|
Cameras
Jul 17, 2014 13:11:56 GMT -8
Post by Scott on Jul 17, 2014 13:11:56 GMT -8
A question for those forum members who are, unlike me, 'photo-literate'.
Any idea what lighting or camera conditions would cause the whitish squiggles that are on the beach on the right side of this shot? Nothing was done to this photo afterward.
How long was your exposure? Doesn't it look like there is a faint image of a person standing in front of the whitish squiggles? Perhaps they were standing there for part of the exposure, then moved... - John H
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jul 17, 2014 15:25:00 GMT -8
A question for those forum members who are, unlike me, 'photo-literate'.
Any idea what lighting or camera conditions would cause the whitish squiggles that are on the beach on the right side of this shot? Nothing was done to this photo afterward.
How long was your exposure? Doesn't it look like there is a faint image of a person standing in front of the whitish squiggles? Perhaps they were standing there for part of the exposure, then moved... Actually, John, the person who took the photo believes the image you mention is a ghost... a young girl. She sent the photo to a paranormal society and (of course) they agreed, and suggested the whitish squiggles are from the 'energy' that the figure used to materialize. It was not a long exposure photo.
Being very skeptical about all this stuff, I was looking for a more mundane explanation.
|
|
|
Cameras
Jul 30, 2014 14:30:16 GMT -8
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 30, 2014 14:30:16 GMT -8
While admiring Mr. Wett Coast's photos on Flickr, I noticed that his camera is a Sony ILCE-6000.
Is this a new addition to your camera fleet? If so, how are you liking it? Is it your new #1 camera re the one that you use most?
Or is it just temporarily #1, while you're on a trip with limited baggage space?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 31, 2014 19:09:06 GMT -8
While admiring Mr. Wett Coast's photos on Flickr, I noticed that his camera is a Sony ILCE-6000. Is this a new addition to your camera fleet? If so, how are you liking it? Is it your new #1 camera re the one that you use most? Or is it just temporarily #1, while you're on a trip with limited baggage space? Sorry for this tardy reply. I have not had internet access in about 24 hours. I am currently in the Robert Service Campground in Whitehorse using my laptop on battery power & connecting to the WWW through my cell phone. My battery might run out very soon! The camera is a new Sony mirrorless model with an APS-C sized digital sensor, better known as the Sony α (alpha) 6000. It is basically a majorly upgraded NEX-6. So now I have two Sony mirrorless models, both with APS-C sensors, the same size as is found in most D-SLR's. So far, so good, with this camera. The sensor is pretty much as good as any except a few found in cameras with 'full sized' sensors. I also have a relatively new Sony G 70-300 zoom lens which when used on a camera with an APS-C sized sensor is equivalent to a 105 - 450 mm zoom on a full sized or 35 mm film camera. This is now my camera #1. Unlike your Sony RX-10, however, I still have to fiddle with lens swapping as good ultra zooms just don't exist for cameras with APS-C or larger sensors. In a few days I will be starting a 10-day paddle down the Teslin & Yukon rivers (with a group of seven people in three canoes & one kayak). On that trip I wil use my older NEX-6 (kept in waterproof Pelican case) along with a few lenses. I will also have a water proof P&S camera for taking photos while we are actually on the river.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 7, 2014 21:08:28 GMT -8
My 22 year old younger daughter is into photography, and has owned a variety of cameras over the last eight years or so. She surprised me yesterday by remarking that she is thinking of trying the film camera route... something she has never used. I couldn't quite figure out why, and asked if this notion was perhaps akin to people who prefer driving standard transmissions. She didn't disagree, and mentioned also those who prefer vinyl records to the current musical formats. She thought that there were maybe advantages to film, in terms of colour and clarity.
I just can't see it. The people on this forum with good digital equipment and skills post such remarkable photos, even in poor light, that I don't see how the old method can compete. Wett Coast (Jim) has posted a lot of his and his brother's film library, and it's excellent as well... but- as good as today's cameras can do? I don't think so.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? Have any of our younger members- who have never used anything other than digital- ever had any curiosity about working with film? Today's photographers have the luxury of being able to take almost infinite numbers of photographs without worrying about expense. If nothing else, I would think that could be a huge drawback to film.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Oct 7, 2014 21:23:35 GMT -8
My 22 year old younger daughter is into photography, and has owned a variety of cameras over the last eight years or so. She surprised me yesterday by remarking that she is thinking of trying the film camera route... something she has never used. I couldn't quite figure out why, and asked if this notion was perhaps akin to people who prefer driving standard transmissions. She didn't disagree, and mentioned also those who prefer vinyl records to the current musical formats. She thought that there were maybe advantages to film, in terms of colour and clarity.
