Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by editor, Jul 11, 2005.
I'm also glad that I went to a full-frame camera. I wish I hadn't waited so long.
What do you like about FF out of interest?
The sensor is larger; which brings all sorts of advantages. Image quality is better, other things being equal.
The last camera I used was also a Sony, with an APS C sensor. It can't compare to the new full frame Sony.
Increasingly the only camera I carry is a Pentax MX with a 50mm lens. I occasionally mix things up by taking the 1.4 rather than the 1.7, or shooting Portra rather than HP5+ or Tri-X (only sometimes though, let's not go too mad here).
Beware, if you buy camera gear from Amazon:
Do you have any examples of color Portra images? I'm going on a trip shortly, and will take film cameras along. I usually shoot b&w film, but I want to do some color, and am looking for the best film.
I don't seem to have any online but I can stick some up.
I wouldn't say that Portra was the ideal general travel film tbh - it's low saturation and has quite gentle contrast across midtones IMO which is not always what you want, particularly for natural scenes. When it's overcast and foggy it can be a huge pain to get colour balance right, too. I like atmospheric, slightly dismal street photography which it is great for, and it's super sharp, but when I went to Japan I found that Superia 400 was of more general use.
Ektar is great stuff, wonderful colours and punchy contrast, like slide with more dynamic range, but slower at ISO100.
Just took delivery of a Canon 135mm f2l, bit busy today but I'm looking forward to getting out with this one.
canon eos m with 18/55mm lens ...in a small bag ...and thats it ..!...dont carry my eos SLR with a bag of lenses about anymore ...downsized ....sometimes I may take out a 55/250mm tele ...with an M adaptor ..
.may plump for a 22mm pancake lens as a primary for size
Thanks; I used to have a good working knowledge of film types - but that was decades ago. I used to use Ektachrome.
There is still some slide film about but just the Fuji stuff in the main, and nothing above ISO100. It's increasingly a pain to get developed too. I might shoot it on holiday as I've got a stash, but Ektar is very good for low speed high colour/sharpness if I was buying fresh.
Portra 400 used to be split into VC and NC a while back (Vivid Colour and Natural Colour) but there's just the one now, I think closer to Natural though don't quote me.
So, I'm making some progress on my plan to put together some kind of portable studio set-up for (video) interviews and the like:
Camera and gear lust - name the object(s) of your desire!
I've got a decent bag:
Berghaus Motive 60 + 20, which is slightly smaller than I had originally planned, but is doing the job pretty well so far.
I've gotten a lightweight stand (Manfrotto Nano), and a fairly light fixture (Aputure Amaran HR672s).
The light is a real joy to use. I've thrown it into an Octagon umbrella diffuser, and the light is much lovelier than a standard LED with softbox setup. It's because the fixture is so bright that it's able to do this - most LED panels just don't have the punch to be properly diffused .
But - even though the fixture is light (2.6 Kg including batteries and charger), I'm already struggling with my overall kit weight .
I've got a very ambitious target in mind, and frankly, I'm starting to doubt whether I can fulfill it:
Bag to contain: Camera body, two lenses, filters, tripod, h-held rig, radio-mics, shotgun mic, key light (battery option), fill light (battery option), accent light (battery option), set light (mains), light stands (x3), magic arm, cloth flag and holder.
Target weight: less than 12 Kg
I took the bag out the other day, and it was a back-breaking 14.5Kg (never again!), but there are things that I can upgrade (in terms of weight), including the tripod, lenses, and even the lights (got my eyes on the Aladdin flex system ).
Yikes! Reading hiking sites where folk (some quite a bit smaller than me) regularly slip on 15 - 20 Kg packs is making me wonder whether I just need to beef up a bit. lol.
A lot of people don't have their packs set up properly (advice from staff in camping shops is always good). You need the shoulder straps and waist belt to be set properly, or else the weight of the contents will bear down upon your shoulders.
