• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Dazzling video!

Great video - animals, and fantastic scenery!

Just for giggles, I watched the next one after, about Dubai. Never realized how much they have done to promote tourism. Incredible PR footage, if you get a chance to watch it.

Kathy
 
Of course, NOW I am completely dissatisfied with the video I am able to take using my Panasonic camcorders. :(
 
I hear you Rich. I'm so frustrated with my snake pictures sometimes, and I can't currently afford the macro lens that I think would help.

Then again a skilled amateur friend of mine reminded that it's not the lens, it's the photographer. That was a huge reality check, lol. I hope practice makes perfect someday.
 
That may be somewhat true, but you no matter how talented you are, you just can't squeeze 4K video out of a device that is not capable.

Heck, I believe even my GoPro cameras are beating the snot out of my Panasonic camcorders in the quality department. It the GoPro came with a zoom lens that didn't degrade the quality, I would probably just get rid of the Panasonics completely.

As for macro lenses, you can sometimes get pretty decent results using a macro lens as a filter on your standard lens, but still, having the right equipment for the right job just makes it easier to be a little lean on the talent and letting the technology take up the slack.
 
Rich Z said:
That may be somewhat true, but you no matter how talented you are, you just can't squeeze 4K video out of a device that is not capable.

Heck, I believe even my GoPro cameras are beating the snot out of my Panasonic camcorders in the quality department. It the GoPro came with a zoom lens that didn't degrade the quality, I would probably just get rid of the Panasonics completely.

As for macro lenses, you can sometimes get pretty decent results using a macro lens as a filter on your standard lens, but still, having the right equipment for the right job just makes it easier to be a little lean on the talent and letting the technology take up the slack.
Click to expand...

That's true on the 4K. Hope you can get something better sooner rather than later.

I really just want the right lens rather than rigging something up like reversing a lens, or reversing and coupling. In the meantime its practice, practice, practice.
 
Practicing, and especially talent, helps a lot but the right lens equipment does take up a lot of the slack in untalented people like myself. I wish they weren't quite so expensive though! It's a good thing lenses hold their value really well.

If we hadn't gotten more than half of the price for our macro lens as a wedding gift card, it would have taken us a few more years to afford a decent one, for sure!

Really thinking about getting a new camera body sometime this year, especially after this past week and all the zoos we went through. The long range lens is great for most shots you can get at places like that, but then they are terrible at anything short ranged and unweldy to swap. If we had 2 cameras, my husband could carry one with the telephoto lens and I could have the mid range or macro on the other and not have to swap.
 
I hear you Tavia. I finally was able to afford my DSLR last month! It's entry level but I did pay a little more and get what is called a travel kit lens (Canon EOS Rebel T6i DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Lens) just so I had a little more flexibility. It doesn't have 4K either, just HD.

Cameras and lenses are another area of life where you make so many trade offs and compromises. No one lens or camera does it all.

I saw that same problem you had at the zoo when I was in Kenya in 2011. Some of us were snapping away at the elephants, lions, and giraffes with our compact zooms (mine is 16x) while "Bob" was switching out lenses on his DSLR.

I've seen pros carry two cameras on a body harness for I assume similar reasons (don't know if harness is the correct term) just like you are talking about with you and your husband.

Let us know what you get when you get it! I appreciate your modesty, but you regularly capture snake pics that are stunning. I know good when I see it. :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack Rich's video thread, but I have enjoyed the conversation nonetheless!
 
Thanks Rich! Wonderful video that does explain it well.

I either never knew, or completely forgot about these (don't know which-- a joy of aging).
 
I have heard people compliment someone by saying "You know, he has forgotten more than I will ever know." Heck, now I believe that I have forgotten more than I will ever know.
 
DollysMom said:
I hear you Tavia. I finally was able to afford my DSLR last month! It's entry level but I did pay a little more and get what is called a travel kit lens (Canon EOS Rebel T6i DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Lens) just so I had a little more flexibility. It doesn't have 4K either, just HD.

Cameras and lenses are another area of life where you make so many trade offs and compromises. No one lens or camera does it all.