I just can't see it. The people on this forum with good digital equipment and skills post such remarkable photos, even in poor light, that I don't see how the old method can compete. Wett Coast (Jim) has posted a lot of his and his brother's film library, and it's excellent as well... but- as good as today's cameras can do? I don't think so.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? Have any of our younger members- who have never used anything other than digital- ever had any curiosity about working with film? Today's photographers have the luxury of being able to take almost infinite numbers of photographs without worrying about expense. If nothing else, I would think that could be a huge drawback to film. I think that film just makes you think twice about the photos you take, which drives your composition higher. With digital, where you can take as many photos as you want and it doesn't cost you anything to take a picture, you don't think about composition as much. This is why film gets better pictures, even though you could get the same ones with digital. Basically, film is just a relatively easy way of getting better photographs. Most people that shoot film these days mostly shoot digital, or at least have a digital camera, and choose to shoot film.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Oct 7, 2014 21:42:56 GMT -8
I couldn't quite figure out why, and asked if this notion was perhaps akin to people who prefer driving standard transmissions.
There's plenty of good reasons to prefer driving a stick over an automatic. The advantages of film over digital, however, are less clear.
|
|
|
Cameras
Oct 7, 2014 21:45:27 GMT -8
Post by paulvanb on Oct 7, 2014 21:45:27 GMT -8
Anyone want my Canon A-1 with motor drive that takes 12 AA batteries?
|
|
|
Cameras
Oct 8, 2014 15:12:02 GMT -8
Post by compdude787 on Oct 8, 2014 15:12:02 GMT -8
My 22 year old younger daughter is into photography, and has owned a variety of cameras over the last eight years or so. She surprised me yesterday by remarking that she is thinking of trying the film camera route... something she has never used. I couldn't quite figure out why, and asked if this notion was perhaps akin to people who prefer driving standard transmissions. She didn't disagree, and mentioned also those who prefer vinyl records to the current musical formats. She thought that there were maybe advantages to film, in terms of colour and clarity.
I just can't see it. The people on this forum with good digital equipment and skills post such remarkable photos, even in poor light, that I don't see how the old method can compete. Wett Coast (Jim) has posted a lot of his and his brother's film library, and it's excellent as well... but- as good as today's cameras can do? I don't think so.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? Have any of our younger members- who have never used anything other than digital- ever had any curiosity about working with film? Today's photographers have the luxury of being able to take almost infinite numbers of photographs without worrying about expense. If nothing else, I would think that could be a huge drawback to film. I think that film just makes you think twice about the photos you take, which drives your composition higher. With digital, where you can take as many photos as you want and it doesn't cost you anything to take a picture, you don't think about composition as much. This is why film gets better pictures, even though you could get the same ones with digital. Basically, film is just a relatively easy way of getting better photographs. Most people that shoot film these days mostly shoot digital, or at least have a digital camera, and choose to shoot film. Yeah, I can agree with that. This is even true with digital cameras when you're about to run out of space on your memory card. It makes you want to put more effort into getting better pictures. I think people will tend to put more effort into getting good pictures just by seeing other people's pictures, and then being inspired to take some as good as theirs.
