Jump to content
rllmuk
rundll

Photography Equipment & Software Thread

Recommended Posts

It's just that I've not had a chance to play with all the metering modes yet, and quite a lot of the shots I've been taking have had a lot of difference in light, and so I've not been moving the light meter needle to the centre every time.

I reckon once I get to the point where I can meter more reliably to the centre of the gauge and get the exposure I want then I might start to use Av mode more. But it's not really causing me any hassle to use manual so I might not get around to that for a while.

The other day I was taking some photos and then a couple of guys in white shirts walked into the frame and the meter moved, but I knew I had the right exposure already for the scene so I didn't adjust it. Av mode would have done, and everything else would have got a bit darker. Or at least, that's my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meter wont move once you have half press and hold though will it? I'm not sure as I don't have my cam to hand at the mo.

Even in manual mode the camera is still metering to whatever mode the metering is set to (spot, centre weighted etc) so bringing the arrow to the 0 point isn't necessarily the best thing to do. A trick I've been trying (to quite good effect) recently is too meter off something that is closer to mid grey (18% reflectivity) that is under the same light conditions as the scene so say you're taking a shot of a mainly white building, fill the frame with the road/pavement in front of it that is lit the same, get the light meter to 0 (or -1/3 as I always do), lock the exposure to that setting, star button if custom functions not being used. Re-compose the shot and shoot the scene at that setting. It doesn't always work but it's interesting to see what the onboard meters think is right when they look at a scene. Another thing that is close to 18% reflective is grass.

Saying all that it sounds like you're coping just fine so do whatever you feel happiest, I don't expect you to change the way you take shots for me or anyone else, just thought it may make life easier for you :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other day I was taking some photos and then a couple of guys in white shirts walked into the frame and the meter moved, but I knew I had the right exposure already for the scene so I didn't adjust it. Av mode would have done, and everything else would have got a bit darker. Or at least, that's my understanding.
Mine too.

I am easily confused by exposure though. I have ordered http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Expo...3983&sr=8-1 which everyone seems to say is pretty good at explaining it all.

I have just started exploring some of the custom functions on my 400D, I currently have it set so the * button does the auto focus, and have the focus in "servo" mode. I have the center point activated and point that at what I want in focus, then release the * button and re-frame the picture. When I half press the shutter it AE locks, fully depressing releases the shutter. (so potentially I could then focus on one point, expose for another view and finally re-frame and make the exposure)

I am trying to be in manual mode most of the time, so the AE stuff is moot. I am not quite sure how this will effect things when I have a flash on, I hope it will do the FEL stuff when I half depress the shutter.

I need to take more pictures and talk about them less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think the other thing is I'm trying to build up a feel for the numbers at the moment. It's definitely starting, in that sometimes I'll spin the exposure time round to what it says is the right exposure, and think "that's wrong, it needs to be faster" or whatever. I want to really know what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The swinging point for me was that I'm sure I'll want to go full frame one day. Oh and it's L baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damnnnn. I'm so tempted to buy a Nikon equivalent of an L - the 70-200 f/2.8 though, since I'm a portraits and bands type fellow.

Mmmm:

pic_001_l.jpg

I just can't work out how much 'better' than the 18-200 in terms of sharpness it will be. I love the sharpness Canon L supposedly gives (or is it just PS??) -- will I really notice the difference going to their 'pro' range?

In other news, is the Sigma 10-20 any good?

-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got that EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM rundll, it's amazing. You won't regret it. I'm full frame though so it's my ultra-wide lens. It's lovely though, when I finally get internet access at home (tomorrow, with any luck) then I'll put up some snaps taken with it. It goes nicely with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM as a "normal" lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got that EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM rundll, it's amazing. You won't regret it. I'm full frame though so it's my ultra-wide lens. It's lovely though, when I finally get internet access at home (tomorrow, with any luck) then I'll put up some snaps taken with it. It goes nicely with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM as a "normal" lens.

A guy at work has the 24-70, and he is using a film camera (so full frame) and he asked what other lenses he should consider. I suggested the 17 -40 L and he said that there's no point as he already has the 24 - 70. I think some people think there's not much difference between 17mm and 24mm on a full frame. Oh how I felt smug and couldn't be arsed to reply.

