20:04:35:

.

What's the secret?

Cheers,

Dave

.

A common mistake is people charging around with their credit cards after reading the latest review or listening to others at their camera club or an internet forum. They then go and buy the latest (usually very expensive) camera body. Then having blown most of their budget end up sticking a cheaper lens onto it.! ……….. While all along there was nothing wrong with the very capable kit they already possessed. – If someone has money burning a whole in their pocket very often they would be far better off spending it on quality but simple lighting kit. They will usually get far more bang for their buck.

Personally I much prefer using a natural light source. But one has to remain practical. ………… I live in the UK

Nick

Too true but I sometimes wonder if especially when starting out and often some time later people look at other people's shots and think that just the kit they use produced the results. In some cases it will have some effect but it may be in a none obvious way. As an example I have toyed with the idea of buying a full frame camera. At the time a camera that isn't made any more. My reason would be to get better noise performance in low light. If I tried to use it for sports photography I might well find it doesn't focus fast enough. I might say low light so buy an expensive fast lens but would then wonder if it would have sufficient depth of field for when I needed to use it in low light, especially so on a full frame camera not so on one with a very small sensor such as compacts. Instead I look at what I want to shoot and set an ISO rating that I know will produce usable results with the camera I am using. If the shutter speed turns out to be too slow for hand held work I can't take the shot but may just on the off chance I can do something with it. I'm an amateur. A professional will be being paid for the work and can't really go back and say sorry need to take it again.

I don't hear Nick complaining. He's a photographer so I doubted if he would. The reason I did it was 2 fold. Dave's question just to show how much something can be changed once some one has learned how and the other goes back to the original question – want's to get into photography. People generally have expectations based on shots they see. A lot of them will have had various amounts of post processing done on them even if conditions where ideal. It can take a while to pick that up. It can also take a while to be able to tell what will come out of the camera when a shot is taken and also just how to go about taking it. Framing, lighting, camera settings and some subjects just wont produce good shots. It's also easy to over process shots. Once some one starts showing shots to other photographers other complications crop up. This is a link to one of mine.

**LINK**

I should replace it with one that I have done properly. It's way way over sharpened but looked fine on the monitor that I was using at the time. The contrast levels are pushed too much as well for the same reason. Due to lighting and location a lot of areas were pitch black in the jpg and even so I have lost some cloud detail.

As it is I put any old thing on there and when I work with care it's usually for a competition or to post in a photographic forum. It was taken with an Olympus EP-3, there are also others taken with the cheaper version of the same camera about on there. Mostly to try M 4/3 before buying an EM5 and later an EM 1. A lot of these were also attempts at getting to grips with pp and getting used to the camera.

John

–

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Will this do instead Dave

When I look at that now I think why didn't I do something about ……………

I think it's pretty obvious what wasn't there. Made from 3 different shots.  None of them mine but provided or freely available

John

–

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 14:34:31

[Author]

Posts