I saw that same problem you had at the zoo when I was in Kenya in 2011. Some of us were snapping away at the elephants, lions, and giraffes with our compact zooms (mine is 16x) while "Bob" was switching out lenses on his DSLR.

I've seen pros carry two cameras on a body harness for I assume similar reasons (don't know if harness is the correct term) just like you are talking about with you and your husband.

Let us know what you get when you get it! I appreciate your modesty, but you regularly capture snake pics that are stunning. I know good when I see it. :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack Rich's video thread, but I have enjoyed the conversation nonetheless!
Click to expand...

I too have a Canon 1200 D (same thing as the T5 & T6 only minor differences) and the kit I got came with 2 lenses, an 18 to 55 mm and a 75 to 300 Zoom. I've always been a big fan of Canon, most of their cameras are pretty good, even the cheaper ones.

The only thing I don't like too much is the fact that nowadays you just can't get fast lenses anymore. I remember from my old "Film Cameras back in the day" a typical lens was an F 1.4 and a Telephoto or Zoom was usually around an F 2. These new Digitals come with lenses that start at F 4 or F 5.6. That's pretty crappy in my opinion and they make up for it by boosting the ISO/ASA to astronomical levels. I used to shoot outdoor pictures with ASA 64 or 100 Film and indoor or low light with ASA 400. With these new digital cameras, you have to hit ISO 3200 sometimes to get the same picture you used to get out of ASA 400 film. And although the pic may look OK on the small screen, when you upload it to a Computer it suddenly becomes blurry and grainy.

I've been told you can still get faster lenses but the price is in the thousands of dollars and most people don't want to pay 2 thousand for a lens to put on a 300 dollar camera. While I agree with that, I still don't understand why a good F1.4 lens should cost that much. I never paid anywhere close to that before.

As for the Macro stuff, it probably says on the side of your lense what your focus distance is. Every lens is different. My 18 to 55 mm will focus at 8 inches. Whereas my 75 to 300 mm will only focus to 5 feet. 8 inches is pretty close, at least close enough for my picture taking. And you should set your camera to the "Portrait" setting when you're trying to get really close pictures.

I'm certainly not a pro, but I've been dabbling in photography for many years and used to take pride in my "Film Picture taking" and only got the digital SLR about a year ago. I'm still playing with it and trying to learn how to squeeze a good picture out of it but it's certainly nothing like a Film camera with an F 1.4 lens.
 
So true on the lens speed and ISO, Karl. OTOH, I love image stabilization. 19 point autofocus certainly has its advantages, especially when I can choose just one of those points when I want to .

13 inches is the distance that sticks in my mind but I'm not sure at the moment. The camera does have portrait and a whole bunch of other preprogramed settings, but frankly they don't buy me anything that being well-versed in aperture priority and shutter priority won't buy me. And one of the beauties is that I can take a hundred shots and delete 99 and not really have wasted a thing.

At least the noise of this sensor is good up to ISO 1600, decent at 3200 and still usable at 6400. Remember, we couldn't pixel peep back in the day either.

Even with an entry-level camera and considering crop factor, the current sensors are just getting more and more capable. That's one reason I invested in the current model and didn't get one from two or three years ago to save money that way.

Both the sensor and the image processing in camera are ever evolving. Also this camera has built-in Wi-Fi, which is really great for a web head like me. Film has it's place but I'm just not going back to it ;)

It's still all trade-offs. Ever was and I venture to guess ever it shall be.

In many ways one can no longer make as many direct comparisons between film SLRs and digital SLRs. They are two different animals. Sorta like copperheads and corn snakes. One kind of looks like the other at first glance but once you know the difference they're not really the same at all.

Oh heavens, I've rambled all over the place again. Thanks Karl, for your thoughts. Thanks for listening to mine.
 
Actually, I am strongly considering a new camera body myself now. And I have been trying to pick up the slack in the changes in technology since the last time I purchased a camera body. The last one I bought (outside of video-centric camcorders and my GoPros) was a Fujifilm Finepix S3 Pro, which is 2004 technology. So I've got 12 years of advances (?) to catch up on.