If you want to see some shots on the 30D with the 17 - 40L, just check out my flickr here. I have that and the 70 - 200 f/4 L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current set-up of choice.

1103413603_c74cc03882.jpg

A leica M8 digital Rangefinder paired with an old Canon RF 50mm f1.2 (from the 1950's).

Also have a Leica 35mm Summaron, 35mm Summicron (amazing lens), a couple of 50mm's and a 90. Recently picked up a 15mm Voigtlander but haven't really used it much yet.

Next up to buy is a Canon f0.95 and a 75mm f.14 Leica Summilux. Have to get a Noctilux 50/1.2 at some point but wil have to bide my time for a decently priced second-hand option.

Also have a R-D1 Digital RF but I think I'm going to sell that to help fund a Nikon D300.

Once you get in to photography equipment its worse than drugs...all consuming and expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ordered :)

canon_ef_17-40mm_f4l_usm.jpg

Kit lens replacement essentially.

I thought you were angling for the 17-55mm IS f/2.8 lens, or am I getting you mixed up with someone else on here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was certainly angling for the EFS 17-55 f2.8, but a fullframe future for me was what made me discount it. Also it's cheaper and a more than capable kit lens replacement. Especially considering I never used the kit lens lower than f8-f11.

That's some insane gear gwings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's some insane gear gwings.

Luckily the Canon 1.2 lens was cheap (£140 I think) and all my leica glass is second hand too. Much as I would love to own a new Noctilux I just couldn't quite justify the £3-4,000 for it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other news, is the Sigma 10-20 any good?

-J

I love mine, very sharp little lens. Had it a few months now, and wish I'd got it sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the lower lower prices in malaysia, i bought a couple of cheap lenses for my d40:

Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 D Lens

5018afd.jpg

yeah, the AF doesn't work on the D40, but some of the pictures are beautiful, and I *love* the depth of field on it.

Nikon AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S G VR DX Lens

55-200mm_DX_VR_02.jpg

HOLY SHIT VIBRATION REDUCTION IS AMAZING

now to go on some kind of course so all this shit makes some sense to me :( for instance f/ numbers. what the hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nikon AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S G VR DX Lens

That's next on my list for the D40x so I'd be interested in your impressions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's next on my list for the D40x so I'd be interested in your impressions.
So far, brilliant. my housemate was pretty impressed by the fact she was shaking on purpose quite a bit whilst testing it and having it on full zoom on the test subject, and it still came out crisp. Fast AF, or at least, I think so, and it's still pretty cheap for what it is, even in this country. Sure, it's a complement to your stock lens, as opposed to a replacement, but considering that the next step up is about 3 times the price, I say sod the inconvenience of having to lug 2 lens' (it's VERY light as well, BTW) and BUY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
f/ numbers. what the hell?

Low numbers = big hole = narrow depth of field and reduced exposure time. Multiply f-number by root 2 (about 1.4) to halve size of aperture, thus requiring twice the exposure or twice the ISO (i.e. one stop). The reason you've got amazing depth of field on your f/1.8 lens is that f/1.8 is a huge aperture.

And vice versa. There you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, brilliant. my housemate was pretty impressed by the fact she was shaking on purpose quite a bit whilst testing it and having it on full zoom on the test subject, and it still came out crisp. Fast AF, or at least, I think so, and it's still pretty cheap for what it is, even in this country. Sure, it's a complement to your stock lens, as opposed to a replacement, but considering that the next step up is about 3 times the price, I say sod the inconvenience of having to lug 2 lens' (it's VERY light as well, BTW) and BUY.

Thanks for this. Yeah, it's to go with my 18-55mm kit lens. I don't mind lugging it around although glad to hear it's not too heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've just finished going through a few sunny day snaps I took at lunch with the 17-40L and I have to say I'm very very pleased with it. I wasn't expecting to see that much of an improvement...but holy crap is it sharp. I just threw pics through some of my wel used lightroom/photoshop actions and found they were all being oversharpened. A lot of them barely needed any sharpening at all. This was shooting RAW, with JPG the in camera sharpening might even be too much.

Obviously the build quality and 'feeling' of the lens is a huge step above everything I've used before. I'm looking forward to more L adventures.

Now I could finish by saying the Kit lens is a piece of crap..but to be fair you could buy about 15 of them for the price of this one lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.