To give you some sort of idea of how easily you can bear a 15-20kg load, Greebo (all 5ft nothing of her) regularly totes that kind of weight for a couple of hours when she goes shopping. Both of us regularly tote 20-30kg when we go on holiday, all because we set the belts and straps properly.
As long as there's nothing much wrong with your ankles, knees, or hips, you should be fine with that weight. Having said which, try this if you can't wait until you get to a camping/outdoor shop:
First loosen off all the harness straps (shoulder, hip, and chest if there's one for that), then slip it on.
Now tighten the hip belt so that it rests just on the bony top of your hips - not your waist - not your arse - your hips!
Done that? Okay, put something in the bag, rest it on a table or something more or less hip height, and slip the bag on again, fastening the hip belt.
Now get into the shoulder straps and adjust them. Don't overtighten them, they're not supposed to bear weight, only to stop the bag flopping about or tipping backwards when you move!
You should be able to feel a difference in how the bag is now, compared to how it was before fitting. It certainly shouldn't hurt you, although the weight may well make you walk a bit more ponderously or slightly change your centre of gravity.
BTW if you've got something particularly heavy, aim to pack that so that it's at the height of the small of your back and near to your body (ie not on the side of the pack furthest away when worn) when the pack's worn.
For most of the day I was carrying it using only the shoulder straps .
You've learnt the hard way, then. IMHO all backpacks should come with fitting instructions.
Long time since I carried much of a load in a rucksack but I can recall back when I did that firmly tightening the waist strap made it a whole lot more comfortable.
Despite my banging on about film cameras I am also currently really enjoying using my LUMIX GX8. I had gotten very disappointed with it after just not enjoying using it at all, and was considering selling it, but putting the Panasonic pancake lenses on it (20/1.7 and 14/2.5) have improved its handling dramatically. With smaller lenses it is much more flexible and convenient, and even with the notoriously slow-focusing 20/1.7 it's still fast enough (the camera locks on instantly; the lens still takes time to move, but not too much).
Setting the photo style to "natural" gets rid of a lot of the weird colour boosts that I hate about digital, and having i.Dynamic on means that it doesn't blow highlights like a bastard which is another thing I hate. (You can also put it into a mode where the VF or screen highlights areas that are in danger of being blown with a zebra pattern.) But it's the lenses that have made the difference. The best camera in the world is no good if it feels clumsy and you just don't enjoy using it.
That's why the Ricoh GR is still my favourite camera, and why my full frame Sony RX1R comes a distant second.
Anecdotally I know a few people from photography groups who've said that getting a GR changed their whole outlook on photography, and they started enjoying it again. People say the same about the Fuji X100 series.
I was out today though and I did miss the fact that it doesn't have a flash. I've never understood the snobbishness about on-camera flash; I only ever use it for fill-flash but when you need it, you need it.
There are some tiny Chinese speedlights around which seem to do TTL on m43 and get good reviews; think I may drop 50-odd quid on one.
I was looking at the specs on the RX1R: looks like quite a competent little camera.
I am happy at the moment that my AA 2900 batteries have enough spunk to power my camera properly. There may be a new camera (new to me) in my future sometime, perhaps a D610 or a D800 I am not sure yet, but for the moment I am content with my trusty Fuji Finepix S2.
It is but it is nowhere near as fast as the GR neither does it have an interface as intuitive.
I'm thinking of switching to Natural on my GH4 (I've been shooting Cinelike V - which is contrasty, and a bit over-saturated, but quite nice).
I think it's generally acknowledged that Sony's control menus suck.
I just bought a fuji XQ1 to replace my XE-1. It looks like a really nice piece of kit.
I broke my pancake lens and it's cheaper to buy the compact than a replacement lens for the X-E1! Hopefully I can sell the body on ebay and end up with a free replacement camera
I need professional help.
Ha ha, tried Natural for a bit. Will be switching back to Cinelike V. Found the image flat and a bit muddy and hard to correct (could be my technique lacking though).
Separate names with a comma.