|
|
|
Cameras
Feb 6, 2015 15:43:55 GMT -8
Post by paulvanb on Feb 6, 2015 15:43:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Cameras
Apr 20, 2015 20:16:01 GMT -8
Post by paulvanb on Apr 20, 2015 20:16:01 GMT -8
Has anyone have this happen to their photos? This just started happening with my work camera.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 16, 2015 9:40:39 GMT -8
I did a photography trip to Mt. Maxwell on Salt Spring Island on Tuesday/Wednesday of this week .... Through careful battery management, I coaxed 13.5 hours out of my six batteries. This included the benefit of car-charging for 30 minutes during my late night drive down to my camping site and again in my early morning drive back up to the viewpoint ... I believe that your Sony camera also uses the 'NP-FW50' battery pack which is also used in my NEX-6 & a6000 models. I have five of these and they don't last as long as I might like ... Part of Sony's effort to minimize the bulk & weight of these mirrorless cameras is to go with a battery that is significantly smaller than what is typical in DSLR cameras. The electronic viewfinders on these Sony's also draw a fair bit of power, thus eating into the battery's capacity. (This is one of the disadvantages of EVF versus OVF, but overall, I think the EVF advantages outweigh the disadvantages when compared with OVF.) So, I understand your concern with 'battery management' on a trip such as you have just done. I have been there & done that & expect to do more in the future. Tip for you: Acquire a "Portable External Battery Charger Power Bank" such as can be seen in this link. There are many brands & models to choose from & they come in a wide range of capacities. They will charge the battery in your camera while you sleep, or at any time the camera is not in use. You just need a USB cable with a standard male USB plug on one end & a micro USB male plug on the other end. I use these routinely on long trips when I don't have regular access to 110 v AC power. I also have a solar charger that is used to top up the "Power Bank" during the day. I used this setup during my paddle down the Teslin & Yukon rivers last summer (charge power bank during the day with solar charger, and then charge camera batteries from the power bank during the evening & overnight). Another example: www.mec.ca/product/5036-246/eton-boost-solar-5000-solar-powered-backup-battery-pack/?h=10+50007+50023+50328&f=10+50007+51338
|
|
|
Cameras
Jul 16, 2015 9:55:07 GMT -8
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 16, 2015 9:55:07 GMT -8
I believe that your Sony camera also uses the 'NP-FW50' battery pack which is also used in my NEX-6 & a6000 models. I have five of these and they don't last as long as I might like ... Yes, those are my batteries. I've also experienced their shorter-than-expected life. Especially when I'm shooting hours of HD video. I've got 6 of them (that's $600 or so, so it's a sizable investment) --------------- Acquire a "Portable External Battery Charger Power Bank" such as can be seen in this link. There are many brands & models to choose from & they come in a wide range of capacities. They will charge the battery in your camera while you sleep, or at any time the camera is not in use. You just need a USB cable with a standard male USB plug on one end & a micro USB male plug on the other end. I use these routinely on long trips when I don't have regular access to 110 v AC power. I also have a solar charger that is used to top up the "Power Bank" during the day. I used this setup during my paddle down the Teslin & Yukon rivers last summer (charge power bank during the day with solar charger, and then charge camera batteries from the power bank during the evening & overnight). Another example: www.mec.ca/product/5036-246/eton-boost-solar-5000-solar-powered-backup-battery-pack/?h=10+50007+50023+50328&f=10+50007+51338Thanks for the tips. As always, I appreciate your friendly expertise. (and of course your empathy in dealing with the same types of issues that I try to manage). Cheers !
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 13, 2015 16:47:29 GMT -8
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 13, 2015 16:47:29 GMT -8
...from another thread: I am, however, acquiring the pocketable Sony HX90V. Image quality will be so-so due to small sensor, but on the other hand I won't decide not to bring it with me due to its weight/ bulk. Considering the amount of all-season activity you do in all sorts of nearby and remote places, and your reluctance to hire a Sherpa, that small Sony sounds like a good plan. ----------- In my world of camera activity, my Sony RX10 lasted 4 hours this morning, before shutting-down similar to what it did last week. I'm not in a rush, so I will see if it comes back to life in another 5 days (like last time) and if this trend will continue or not. I suspect that my 10 hours of NorEx shooting in damp weather caused some unwanted moisture ingress, in spite of my shower-cap cover. - like I said, I am not in a rush, and so I can play the fun wait and see game.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Cameras
Aug 17, 2015 20:36:17 GMT -8
Post by Neil on Aug 17, 2015 20:36:17 GMT -8
When I was downtown a couple of weekends ago, I saw that Gastown Photo is the latest in a string of retailers getting out of the camera business. An article in a recent Globe & Mail mentioned the general trend toward consumers using higher end phone cameras instead of their former bulkier gear.
So... anybody here downsizing, or considering it? Or are the serious photography buffs sticking with their equipment, and is it perhaps just the casual picture takers who are abandoning dedicated cameras?
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 17, 2015 21:05:44 GMT -8
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 17, 2015 21:05:44 GMT -8
When I was downtown a couple of weekends ago, I saw that Gastown Photo is the latest in a string of retailers getting out of the camera business. An article in a recent Globe & Mail mentioned the general trend toward consumers using higher end phone cameras instead of their former bulkier gear.
