I'll keep this in mind at least, I'm just honestly impressed that I still got a lot of good shoots with my idiot method.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Yeah, the AF points shouldn't be affected at all by the Exposure Preview setting, (maybe if it closes down aperture for focusing it might affect...) so if where the AF point would be right it'd still focus just the same. Just makes it harder to know where to place your AF points!
Would totally never work for MF though.
10,000 iso on the A7RII isn't bad at all...I think this might be my new event photography combo. Wasn't expecting to really test it out on a paid gig, but it was fun to not have the D4 and D810 hanging off of me for once.
Nope, not in the least. I'm comfortable using all the way up to 12,800 no questions asked.
Yeah these sensors have gotten really good and this is what is in the R3 as well but tweaked.
It is most likely impossible to get Sony files to look like Fuji files with the Provia film sim and there was no way in fuck I was going to even try wasting my time trying.
You want Provia, you shoot Fuji in jpeg mode. That's just a no brainer.
I tend to stack a film sim on top of my own edits these days if I'm shooting Fuji, it's like an augmentation of the styles that still feels personal.
I'm actually doing something pretty similar. I've toned down a few of those presets I was talking about the other day for a nice blend of more filmic yet my own style.
Yeah the film sims don't exactly know what we like, it's just a raw tweak as far as I'm concerned.
I have gotten less than zero bites on that so far. People are cheap. Probably more likely for sponsorships or paid posts or something with outdoors companies.
Ain't this the fucking truth. Somebody asked me for a pic so she could print it, said she'd pay, I told her $20 for the file, which I heard was standard price for that and nothing.
I know I want a strong ND filter to shoot some nice waterfalls in my town, but I couldn't get one yet.
Depends on what you do. ND filters and circular polarizers are most commonly used with digital cameras. ND is probably the most useful overall in that it allows you much greater shutter speed flexibility when there is a lot of light about.
I generally use hoods rather than UV filters to protect glass, but whatever makes you most comfortable.
Most other filters are of limited utility, although some people swear by doing various effects optically rather than in the editor. Tiffen has a shload of these videos online to which my general reaction is.... eh.
Also leaf shutter, you can use fill flash in daylight photography without a care in the world.
You'll likely need it since the max shutter speed is only 1/1000 at its widest aperture.
I cannot say enough that buying a UV filter is at best a complete waste of money and at worst a detriment to your image quality, with such entirely situational benefits that very, very few people can actually justify having one.
I have like 11 lenses, it got to the point where I got tired of buying them on top of finding out they're useless.
ND Filters are by and large the only filters that I would say the average photographer would have *any* use for.
Now that I'm at an actual keyboard, to elaborate on why UV filters are dog turd:
They do nothing. The glass on the front element of your lens is designed to tank elements. It's not some fragile, delicate flimsy bit of seran wrap that needs to be babied every moment of the day. They have coatings and shit designed to take a (relative) beating.
People who buy UV filters will invariably point to that one time that they dropped their lens and the UV filter protected it, as evidenced by the complete shattering of the UV filter. Well, no shit, the UV filter is fragile. The front element of your lens is a huge thick monstrosity of engineered glass. The UV filter is a sand based wafer of flimsy mediocrity. It doesn't protect shit; it just breaks, and when it breaks? Well NOW you have a problem because now there's glass dust all of your lens, and in the cracks, and working its way into the focusing barrel, etc.
On top of all that, every piece of glass in between you, your camera, and your subject is going to negatively affect image quality. Obviously until we get crazy dynamically curving sensors we're going to need a number of glass elements to shape and correct the projected image, but every piece of glass had *better* be doing something important, and UV filters simply do not. Sensors already have UV filters built into them. So now you're fucking up image quality, for NUTHIN.
The only use case scenario for a UV filter would be if you're out in the desert with fine sand blowing everywhere. At that point you have like 9 million other issues, but a UV filter can kinda stop the sand from entering at the front element. A bit.
Now that I'm at an actual keyboard, to elaborate on why UV filters are dog turd:
They do nothing. The glass on the front element of your lens is designed to tank elements. It's not some fragile, delicate flimsy bit of seran wrap that needs to be babied every moment of the day. They have coatings and shit designed to take a (relative) beating.
People who buy UV filters will invariably point to that one time that they dropped their lens and the UV filter protected it, as evidenced by the complete shattering of the UV filter. Well, no shit, the UV filter is fragile. The front element of your lens is a huge thick monstrosity of engineered glass. The UV filter is a sand based wafer of flimsy mediocrity. It doesn't protect shit; it just breaks, and when it breaks? Well NOW you have a problem because now there's glass dust all of your lens, and in the cracks, and working its way into the focusing barrel, etc.
On top of all that, every piece of glass in between you, your camera, and your subject is going to negatively affect image quality. Obviously until we get crazy dynamically curving sensors we're going to need a number of glass elements to shape and correct the projected image, but every piece of glass had *better* be doing something important, and UV filters simply do not. Sensors already have UV filters built into them. So now you're fucking up image quality, for NUTHIN.
The only use case scenario for a UV filter would be if you're out in the desert with fine sand blowing everywhere. At that point you have like 9 million other issues, but a UV filter can kinda stop the sand from entering at the front element. A bit.
