Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

I've got a nack for bad timing. So's my camera. Just as I'm gearing up for a bloody summer of work, the damn shutter stops fucking working. Will be at least a week before I MIGHT have it sorted out with the retailer.

Permission to say OH FUCKING COCK!

*Sweares in a manner that would land him with a fine in certain parts of Australia*
 
I might need a new tripod because my Cullman Nanomax 250 will not handle it. It's too small and too brittle to be any good and I fear of putting my 7D on that, the tripod couldn't handle the weight but it was very cheap! I'm willing to spend a little bit more on a stronger and maybe lighter tripod. I just don't want it to cost more than ?120. Any suggestions? And also a ball head or the regular head with 3 axis?
For the tripod, it needs to handle at least a Canon 7D with the BG-E7 battery grip plus a Canon Speedlite EX 580 and a 70-200 f/4 L attached together so that's more or less than 2 kilos.
 
I might need a new tripod because my Cullman Nanomax 250 will not handle it. It's too small and too brittle to be any good and I fear of putting my 7D on that, the tripod couldn't handle the weight but it was very cheap! I'm willing to spend a little bit more on a stronger and maybe lighter tripod. I just don't want it to cost more than ?120. Any suggestions? And also a ball head or the regular head with 3 axis?
For the tripod, it needs to handle at least a Canon 7D with the BG-E7 battery grip plus a Canon Speedlite EX 580 and a 70-200 f/4 L attached together so that's more or less than 2 kilos.

It sounds like you need something really, really sturdy. I'd suggest getting something more expensive and sturdier/lighter. With tripods it's often the case that you get the quality you pay for. And it sounds like your set-up is not exactly cheap either...
 
I really need to start shooting more with my primes, particularly the 50mm 1.8 since it's so easy to get stunning photos with it. Much too often I find myself out somewhere and the 18-200 gets all the action while the 50 and 105 never leave the bag. I'm going to start leaving the zoom at home to force myself to use my other lenses.
 
I really need to start shooting more with my primes, particularly the 50mm 1.8 since it's so easy to get stunning photos with it. Much too often I find myself out somewhere and the 18-200 gets all the action while the 50 and 105 never leave the bag. I'm going to start leaving the zoom at home to force myself to use my other lenses.

That's what I've done. I used to use a 28-75mm f/2.8 as a daily walkaround, but I've moved to the 50mm f/1.4 and I think it's drastically helped me improve my technique and composition. Also having that much extra light available is a perk.
 
Hmm, maybe I should try the same thing as both of you. I use my 18-50mm f/2.8 quite a lot, should try to use my 35mm f/1.8 more. The only snag with it is the fringing when it's wide open (the result of it being a fairly cheap Nikkor AF-S lens?), I'm tempted to get a 50mm f/1.8 AF but that'll have to wait.
 
I find 50mm too long for my 1.6 crop. I'd need a 24 or 35 at most for a walk around methinks.

That's the reason why I use the 18-200mm so much. I need to get myself out of the habit of composing with the camera and start composing with my physical position.
 
After a while you'll find it'll come really easy. After I don't know how long using a MF camera I found I would be pretty close to where I wanted to be before even looking through the finder. If I tried it now I'd have no idea, to be sure.

And restrictions can force creativity. I remember in Uni most of our briefs were really restrictive and everyone got into it immediately but then they gave us one that was completely open and everyone was paralysed by the freedom - having to come up with our own briefs before we could start. So sometimes using equipment that restricts in one way can be a real boon to your creativity. Does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
It makes perfect sense. When I use the 18-200 I can feel my brain almost shut off because I can use the lens to frame the photo without thinking too much about it. But when I'm forced to move around and try different angles to get everything in the shot I'm thinking a lot harder about not only the subject but everything around it. I feel like I'm actually working for something rather than just going through the motions. But for whatever reason that extra effort puts me off and I fall into the trap of convenience.
 
Convenience always makes things easier. Sometimes I feel like I'm only doing photography and getting praise from my friends because I bought a $450 body and a $350 lens (Canon 450D and 50mm f/1.4). Dealing with the point and shoot was too cumbersome and you were restricted a lot. But then I think about why I bought the camera in the first place: So I can take the highest quality pictures of my family members in case something ever happened to them (which was the problem with all the shots taken with the point-and-shoot).

I have the 18-270 tamron and most of the time these days it sits in the bag, and I take the 50mm around. The shallow depth of field look and the quality of the images from the 50mm is astonishing. My photography teacher in the class I took last year even told me that some photographers say it rivals the quality of L glasses.

