A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 2nd 18, 03:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Shooting the moon

On Aug 1, 2018, RichA wrote
(in ):

shooting the moon with a DSLR isn't idea, shutter shock, mirror slap are an
issue, electronic shutters in mirrorless cameras and higher-end DSLR's are
superior, using a telescope means a long focal length and any vibration
impacts the image. You can reduce shock by delaying shutter action,
mirror-lockup, but most important is using the self-timer to fire the
shutter. Set it for 10 seconds, gives the telescope time to stop vibrating
from human touch. If your mounting in cheap and sags from the weight of a
camera (as opposed to they eyepiece) make sure the finderscope is aligned
with the main telescope so you can bring the moon back into view of the sag
pushes it out. Take lots of shots, or better, use the video mode of the
camera and shoot video. There are programs like Registax free online that
will take your video, align the best frames, reject the worst and produce the
best shot possible. Also, shoot the moon at half phase when shadows are cast
on it, revealing crater detail. Lastly, shoot the moon when it is as high
above the horizon as possible and on nights when stars don't twinkle which
indicates the atmosphere is steady. If you use a mirror telescope, give it 30
minutes to reach outside temperature so the mirrors aren't distorted.


Well this was shot handheld with an X-T2 with the XF100-400mm OIS on, f/10,
ISO200, 1/40.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5RNX5pv/0/a8adcdb4/O/i-5RNX5pv.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #32  
Old August 2nd 18, 03:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Shooting the moon

In article ,
RichA wrote:

shooting the moon with a DSLR isn't idea, shutter shock, mirror slap are an
issue,


no they aren't.

electronic shutters in mirrorless cameras and higher-end DSLR's are
superior,


they're almost always mechanical.

using a telescope means a long focal length and any vibration
impacts the image.


there are these things called tripods.

You can reduce shock by delaying shutter action,
mirror-lockup, but most important is using the self-timer to fire the
shutter. Set it for 10 seconds, gives the telescope time to stop vibrating
from human touch.


what human touch?

use a remote control (possibly also with remote viewing), and with 10
second exposures, mirror slap is not an issue whatsoever.
  #33  
Old August 2nd 18, 03:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 22:22:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100 and
a
cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like
blind
hound.

user error.


Yes, pointing and half-pressing is so technically-daunting.


and yet you ****ed it up somehow.

a d5100 can focus in *very* low light (-1 ev, according to nikon's
specs), so if the light only 'dropped a bit', there should be *no*
issue whatsoever with focusing or hunting, at least as far as the
camera goes.

that leaves one other possibility.


Maybe two? Pentax AF sucks in any light, but I've had better
performance with some lenses than others.
  #34  
Old August 2nd 18, 04:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100
and
a
cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like
blind
hound.

user error.

Yes, pointing and half-pressing is so technically-daunting.


and yet you ****ed it up somehow.

a d5100 can focus in *very* low light (-1 ev, according to nikon's
specs), so if the light only 'dropped a bit', there should be *no*
issue whatsoever with focusing or hunting, at least as far as the
camera goes.

that leaves one other possibility.


Maybe two? Pentax AF sucks in any light, but I've had better
performance with some lenses than others.


that's true, however, expecting super-fast focusing with a 'cheap kit
lens', perhaps an 18-55mm f/4-5.6, with it at 55mm f/5.6, would
definitely be user error.
  #35  
Old August 2nd 18, 04:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 23:13:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100
and
a
cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like
blind
hound.

user error.

Yes, pointing and half-pressing is so technically-daunting.

and yet you ****ed it up somehow.

a d5100 can focus in *very* low light (-1 ev, according to nikon's
specs), so if the light only 'dropped a bit', there should be *no*
issue whatsoever with focusing or hunting, at least as far as the
camera goes.

that leaves one other possibility.


Maybe two? Pentax AF sucks in any light, but I've had better
performance with some lenses than others.


that's true, however, expecting super-fast focusing with a 'cheap kit
lens', perhaps an 18-55mm f/4-5.6, with it at 55mm f/5.6, would
definitely be user error.