So... anybody here downsizing, or considering it? Or are the serious photography buffs sticking with their equipment, and is it perhaps just the casual picture takers who are abandoning dedicated cameras? Wett Coast and myself seem to prefer the all-in-one type of bridge camera, for less bulk. But even that, compared to a cell-phone, is a large difference in size and weight. I don't see the camera-phone trend happening here, except perhaps with Kruising Karl.
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 18, 2015 0:23:54 GMT -8
Post by Curtis on Aug 18, 2015 0:23:54 GMT -8
The way I see things, it's the causal photographers causing this trend since their smartphones can do pretty much the same thing with the same quality of picture as the point-and-shoot they probably would have used otherwise. Not to mention the cost of buying a high-end camera to some is equivalent to what they'd pay for a smartphone. High-end cameras I feel will still have a place among amateur and professional photographers though, (and enthusiasts like us ) they will be more or a niche thing for the causal photographer as time goes on. That being said, my current camera set-up is a split between my Nikon D5100 and the camera on my iPhone 6 Plus. I mainly use my D5100 for more formal photography such as for family gatherings, travel, scenery, wildlife, and of course ferries. My iPhone usually being near me at all times naturally means I use it for causal photography since taking the D5100 just anywhere would be a bit awkward. (Even more if I brought my lenses) If I didn't have a smartphone (or any media device with a camera and internet access) I'd probably have a pocket sized point-and-shoot for casual photos. But since smartphones took over, they've essentially killed the point-and-shoot market as I've pointed out above. For example, I used an 8 Megapixel Olympus point-and-shoot before I got my D5100. When I got my iPhone 4s a few years back, I slowly found that the picture quality was just as good if not better on the iPhone camera (which was also 8 megapixels) than it was on the Olympus. The only thing that gave the Olympus an advantage over the iPhone was its optical zoom. For awhile I found myself alternating between the two for ferry photography (which was a bit problematic as I'd have two albums for one trip) and it became clear to me that I needed to upgrade to something better than a point-and-shoot. Overall, I'm content with my camera set-up and wouldn't change things... Unless I was to upgrade to a newer DSLR model of course.
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 18, 2015 11:02:06 GMT -8
Post by paulvanb on Aug 18, 2015 11:02:06 GMT -8
Having finished my tour of Europe, I didn't mind having my mirrorless (Olympus OM-D E-% MKII) and my cellphone. (Samsung Galaxy 4) I took the following lenses:
14-42mm f3.5 M.Zuiko 9-18mm f4 17mm f2.8 pancake 40-150 f4 M.Zuiko 70-300 f4
Both performed well. Brought an Olympus E-PL for backup. 1The cellphone was good for shots for posting Facebook and Instagram.
After five tours of Europe, I am looking at starting a fine art photo business with all of the photos I have in archives.
In reading the post about Gastown Cameras, I must admit I have never herd of them. I purchase most of my gear at Futureshop/Bestbuy, but also from Kerrisdale Cameras. I occasionally trade in stuff for new or used items. In fact, I will be trading in my old E-620 and the kit lenses for a new lens.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Cameras
Aug 18, 2015 12:46:05 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Koastal Karl on Aug 18, 2015 12:46:05 GMT -8
Honestly I have not used my Panasonic Lumix camera since our cruise last September! All the photos you see from me on Facebook have been from my iPhone as it is so easy seeing I always have my phone with me and I don't take a lot of photos anymore! Only thing is they aren't good for zooming!
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 22, 2015 12:30:38 GMT -8
Post by WettCoast on Aug 22, 2015 12:30:38 GMT -8
When I was downtown a couple of weekends ago, I saw that Gastown Photo is the latest in a string of retailers getting out of the camera business. An article in a recent Globe & Mail mentioned the general trend toward consumers using higher end phone cameras instead of their former bulkier gear.
