|
Is it normal to not be able to focus your eyes and have a headache after looking down a 375mm full frame equivalent lens for a while?
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Just turn on focus peaking IRL by dropping acid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Is it normal to not be able to focus your eyes and have a headache after looking down a 375mm full frame equivalent lens for a while? no, just your posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:no, just your posts Sorry I asked a genuine question I guess?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Sorry I asked a genuine question I guess? Yes, more or less. The same problem that you'll get if you spend all night staring at textbooks from eight inches away because you've got a final coming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Is it normal to not be able to focus your eyes and have a headache after looking down a 375mm full frame equivalent lens for a while? It's the kind of thing it takes time for your brain to get used to. High magnification is very herky jerky motion (esp w/out IS) if you're not on a support or don't have excellent long lens technique. That can cause dizziness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
After looking through a VF on a camera with a long telephoto lens, I often get this thing where my vision in the eye that hadn't been looking through the finder will be all blurry. (I tend to squeeze it shut pretty hard when I'm tracking moving subjects) Haven't gotten a headache from this yet, though it can really mess with my depth perception and is generally annoying because everything looks blurry if I have both eyes open.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
What's the best way to digitize a few hundred 35mm and 6x6 negatives? Most of the decent scanners I'm seeing are very expensive and only scan one strip at a time. Is there a service that would do it for me? Is there a batch way to do it? I'm able to pay a good amount of cash to not worry about spending days and weeks on a big project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Avian Pneumonia posted:What's the best way to digitize a few hundred 35mm and 6x6 negatives? all the labs will do it, but it's gonna cost you
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
I should add that I'm in New York City if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Avian Pneumonia posted:I should add that I'm in New York City if that helps. I have a Pakon you could probably use in exchange for maybe like a sixer  it would only help for 35mm though. However it scans uncut rolls of 36 in a few minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Is there some kind of 18% rule for the color yellow? I was taking a picture with my RX100 of an all yellow scene and as soon as the camera "realized" it as all yellow, it immediately turned to a grayish color. I could move the camera to another scene that was half yellow and half another color and the yellow would be just fine then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
huhu posted:Is there some kind of 18% rule for the color yellow? I was taking a picture with my RX100 of an all yellow scene and as soon as the camera "realized" it as all yellow, it immediately turned to a grayish color. I could move the camera to another scene that was half yellow and half another color and the yellow would be just fine then. Auto colour balance. It expects a standard mix of colours and when it sees all that yellow, it assumes that the light source is too yellow and so 'compensates'
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
huhu posted:Is there some kind of 18% rule for the color yellow? I was taking a picture with my RX100 of an all yellow scene and as soon as the camera "realized" it as all yellow, it immediately turned to a grayish color. I could move the camera to another scene that was half yellow and half another color and the yellow would be just fine then. Was the lighting yellow, or like the actual scene yellow? If the latter, turn your WB selector to the setting closest to the lighting in the yellow scene (incandescent for actual incandescent lights, sunlight for actual sunlight). If the former, shoot in RAW, set your white balance adjustment to none to see what the camera saw, and then adjust for taste from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Was the lighting yellow, or like the actual scene yellow? If the latter, turn your WB selector to the setting closest to the lighting in the yellow scene (incandescent for actual incandescent lights, sunlight for actual sunlight). If the former, shoot in RAW, set your white balance adjustment to none to see what the camera saw, and then adjust for taste from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Anyone know why my Canon's wireless remote (http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/wireless-remote-controller-rc-6) works perfectly fine inside but not outside? It doesn't matter how close i get and batteries aren't the problem, it just refuses to work the second i step outdoors. Is something interfering with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
The sun, assuming it's a cheap ir remote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Yes, that remote is IR based Get the Hahnel Giga Pro II for a radio based remote with a bunch of features such as timelapse and bulb, or get one of the cheap knock off wired remotes based on the TC80-N3 Both of these will fire the camera instantly instead of having a 2 second wait after clicking the button.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Or use the phone app if your camera has wifi