But as you all have mentioned, it's the whole stepping back and around to try to get the shot in because it's zoomed in to 80mm that causes you to want to get your shot with the zoom lens.

Speaking of all this, when I was taking shots at a concert festival we had here in SD in April, I found that I had problems sometimes getting a good shutter speed since I was forced to use the 18-270. It goes down to f/6.3 at 270 and I had to crank the ISO to 800/1600. 1600 is the max on my little 450D, and at that point the images are super noisy. This is not to say that I couldn't take any shots with either lens, I mean here are some examples:

img_0328.jpg


f/6.3 ISO 800 1/100s 238mm.

img_0750.jpg


f/1.4 ISO 800 1/125s 50mm.


But the big difference here is that the original first image was darker (the second was slightly lighter). I had to crank up the exposure settings in Lightroom. I guess that's a reasonable trade-off and so the workaround for technical limitations is post-processing edits, but I'm wondering if it would have been better to have had a camera body capable of taking shots at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 (without much noise).

What is your guys' opinions?
 
Convenience always makes things easier. Sometimes I feel like I'm only doing photography and getting praise from my friends because I bought a $450 body and a $350 lens (Canon 450D and 50mm f/1.4). Dealing with the point and shoot was too cumbersome and you were restricted a lot. But then I think about why I bought the camera in the first place: So I can take the highest quality pictures of my family members in case something ever happened to them (which was the problem with all the shots taken with the point-and-shoot).

I have the 18-270 tamron and most of the time these days it sits in the bag, and I take the 50mm around. The shallow depth of field look and the quality of the images from the 50mm is astonishing. My photography teacher in the class I took last year even told me that some photographers say it rivals the quality of L glasses.
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a decent lens stopped down. It's better at smaller apertures than f/4 than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. However, at larger apertures, the 50/1.2L is markably better. Just to clarify. :p

But as you all have mentioned, it's the whole stepping back and around to try to get the shot in because it's zoomed in to 80mm that causes you to want to get your shot with the zoom lens.

Speaking of all this, when I was taking shots at a concert festival we had here in SD in April, I found that I had problems sometimes getting a good shutter speed since I was forced to use the 18-270. It goes down to f/6.3 at 270 and I had to crank the ISO to 800/1600. 1600 is the max on my little 450D, and at that point the images are super noisy. This is not to say that I couldn't take any shots with either lens, I mean here are some examples:

img_0328.jpg


f/6.3 ISO 800 1/100s 238mm.

img_0750.jpg


f/1.4 ISO 800 1/125s 50mm.


But the big difference here is that the original first image was darker (the second was slightly lighter). I had to crank up the exposure settings in Lightroom. I guess that's a reasonable trade-off and so the workaround for technical limitations is post-processing edits, but I'm wondering if it would have been better to have had a camera body capable of taking shots at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 (without much noise).

What is your guys' opinions?
Well, d'uh. :p

Without having done comparisons with regards to the 450D, I suppose it might be better to shoot the photo at 1600 instead of pushing it in PP, but you never know. My old E-3 behaves better when pushed 1 to 1 1/3 stop from ISO800 than it does when shot at straight ISO1600 or ISO2000.

But it goes without saying that a body with less noise at ISO1600 or ISO3200 would provide a better level of quality in dimmer light conditions. :p
 
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a decent lens stopped down. It's better at smaller apertures than f/4 than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. However, at larger apertures, the 50/1.2L is markably better. Just to clarify. :p

Yeah I'm aware that the L is better from f/4 and up, but even at f/2-f/2.8 the f/1.4 is very decent, and I still sometimes take shots with it at f/1.4. It's not completely useless. I kinda want to do some test shots at various apertures just to see the difference.

Well, d'uh. :p

Without having done comparisons with regards to the 450D, I suppose it might be better to shoot the photo at 1600 instead of pushing it in PP, but you never know. My old E-3 behaves better when pushed 1 to 1 1/3 stop from ISO800 than it does when shot at straight ISO1600 or ISO2000.

One of the issues that arose when I was taking the shots at the concerts was that while I had brilliant IS in the tamron lens, I was still too afraid to take the lens any slower than say 1/50 or 1/60, especially when zoomed into 270mm. In trials, this resulted in some shots where there was noticeable motion blur. If the artist was moving within this time frame then that motion blur was obviously exacerbated. To that degree I would have liked to have had higher ISOs, but something tells me it would have been better had I had a fixed aperture zoom instead. Aka, shallow DOF and more light coming into the sensor.

