Questions and answers

well vertical grip.. i personally have YXTM C350Ds dslr battery pack for Canon and ive been very happy with it. Came with 2 batteries also.. Its for 350D / XT.
 
Sorry, i just got back from class and realised i typed it wrong, its the Ti not the xti
 
The OEM IR triggers are usually cheap and excellent. Nikon's is $15, I don't think Canon's is much more. No idea what grips cost, but I think the OEM models (if available) are usually the best choice.
 
Friend of mine has a chance to buy a Nikon D60 + 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm VR + "high-speed 4gb memory card" + Nikon camera bag. I guess the guy (said friend's friend) got it for his dad who never really used it so the camera has about 50 shots on it. Supposedly it also has an extended 4 year warranty through mack? What should my friend try to get it for?
 
Last edited:
$600 mebbe? Mebbe $650? :dunno:
 
Nice little package there, I would be expecting to pay around ?400 here, whatever that works out to in USD.
 
So as luck would have it, I am now signed up to shoot for a band this friday - pre-show and then the concert itself. I'll try to use my 50 1.4 as much as possible, but I'm sure I'll be needing the 18-55 too, which makes lighting tough, seeing as I don't have an external flash. Any tips?
 
Stay at 18mm, get close, shoot wide open, jack up the ISO to 1600, you won't mind the noise anyway.
 
What I do with a very similar setup (50/1.8, 18-55) is use the 50mm mostly and use the 18-55 wide open at 18mm for wide shots.
 
To the Nikon guys: have you noticed that the preview of a photo on your camera is not the actual photo on the card? I've noticed when comparing noisy high-ISO-shots on the cam and on the computer. The image on the camera's display looks rather different in the details, which sometimes makes it hard to judge whether a photo came out sharp and/or with acceptable noise. Only when you look at it on an external display, you'll see whether you did good.

On a sidenote: I am aware of the theoretical shortcomings of an in-cam-display. I am talking about a very much zoomed-in-view, which in theory should be just the same on the camera and on a computer monitor. Also, the display on my D700 is nothing but brilliant, so no problem there.

EDIT:

Ummmm ..... he ... hello? :unsure:

Have you all gone Canon or what? :tumbleweed:
 
Last edited:
To the Nikon guys: have you noticed that the preview of a photo on your camera is not the actual photo on the card? I've noticed when comparing noisy high-ISO-shots on the cam and on the computer. The image on the camera's display looks rather different in the details, which sometimes makes it hard to judge whether a photo came out sharp and/or with acceptable noise. Only when you look at it on an external display, you'll see whether you did good.

On a sidenote: I am aware of the theoretical shortcomings of an in-cam-display. I am talking about a very much zoomed-in-view, which in theory should be just the same on the camera and on a computer monitor. Also, the display on my D700 is nothing but brilliant, so no problem there.

EDIT:

Ummmm ..... he ... hello? :unsure:

Have you all gone Canon or what? :tumbleweed:

No small screen will give justice to a photo. If you're shooting RAW and have noise reduction turned on for JPEGs, I'm sure the camera will show noise reduction, as it'll probably be turned on if you open the RAW file in a Nikon editor..

Just learn to understand your camera in different conditions. I know that I'll get some noise at ISO1600, and I know it gets worse in conditions with MUCH variations between shadows and highlights (this is the same no matter what camera you use), I know how much more I get when I underexpose, I know that I'll still get noise if I'm shooting in controlled light, but I know it won't be visible at web size, and I know that it won't affect the result of an offset newspaper print.

The 8 things that'll provoke noise no matter what camera you have:

- Underexposure
- Wrong WB
- Mixed light
- Shadows and highlights
- Mist and fog
- Bad focus
- Unsharp lens
- Too much USM

Hope this helps. :)
 
Anyone used to using Lightroom?
When I open my CR2 files in it, it clearly adjusts the pictures to some kind of settings or filters before fully loading them. Trouble is that I can?t find the option to show the pictures as I show them! Any tips?
 
No small screen will give justice to a photo. If you're shooting RAW and have noise reduction turned on for JPEGs, I'm sure the camera will show noise reduction, as it'll probably be turned on if you open the RAW file in a Nikon editor..

Just learn to understand your camera in different conditions. I know that I'll get some noise at ISO1600, and I know it gets worse in conditions with MUCH variations between shadows and highlights (this is the same no matter what camera you use), I know how much more I get when I underexpose, I know that I'll still get noise if I'm shooting in controlled light, but I know it won't be visible at web size, and I know that it won't affect the result of an offset newspaper print.