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Or use the IR on your phone if your phone has IR  I have tried all the solutions above, IR on phone, the TC80-N3 remote, the RC6 remote, shooting with wifi and using the Hahnel Giga Pro II (which is radio based) and without a doubt the Hahnel is most convenient. The IR based solutions are very dependant on you being on the correct side of the camera and the lighting conditions if used outside. TC80-N3 is good but it tethers you to the camera so its more a studio or night photo kind of thing and not for participating in group photos etc. Wifi was a pain in the rear end to set up and not very responsive. It is the solution that lets you get away with bringing the least amount of gadgets though. I could never figure out how to use the wifi method without having the phone out of my pocket and very visible in the photos though. The radio based Hahnel is a dream to use. Its only drawback is that dongle that hangs 15cm down from your camera. That thing is going to get ripped out sooner or later and possibly break the remote socket on the camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
That Hahnel one never came up in my searches before, looks neat. Might have to put in wish list, cheers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Cool, thanks. The sun would explain a lot, but even at night it doesn't work. But i guess it's time to splurge on yet another thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Hey guys I got myself another DSLR. I bought a 5D mkII (Had one a couple of years ago but sold it to fund my analogue addiction) I got the 70-200 f/2.8 LII lens and the 85mm 1.2 LII. the 85 isn't here yet it's held up in customs.. I mostly bought the camera to take away to work with me to get wildlife shots but I thought about going out and doing some gig/concert photog with it for shits and giggles.. I read a bunch of guides online the last few nights and it's telling me f/2.8 should be fine with ISO800. Well, the gig I was at tonight was pretty friggin dark. (I had the 70-200 with me) At aperture 2.8 and ISO800 the images are dark as gently caress. Only shutterspeeds that give an acceptable exposure are like 1/30-1/60. I couldn't use my flash because the band said they'd prefer no flash (even when I asked if it could be bounced) Is the 70-200 2.8 just simply not going to perform in low-light gig situations? I don't have any experience with gig photography and ISO1600 was just way too noisy and I wouldn't pass them myself. I'm guessing the 85 1.2 is going to be a much more appropriate lens... but are there any other tricks I could probably utilise in the low-light concerts I tend to go to? Also the lens had a lot of trouble auto-focusing (the manual focus ring is hosed on it which is why I got it so cheap) and I'm guessing the low-light is just going to prove a nightmare for AF....
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:Hey guys Long lenses in dark situations are not ideal unless absolutely necessary because they have higher shutter speed requirements than their wider brothers. That said, I shoot at 1600 and 3200 for events all the time and they aren't noisy at all, so I dunno what your issue is with that. Maybe you should invest in a hotshoe flash so you can bounce it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Long lenses in dark situations are not ideal unless absolutely necessary because they have higher shutter speed requirements than their wider brothers. That said, I shoot at 1600 and 3200 for events all the time and they aren't noisy at all, so I dunno what your issue is with that. Maybe you should invest in a hotshoe flash so you can bounce it? Yeah I have a 580EXII flash I've been hanging onto for a long time but I asked the band about flash and they said they weren't keen on it (even after I said I would bounce it rather than just directly onto them, i don't think they understood what it mean... probably should have explained) So will the 85m lens be a little friendlier with the 1.2 aperture capability? I don't have much experience with these big zoom lenses so I assumed the application of 2.8 aperture (which is pretty wide, I thought) at ISO800 would have been fine... was surprised to find that it wasn't Is a 24-70 2.8 LII lens going to perform better at 2.8 than a 70-200mm even with the same aperture? Is the focal length stretch a challenge for longer focal lengths?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Learn to process raw files, especially with noise reduction. Unless you're shooting a very well-lit concert, you aren't going to be able to do gently caress all at 800, especially at f/2.8. 1600 would be the absolute minimum I would shoot at. The great thing about newer cameras is that they are good up to 6400, 12800 or even higher for cameras like the D810 or A7S.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:Yeah I have a 580EXII flash I've been hanging onto for a long time but I asked the band about flash and they said they weren't keen on it (even after I said I would bounce it rather than just directly onto them, i don't think they understood what it mean... probably should have explained) The 24-70 will give you the same shutter speeds, and if you need to take pictures of people moving around 1/60 isn't going to cut it. The 85 would get you faster shutter speeds with the larger aperture, but the focus on that lens is obscene slow. So you might run into problems there - the 85/1.8 and 135/2 are way way faster focusers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:Learn to process raw files, especially with noise reduction. Unless you're shooting a very well-lit concert, you aren't going to be able to do gently caress all at 800, especially at f/2.8. 1600 would be the absolute minimum I would shoot at. The great thing about newer cameras is that they are good up to 6400, 12800 or even higher for cameras like the D810 or A7S. Yeah cheers I do know how to processs raw files but it's been a long time since I've shot digital. Just after shooting at ISO 1600 when I was chimping I just saw the noise was loving horrible. I didn't even think to consider taking my lovely noisy files back to raw process. I do know the newer 5d mk III is very good with high ISO shooting but I only have the Mk2, but I'm pretty sure that it should be more than capable in shooting low-light gigs.. ok I didn't even think to put it into post... I just saw it on the camera screen and thought it was hosed so quit early. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The 85 would get you faster shutter speeds with the larger aperture, but the focus on that lens is obscene slow. Oh, rerally? I did own this lens before and thought it was super fast... but I never used it on moving subjects... I was under the impression it was pretty quick (although I've only ever used it for landscape stuff)... thanks for the heads up