Here's an example shot at f/1.4 and ISO 1600 (there was barely any light).

img_0612.jpg


I applied lots of luminance reduction and color noise reduction but it still looks like it was taken by a 1988 cellphone. :p

But it goes without saying that a body with less noise at ISO1600 or ISO3200 would provide a better level of quality in dimmer light conditions. :p

Well duh :tease:





I'm not seriously considering it now, but in the future I'm wondering what camera body I would get to replace this one. I'm sure within a year the Rebel 650D/T4i will be introduced, and maybe a 5D mark III or a 7D mark II maybe if we're lucky. Right now I want to exhaust my current body until it can no longer function properly and no-one is willing to repair it. For now I'll have to creatively overcome the dim light issue.
 
Thing is, your priority is to get the picture. I've shot editorial photos in dead night at 1/6s, ISO3200 and f/1.4, and still gotten it usable.

First rule in little light is RAW. Second rule is the attitude, the attitude that you're getting the photo no matter what the result is. What follows next is up to you, and to what your camera can do. If the technical quality is so bad it would have to be a photo of a crashing Concorde to be worth anything, then that's fine.

As for future cameras, I'd look at the 5D2. When the 5D3 comes, it'll get quite cheap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LP
Thing is, your priority is to get the picture. I've shot editorial photos in dead night at 1/6s, ISO3200 and f/1.4, and still gotten it usable.

First rule in little light is RAW. Second rule is the attitude, the attitude that you're getting the photo no matter what the result is. What follows next is up to you, and to what your camera can do. If the technical quality is so bad it would have to be a photo of a crashing Concorde to be worth anything, then that's fine.

As for future cameras, I'd look at the 5D2. When the 5D3 comes, it'll get quite cheap.

Yeah you're absolutely right. Gotta stop over-worrying about the technical parts of the shot and get the shot. I only shoot in RAW, and it saves my ass when I get a bad shot as I can manage to fudge it in post. LR as well.

I've heard that when you have a low shutter speed to work with, you can usually manage to get a good shot in if you use burst mode. The middle shot(s) would then be the best one(s). Never tried it before (or I have but forgot) but I'd love to test that out.

Anyways, thanks for the heads up.
 
Yeah you're absolutely right. Gotta stop over-worrying about the technical parts of the shot and get the shot. I only shoot in RAW, and it saves my ass when I get a bad shot as I can manage to fudge it in post. LR as well.
Yeah, but remember that a correct white balance set in PP will have huge bearing on how much noise you get.

I've heard that when you have a low shutter speed to work with, you can usually manage to get a good shot in if you use burst mode. The middle shot(s) would then be the best one(s). Never tried it before (or I have but forgot) but I'd love to test that out.
It's not a bad idea, but it'll leave you with more photos to work through. Thing is, there are almost no must-have photos in a performance. There's always another moment that'll do the job. And then another. And then another. Meddeling over one lost shot is like the musician who thinks his new song about true love is indespencible, unique. Truth is, it's more than likely to be anything but.. ;)

I find that learning to read how people move, and to catching the exact moment when the person's relatively frozen, you can get sharp photos at very slow shutter speed. It's also a question of how much unsharpness you can live with. Getting critically sharp photos from a performance is usually very hard, technically speaking..

:)

Anyways, thanks for the heads up.
Happy to be of help.. :)
 
I've done test shots with my f/1.4 50 at 1.4, 1.8, 2.0, and 4. From just what I could see straight in Photoshop zoomed in, the difference in sharpness is significant if you choose to blow them up that big. I don't usually print that large, so it works for me all the way around. As for the 1.2L, I can't afford one so I can't tell you. :p

As for the burst mode with low shutter speeds, that's what I've heard as well. The first shot gets moved because of the shutter button depressing, the second is clear because you don't move, and the third is moved because you're letting go of the shutter. It works sometimes for me.
 
It's a good idea. But it's not the only way, all I'm saying. :)
 
Yet another question. We're going to yellowstone on Friday (and back on July 5th). I was hoping to take my tripod with me, but I don't think we're planning on taking any check-in baggages to save time. Since tripods are probably not allowed on flight as is (unless I'm wrong about that), is it worthwhile to get like a joby gorillapod SLR Zoom (supports 3 kg).
 
Top