I believe the issue with the loss of *fast* lenses for the new DSLRs, meaning F/1.2 and the like, is that the digital sensors that have replaced 35mm film are just not as large as the film surface, so the actual amount of light able to be delivered to those sensors is just less than what 35mm cameras were designed to deliver.

I've been a Nikon user for a long time, and the reason I chose the Finepix camera body back in 2004 was because it accepted my Nikon lenses, and reviews actually indicated that Fujifilm had a better design than Nikon was able to come up with at the time. So, in order to retain my Nikon lenses, I am focusing on Nikon compatible bodies.

So in the Nikon lingo, I am hearing the terms "DX" and "FX" lenses and bodies, that seem to indicate lenses and bodies that are providing a cropped image compatible with smaller sensors (DX), and those lenses and bodies that provide a "full" sized sensor (FX). From what I have been able to determine so far (I think), is that DX lenses on a FX body will produce vignetting on the image, which indicates that the barrel of the lens that light travels down to the sensor is too small for the sensor. Some people are saying that FX lenses on a DX body will work, but may introduce some distortion as a result.

So, of course, looking to the future, it would probably be a safe bet to say that eventually DX will be completely replaced by FX as the cost of the larger sensors comes down. With electronics, this is a pretty sure bet. So does it make sense to invest in a DX body and lenses that will most certainly become obsolete in the pretty near future?

Of course, if I discover that I need all new lenses anyway, because of the loss of compatibility with those lenses to the new digital technology of the latest generation of camera bodies, then all brands will wind up on the table. I am still on the upslope of the learning curve, trying to figure out if that will be the case or not.

Never really considered doing video from a DSLR body, but it seems to be that camcorders I have used that are designed for video just seem to do rather poorly at still photos. So it is worrisome to me that a DSLR designed for still photos just might not be able to do all that well with video. So I am scrutinizing YouTube videos closely. Honestly, from what I can see, even considering the compression and alteration that YouTube inflicts up videos uploaded to it, the video I see from DSLRs are quite acceptable. Of course, at this stage of the game, it wouldn't make sense to get anything video related that cannot do 4K. Unfortunately, finding a DSLR that can do 4K/60fps will get you digging REAL deep into your pocket to pay for it. So I am trying to figure out if 4K/30fps will be "good enough". I just don't see myself spending $6,000 for ANY camera body for the amateurish stuff I would do with it.

Of course, some practical questions are smacking me alongside the head right now about this entire idea. Seriously, with the trend for the internet leaning heavily towards handheld mobile devices, what future does 4K video really have? What use will it be to have a camera that can take 25 megapixel images if the audience will be looking at images that could NEVER be anywhere near that size on their viewer?

Just seems like the photo and video increases in technology are now heading along a path that will be completely incompatible with the vehicle best able to spread the fruits of that technology to an audience.

ps: I will likely move this thread to the Photography and techniques forum, since it is kind of leaning towards that kind of a discussion.
 
Been looking REAL hard at the Nikon D500 and I really thought this camera body was going to be what I get. But before pulling the trigger, been spending a lot of time looking at everything I can about this camera body.

So then I see THIS sort of stuff concerning using auto focus while taking video:



Ah, no.... Taking the finger off of the trigger till I learn more about this. There is no way that video like this would be acceptable to me. Not for the kind of money that camera body costs.
 
Auto focus and programmed shooting, and Full Auto this and that are fine. The Canon I have will do all that, but I don't want to be Lured into the belief that anything "Auto" is better than anything manual, nor do I want to have to rely on my camera to make decisions for me. I try whenever possible to "Turn Off" all the auto gizmos and put the camera in Manual mode and select my own aperture, shutter speeds, and focus myself. This is the way I used to take pictures with "Real Cameras" and although I've bitten the bullet and dove into the world of Digital, I don't necessarily believe digital is better.

I only have to break out my cell phone and CDs to understand the quality of digital comes nowhere close to the quality of analog, and so I believe that also holds true with photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top