For those who wanna make sure they are getting the best noise performance they can, here's a useful site:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm
For example, based on this, I would be better to shoot at 800ISO and then crank down as opposed to shooting at 400ISO on the XT-2. I'll need to keep this in mind.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm
For example, based on this, I would be better to shoot at 800ISO and then crank down as opposed to shooting at 400ISO on the XT-2. I'll need to keep this in mind.
I've commented here about migrating to a mirrorless Canon or Sony in the past few weeks, and after taking a good look after what lenses I actually like to use, I think I figured out what I'm going to do in the next months.
These are my lenses (all first-party from Canon):
- 35mm F/2 IS;
- 50mm F/1.4;
- 85mm F/1.8;
- 24-105mm F/4L II IS;
I don't really have any use for the 50mm 1.4, and now the little thing is just collecting dust. It a great all around lens, but I like all the other ones better for specific things. I'll sell it without thinking twice. The 24-105 should be good for travel, but realistically I don't really use it very much. I guess I can take a couple of primes with me and won't really miss it. I'll sell it too. The money of these two lenses will enable me to get something else much earlier.
The 35mm is just amazing and I'll definitly keep it for now. If I decided to go mirrorless, I'll sell it to get the native RF one because it has macro, what could be interesting.
I really, really want the 135mm F2L lens, but I imagine that I wouldn't use the 85 a lot if I buy one so I could probably sell the 85mm too. I want to do this sooner rather than later.
In the end I'll have two nice prime lens that will cover most of my needs, and after that I plan to get one really good lens a year instead of buying all these cheaper ones to cover the holes (something wider than 35, something 200mm or longer and maybe something in the middle, like another better 50mm).
These are my lenses (all first-party from Canon):
- 35mm F/2 IS;
- 50mm F/1.4;
- 85mm F/1.8;
- 24-105mm F/4L II IS;
I don't really have any use for the 50mm 1.4, and now the little thing is just collecting dust. It a great all around lens, but I like all the other ones better for specific things. I'll sell it without thinking twice. The 24-105 should be good for travel, but realistically I don't really use it very much. I guess I can take a couple of primes with me and won't really miss it. I'll sell it too. The money of these two lenses will enable me to get something else much earlier.
The 35mm is just amazing and I'll definitly keep it for now. If I decided to go mirrorless, I'll sell it to get the native RF one because it has macro, what could be interesting.
I really, really want the 135mm F2L lens, but I imagine that I wouldn't use the 85 a lot if I buy one so I could probably sell the 85mm too. I want to do this sooner rather than later.
In the end I'll have two nice prime lens that will cover most of my needs, and after that I plan to get one really good lens a year instead of buying all these cheaper ones to cover the holes (something wider than 35, something 200mm or longer and maybe something in the middle, like another better 50mm).
The lens is really good and you're basically buying the lens. I wasn't a fan of the Canon XD bodies, I don't know what you are coming from, depending on that the 6D will be fine.
Used prices for each of those in the US right now:
6D - $650
24-70 - $1200
It's a pretty good deal. I probably wouldn't buy a mirror cam with 16k clicks but that's just me.
Depending on the shutter 16K is nothing. I got my Nikon D4 with 50K clicks on it (shutter life on that is rated for 450K) and it just keeps on going and going and going. With prosumer grade cameras 50K is probably the threshold though. Though it also helps to be very knowledgable of recall coverages as well. I got my Nikon D600 with 80K clicks on it and then sent it into Nikon for a free shutter replacement, which might actually be something you can now do with the D750 as well since they had to recall that thing a ton of times.
This is an INSANE deal. 5DS R for 1899...it's an import but still, that's two grand off.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/321783644660
https://www.ebay.com/itm/321783644660
Great, I'll pick it up. I have an 800D that I started with, and picked up a 5D Classic for cheap to dip my toes into full frame. I'm starting to take on small paid gigs for headshots and theatre photography and my best lens is the Sigma EF-S 17-50mm f2.8, so this would be a big step up. I'll then sell the 5D and Sigma and keep the 800D and kit lens for the few times I need to do video.
If you can find a Z camera at the right price then yeah get one, I think I just wanted a fresh start since the Z series is missing a lot of glass and when I made my decision to go Sony the Tamron stuff was still going on with it not being supported, I still have no real regrets on that though. The image output on the Z7 is beautiful, granted it's all in the editing to me at this point, granted no camera system takes in color information the same way to me at this point.
Yeah we're really not starved for choice these days. It's gotten to the point where I think if a person can't get a good image out of a camera it's the photographers fault. Some people just have higher expectations regarding certain things.
After playing around with both this last week the Sony A7iii is a great camera. The Nikon Z6 is better.
No kidding. I can get a good image out of my D4, D810, X-T2 and 3 and A7RII. Completely different interfaces and none of that really is an impediment, I think for the most part it just ends up being skill based and muscle memory.
I'm seriously thinking of picking one up
And yeah Ultimately It's about skill. I see a lot of people would a7riii that just absolutely suck at photography. No amount of editing is going to make their work look good or interesting