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:I read a bunch of guides online the last few nights and it's telling me f/2.8 should be fine with ISO800. Well, the gig I was at tonight was pretty friggin dark. (I had the 70-200 with me) what the gently caress posted:Oh, rerally? I did own this lens before and thought it was super fast... but I never used it on moving subjects... I was under the impression it was pretty quick (although I've only ever used it for landscape stuff)... thanks for the heads up
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:Yeah cheers It's all about your tolerance for noise, but IMO the 5D2 is fine for concert photography at ISO 12800.  Seabear at Schuba's, 4/2/2010 by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr In case you're too lazy to click through - lens was a 24-105 at f/4, ISO 12800, 1/40.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It's all about your tolerance for noise, but IMO the 5D2 is fine for concert photography at ISO 12800. Cheers To a shithouse perfectionist I can still see some noise there... am I just being too picky or is that just the accepted standard for that kind of noise in gig photog? that lighting looks pretty similiar to what I was shooting.. i was just looking for way much less noise... In that pic, what kins of noise reduction did you do in post? That looks awesome. E: this is just a obby thing for me, I'm not trying to market it, but i'd like it to at least look good
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:Cheers If the amount of noise in that photo bothers you then you are maybe not cut out for shooting indoors concert photography. Might I suggest day-lit photos of flowers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
I got the 135 f/2L specifically for shows and I don't even bring my other primes out with me anymore. It snaps right into focus even in low light on my 5d2 and it's sharp as hell wide open.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:E: this is just a obby thing for me, I'm not trying to market it, but i'd like it to at least look good If you want it to look better, then you need a 6D with a 135/2. ^^ beaten. 135 is an amazing lens, especially considering the reasonable price
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
I recently shot a game of adult kickball, outside from around 7 to 9 PM so getting pretty dark, with my 5D2 & 100mm 2.8 macro. Maybe a little bit more ambient light than a club, but the subjects would move a lot and capturing action was important. I would have killed for a 70-200 2.8 in that situation. Definitely got some decent shots but the zoom flexibility and IS would've been nice. You've just got to accept that 1600-3200iso is going to be your working range in low light situations with long lenses on the 5D2. Noise reduction is the best available solution, even if it's not perfect. Personally, I think the digital grain that the 5D produces looks pretty OK, as digital grain goes. I don't think it suits everyone's taste, but my solution in that case was to give the set the vsco treatment. It wouldn't have worked for 'real' sports photography, but the hipsterish group of people who play adult kickball were more than happy with it. I'd imagine that musicians and club goers of a certain sort would also have a positive reaction to that sort of thing. Of course, if you're moving to digital from film, you may be going for a cleaner look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Hmm, noob question. I took this photo of my wife running in the park... I get that white glare in the center there. Is this lens flare? Would one of those hoods help this, or what did I do wrong, over exposed? I still like the picture, I cranked the hell out of vibrancy slider in lightroom, but nothing seems to make the glare less washed out. Shooting with an ancient manual focus push-pull zoom lens I picked up at a garage sale. https://flic.kr/p/yL8Ec2
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Rodney Chops posted:Hmm, noob question. I took this photo of my wife running in the park... I get that white glare in the center there. Is this lens flare? Would one of those hoods help this, or what did I do wrong, over exposed? It's just bright sunlight - bright spots of sun coming through trees in what is otherwise mostly a shady area is a very high contrast scene.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Yeah it is a bit over-exposed, but unless your sensor is capable of 13+ stops of DR you might not have a lot of wiggle room to underexpose and still retain shadow detail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Echoing what everyone said, unfortunately no sensor can capture a huge variation in lighting. The only way to counteract is not to take pictures in the middle of the day when it's brightest and directly overhead.Rodney Chops posted:I cranked the hell out of vibrancy slider in lightroom Also never do this, it makes the photo look like rear end 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:51
|
|