So... anybody here downsizing, or considering it? Or are the serious photography buffs sticking with their equipment, and is it perhaps just the casual picture takers who are abandoning dedicated cameras? Wett Coast and myself seem to prefer the all-in-one type of bridge camera, for less bulk. But even that, compared to a cell-phone, is a large difference in size and weight. I don't see the camera-phone trend happening here, except perhaps with Kruising Karl. Interesting discussion that you raise Neil... As Mr. Horn mentioned I like small, but I also like to acquire high quality images. With small cameras you generally make quite a sacrifice in terms of image quality. Now, I have just purchased a new Sony HX90V point & shoot with a baby-finger-nail sized sensor & a 30:1 zoom lens. It also has an ELF (electronic viewfinder) as well as a articulating 'selfie' enhanced 3" monitor. It can be seen in the following photo along with another of my cameras, a Sony a77ii (big DSLR with ELF & APS-C sized sensor). The size difference is apparent. I will carry the big camera along with various lenses when I am doing serious photography, but when I am hiking (for example) & weight & bulk are a major consideration, I will probably choose the little guy. As for image quality that is acceptable for here on the WCFF, take a look at these two photos taken at about the same time. They show the north bound Northern Expedition just south of Hartley Bay on Tuesday, August 18th. One photo was taken with the big camera, one with the little guy. How obvious is the difference in image quality?
|
|
|
Cameras
Nov 15, 2015 9:16:01 GMT -8
Post by Elwha on the Rocks on Nov 15, 2015 9:16:01 GMT -8
Just thought I'd throw this out there. Yesterday I took an all day ferry trip to Bremerton and Kingston mainly to ride the Chelan. As those of you who live near Seattle know it was pretty much pouring all day. Of course, I was still outside for most of the crossing taking pictures. By the end of the day my cameras (along with myself) were completely soaked, and I was left very impressed with the weather-proofing on my d5100 (with a Tokina 11-16 and 70-300) along with my relatively inexpensive Sony Handycam. So for those like me who are wondering if you can get your Nikon DSLR wet, I can verify that yes, they can take the abuse of being on a ferry at night while it's pouring rain outside. I'm assuming that the higher end DSLRs would only improve on this.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 15, 2015 10:38:54 GMT -8
Just thought I'd throw this out there. Yesterday I took an all day ferry trip to Bremerton and Kingston mainly to ride the Chelan. As those of you who live near Seattle know it was pretty much pouring all day. Of course, I was still outside for most of the crossing taking pictures. By the end of the day my cameras (along with myself) were completely soaked, and I was left very impressed with the weather-proofing on my d5100 (with a Tokina 11-16 and 70-300) along with my relatively inexpensive Sony Handycam. So for those like me who are wondering if you can get your Nikon DSLR wet, I can verify that yes, they can take the abuse of being on a ferry at night while it's pouring rain outside. I'm assuming that the higher end DSLRs would only improve on this. The D5100 is not weatherproofed. I would say that weathering causes issues in the long term - i.e. you might not see the effects immediately. Bad, bad, bad idea to keep your Nikon DSLR, or other camera, out in poor weather. For those who want the easiest, most effective way to destroy your camera's internals besides dropping it, follow the advice of this post...
|
|
|
Cameras
Nov 15, 2015 11:37:50 GMT -8
Post by WettCoast on Nov 15, 2015 11:37:50 GMT -8
Yes, I am in agreement with MP Michael on this. Don't push your luck with modern cameras in the rain, not even the ones advertised as being weather resistant.
That does not mean that you should never take photos, except on sunny days. Just do your best to keep your camera(s) & lenses dry.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2015 12:43:02 GMT -8
Yes, I am in agreement with MP Michael on this. Don't push your luck with modern cameras in the rain, not even the ones advertised as being weather resistant. That does not mean that you should never take photos, except on sunny days. Just do your best to keep your camera(s) & lenses dry. I can offer the example of $1,500 of camera investment becoming a 20 month rental, because of a full day of shooting in rainy weather dressed-up in a semi-protective shower-cap. (I got good use of my Sony RX10 during those 20 months, and it worked out to be $75 for each month of use, but the camera should have lasted much longer). Short protected sessions in rain are probably ok. But looking back at my August 4th day, I see how my stubbornness of fitting my hopes & dreams into a bad weather day was irresponsible of me. You guys have seen the results of my obsessive work, but I now know that sometimes it's best to put the camera away and adapt my plans to the uncontrollable environment. Maybe this is a metaphor for life...
|
|
|
Cameras
Nov 15, 2015 13:18:09 GMT -8
Post by Mike on Nov 15, 2015 13:18:09 GMT -8
I believe only the Nikon D7000 series and up come with with weatherproofing. But even that does not make them completely water resistant.
|
|