Yep, my problems were with Pentax kit lenses.
  #36  
Old August 2nd 18, 03:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 2018-08-02 05:13, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100
and
a
cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like
blind
hound.

user error.

Yes, pointing and half-pressing is so technically-daunting.

and yet you ****ed it up somehow.

a d5100 can focus in *very* low light (-1 ev, according to nikon's
specs), so if the light only 'dropped a bit', there should be *no*
issue whatsoever with focusing or hunting, at least as far as the
camera goes.

that leaves one other possibility.


Maybe two? Pentax AF sucks in any light, but I've had better
performance with some lenses than others.


that's true, however, expecting super-fast focusing with a 'cheap kit
lens', perhaps an 18-55mm f/4-5.6, with it at 55mm f/5.6, would
definitely be user error.


No, it would be seller error.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #37  
Old August 2nd 18, 03:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 2018-08-01 15:00, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 11:12:10 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2018-08-01 11:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2018 13:56:09 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:




so that could be a definite improvement. I do
astrophotography, and finding the red moon on the eyepiece the other day
was impossible.

If you do astrophotography then yuo yuo really should understand how old you're photos really are, even if taking pictures of the moon you are seeing it as it was 1.25 seconds ago.
And No amount of clever electronics in a camera will change that.


LOL.

That has no importance at all. X-)


Really ?


Really.


Why should I care that the moon I see is one second "old"? And that the
light from stars are years old?



for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.

As I wrote above, I was in exact this situation and my experience was
different.

All humans and most creatures on the planet have eyes that adjust to differnt light levels, if you're in the dark for a significant amount of time you're eyes can become very senative to light.


Yes, but not enough.


But not enough for what exactly ?


Well, my eyes could barely see the red moon in the twilight. And later
in the night the red moon was difficult to find.



There is no quick button to
disable it.

I thought most camera you could blank the display, you just have to know how to do it.


In a menu.


So there is a button but you don't think of it as a quick button or quick to access ?


No, it is an option in one of the menus. Several keypresses.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #38  
Old August 2nd 18, 03:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100
and
a
cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like
blind
hound.

user error.

Yes, pointing and half-pressing is so technically-daunting.

and yet you ****ed it up somehow.

a d5100 can focus in *very* low light (-1 ev, according to nikon's
specs), so if the light only 'dropped a bit', there should be *no*
issue whatsoever with focusing or hunting, at least as far as the
camera goes.

that leaves one other possibility.

Maybe two? Pentax AF sucks in any light, but I've had better
performance with some lenses than others.


that's true, however, expecting super-fast focusing with a 'cheap kit
lens', perhaps an 18-55mm f/4-5.6, with it at 55mm f/5.6, would
definitely be user error.


No, it would be seller error.


nobody is selling anything, so no.
  #39  
Old August 2nd 18, 10:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 7/30/2018 5:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 30, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/29/2018 5:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 29, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :

for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.

Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim
MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see.

With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm
f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect*
ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would
think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or
on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope.

Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any
adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is
possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at
an ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the
EVF/LCD is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball
cannot do that with an OVF.

If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate
even in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness
through your optical viewfinder.

No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all
you will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image,
but it will not be easy.

Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the
tool of choice. However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance
gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm,
that gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs
have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm
are narrowing that gap.

...and my D300S hasn’t been used for 18 months when I can capture sport
images such as this with my X-T2.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg


Not exactly an example of low light.


Aah! you noticed.

It was intended to demonstrate that an MILC is capable of being useful for
sport photography.


As is my D800, although it was not designed for sports photography.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qi83igj6a45hasn/Westminster%20Agility%20Trial%20beg.jpg?dl=0



--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympus hasn't thrown in the DSLR towel yet it would seem David J Taylor[_16_] Digital SLR Cameras 2 January 28th 12 09:11 PM
The sale of super belt. Hat towel brand products jim Digital Photography 0 November 21st 07 04:31 PM
Olympus throws in the towel....on quality Rich Digital Photography 5 January 28th 07 01:23 AM
Lexar throws in the towel RichA Digital SLR Cameras 10 June 11th 05 10:47 PM
store every photo ever without throwing them away! billybeer In The Darkroom 3 December 4th 04 08:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.