The 8 things that'll provoke noise no matter what camera you have:

- Underexposure
- Wrong WB
- Mixed light
- Shadows and highlights
- Mist and fog
- Bad focus
- Unsharp lens
- Too much USM

Hope this helps. :)
Thank you for your extensive answer, but I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I know what provokes noise, and I know how to avoid it when I can. My point merely was that all Nikon cameras I have operated as of yet do not display the very same photograph in their display which has just been stored on the card. When you zoom in beyond 100% on the display, you start to notice JPEG compression artifacts (mainly blocking), which leads me to believe that the camera internally generates a JPEG version of every photo for a quick review. Since I am shooting RAW-only with no in-cam-noise-reduction whatsoever, I am absolutely positive that the photograph I'm being shown on the display is not the file that's just been stored on the card. That however prevents me from truly judging the photo I've just made, because I simply am not shown the truth to its full extent.

I can only assume that this is done in order to speed things up, because the cam would probably need time to resize the huge RAW for showing it on the display. Nonetheless, I wondered whether other Nikon users have observed similar things, and whether there probably even is a workaround.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware when shooting RAW you also have a JPEG file embedded in the RAW. The embedded JPEG will use whatever settings you have on your camera regarding sharpening, colour reproduction, noise reduction etc. The screen will always display the JPEG and not the RAW file itself. The output on the screen will be different to what you get when you open up the RAW file but it shouldn't be by that much. Camera screens are good but they still aren't that great, I don't think you'll find it very useful judging a photograph on the merits of how it looks on the camera screen. It's far more useful to look at the histogram, that should give you a much better indication of how well exposed your photograph is. The "blinkies" are also handy for making sure you've got detail in all the highlights.
 
Dr_Q describes what used to be normal. In the olden days, cameras were slow, and their processing abilities were equaled by a small pocket calculator. To make it possible to actually view the RAW files, they decided that they should provide a small thumbnail inside the RAW file, to make it possible to judge exposure, light, color (to a surtain extent) and composition.

Somehow, this was forgotten as cameras got more advanced and as they introduced ever more powerful processors into dSLRs, and only recently was there a change, I believe Nikon and Sony were the first to allow a better ability to zoom into the actual RAW file, in effect providing a more representative preview. This was often misrepresented as an improvement in the screen, but that's complete rubbish, even a low res screen will show you the indvidual pixels as long as there are pixels to view, even my two year old Sony Ericsson cell phone can do that.

But it does sound a little strange, anyhow, I wouldn't trust the monitor on a camera anyway, but I will say that it sounds a little strange, I'm always impressed by the resolution of the preview of Nikon and Sony cameras (and later Canon cameras), but I'd still not expect too much from it..
 
Hi,
so I have a Canon EOS 400D SLR, which is not mine. Once, or maybe twice I've removed the lens with the camera ON. Is it f*cked up now? Or should I monitor it first?

AND, it fell from a 30-40cm high (it was on a tripod and a friend of mine tripped and it fell with the tripod). I bought a new lens because the one that's been on got little damaged, a piece of plastic broke of from the focus ring, nothing bad on the first glance, but since its not mine, so I got a new one and even better. But what about the camera? Is a fall like that is VERY bad? (I know that it's not good), but how much can a camera handle?

:)
 
Last edited:
It's a digital single lens reflex camera, not a card house.

:)

Taking the lens off may do some damage, it's a one in a gazillion chance you can get a shortcut. I do it all the time when I'm working, and can't say I've ever noticed anything.

As long as the camera and lens is working after the change, there's nothing to worry about.

As for the fall, if the camera is working, it should be allright. But you should inform the owner about it. Dropped my E-400 from a small brick wall a couple of years ago, about 60-70cm. The sum total damage was a few scratches.

Such a fall can lead to long term damage, but it should show early. My old E-400 still works like a dream.

:)
 
Removal of a lens with the camera on isn't worth worrying about, I'm sure I've done the same probably many times over the years I've had mine. The fall could cause damage to the lens mount of the camera but at that height it's very unlikely. Even if the lens mount was damaged your extremely unlikely to notice any ill effects unless you're shooting at f/2 or less.

I gave up pussy footing around with my camera gear some time ago, if you take a look at the equipment used by army photographers they take an absolute battering and yet still work fine.
 
I gave up pussy footing around with my camera gear some time ago, if you take a look at the equipment used by army photographers they take an absolute battering and yet still work fine.
That looks just like the 5D of one of my photo teachers. :p

Ever seen photographers covering winter sports, like the biathlon?

Standing photographing the skiers coming in with something like a 1Dmk3 and a 300/2.8 on a monopod, 1Dmk3 and 16-35 hanging over the shoulder, when the skiers get closer, they just throw the 1Dmk3 and 300/2.8 out of the way and pick up the 1Dmk3 and 16-35.

Never ever buy a camera used by someone shooting for daily papers.

Unless it's an absolute steal. My teacher bought his 24-70L for 3000 NOK (a new one in 12000 NOK) from a "pick'n mix" bucket when his paper moved to a new location ^^
 
Top