Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

On 4/13/2014 2:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 4/13/2014 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

The converson to Ai is trivial.

no it isn't. if it were trivial, it could be done in minutes by anyone.

It took me over an hour to do the first, no more then a couple of
minutes for several others. Once again your logic is fawed.

maybe it's trivial for you, if you have the proper tools and know where
to cut. most people have neither.

that's why there are services that do it, namely john white's.

if it really was trivial, no such service would be necessary.


It's trivial to clean a sensor, but most don't do it. Since when does
what people do become a measure of "trivial."
It's trivial to the gas tank of my car, when it snows. I would just
rather not do it, and pay the extra cost.

--
PeterN

Le 11/04/14 21:02, nospam a écrit :

if there are flashing lights, autofocus is almost certainly going to
work. you only need focus assist when it's really dark.

That's illogical, captain !

The focus is done BEFORE activation of the flash.
When it's really dark.

Noëlle Adam

Le 11/04/14 21:02, nospam a écrit :

f/1.4 is not needed anywhere near as much because today's cameras can
shoot at higher isos without any noticeable problems. plus, depth of
field is very shallow at super-wide apertures anyway.

Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark.
You dont shoot most of the time full open ; but you get top quality at 2,8.
And I happen to own a D700 ; beside a newer D4 or D800, there is no much
better in high isos but still, I wont call the noise at 4000 iso-6400
iso " non-noticeable ".
Real life situation are such that most of the time, the need for high
iso occurs within darkness, when the light is both scarce and uneven.

Shooting high speed with high iso and plenty even light is a laboraty
situation.

Noëlle Adam

In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

if there are flashing lights, autofocus is almost certainly going to
work. you only need focus assist when it's really dark.

That's illogical, captain !

The focus is done BEFORE activation of the flash.
When it's really dark.

he said flashing lights, not flash, therefore it's not dark all the
time.

if it's dark, use the focus assist if needed, which is what i said in
the first place.

In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:


f/1.4 is not needed anywhere near as much because today's cameras can
shoot at higher isos without any noticeable problems. plus, depth of
field is very shallow at super-wide apertures anyway.

Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark.

i've never had a problem, even with f/4 lenses.

You dont shoot most of the time full open ; but you get top quality at 2,8.
And I happen to own a D700 ; beside a newer D4 or D800, there is no much
better in high isos but still, I wont call the noise at 4000 iso-6400
iso " non-noticeable ".

maybe if you pixel peep, but normally, it's not noticeable.

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/...EQMQzM/Photogr
aphy/D4S_iso_02.jpg

Real life situation are such that most of the time, the need for high
iso occurs within darkness, when the light is both scarce and uneven.

Shooting high speed with high iso and plenty even light is a laboraty
situation.

try theatre photography, where high iso is *really* useful.

On 09/04/2014 14:07, nospam wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when
the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock.

edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the
mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions.

Doesn't work at all for astrophotography.

there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a
flash.

Or in sports stadiums at night.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Indeed. There are some very good second hand bargains to be had.
All of my longer lenses are second hand manual focus only. YMMV

there can be but newer lenses are generally better.

They might be lower weight for a given aperture if they only have to
illuminate a digital sensor rather than full frame 35mm.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
says...

Le 11/04/14 21:02, nospam a écrit :

f/1.4 is not needed anywhere near as much because today's cameras can
shoot at higher isos without any noticeable problems. plus, depth of
field is very shallow at super-wide apertures anyway.

Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark.
You dont shoot most of the time full open ; but you get top quality at 2,8.
And I happen to own a D700 ; beside a newer D4 or D800, there is no much
better in high isos but still, I wont call the noise at 4000 iso-6400
iso " non-noticeable ".
Real life situation are such that most of the time, the need for high
iso occurs within darkness, when the light is both scarce and uneven.

Shooting high speed with high iso and plenty even light is a laboraty
situation.

Nospam mentions shallow depth of field but he misses the point that
sometimes shallow depth of field is exactly what one wants.

In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when
the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock.

edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the
mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions.

Doesn't work at all for astrophotography.

astrophotography is definitely an edge case.

there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a
flash.

Or in sports stadiums at night.

those are well lit if there's a game. if not, then what's there to
photograph?

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Indeed. There are some very good second hand bargains to be had.
All of my longer lenses are second hand manual focus only. YMMV

there can be but newer lenses are generally better.

They might be lower weight for a given aperture if they only have to
illuminate a digital sensor rather than full frame 35mm.

i wasn't talking about crop sensor lenses. again, like versus like.

however, crop sensor lenses can be bigger and heavier than a full frame
version, namely at the wide end. at the longer end, they generally
weigh less.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

f/1.4 is not needed anywhere near as much because today's cameras can
shoot at higher isos without any noticeable problems. plus, depth of
field is very shallow at super-wide apertures anyway.

Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark.
You dont shoot most of the time full open ; but you get top quality at 2,8.
And I happen to own a D700 ; beside a newer D4 or D800, there is no much
better in high isos but still, I wont call the noise at 4000 iso-6400
iso " non-noticeable ".
Real life situation are such that most of the time, the need for high
iso occurs within darkness, when the light is both scarce and uneven.

Shooting high speed with high iso and plenty even light is a laboraty
situation.

Nospam mentions shallow depth of field but he misses the point that
sometimes shallow depth of field is exactly what one wants.

which you can easily get if that's what you want, and is in fact much
easier on a full frame camera than on 4/3rds.

Le 14/04/14 14:55, nospam a écrit :

Superwide apertures help to compose and focus when it's really dark.

i've never had a problem, even with f/4 lenses.

Try in the dark, then, you will see the difference between 1,4 and 4.


maybe if you pixel peep, but normally, it's not noticeable.


http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/PLLFUrEQR4jsr16srTmx1EQMQzM/Photography/D4S_iso_02.jpg

Sure, I have only real life experience.
Where buying a D4s and having plenty light and unfiltered faith on nikon
ads is not an option.


Real life situation are such that most of the time, the need for high
iso occurs within darkness, when the light is both scarce and uneven.

Shooting high speed with high iso and plenty even light is a laboraty
situation.

try theatre photography, where high iso is *really* useful.

It is what I do. In a rather small, intimate theater where the lights
are usually played low. Sometimes very low.

Noëlle Adam