Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > Larry Colen lrc at red4est.com > Wed Sep 19 15:31:43 EDT 2012 > >> On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> > > Often suggested technique to deal with those cases is to set the AF to > use the central point. That can be done for centered objects > or for static ones even when they are off center (AF, hold, reframe). > That can work for shooting single musicians who are more steady, and/or > typically are in the middle of the frame. > The problem with that when you are shooting dancing couples is that > in many cases, the central AF point is right between the dancers. > A possible work-around that is that you switch AF to a point that you > choose off center, where you expect one of the two to be. > This is not universal and requires switching (so it is not suitable > if you are trying to shoot several couples within one song), but > it is good, e.g. when you are trying to get a good shot of a particular > couple and taking a series of their shots with simillar framing and > camera orientation. This is pretty much exactly what I do. >> Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really >> help. Dancers just are not considerate enough to only move >> perpendicular to the line of focus. > > I feel for you Larry! > Those damn dancers! Shoot them! ;-) I had the feeling that you would know exactly what I'm dealing with. And lindy hop, as you know, is even worse than tango or blues. > >> >> One feature that would really help me would be different exposure >> metering modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back >> lighting, another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that >> is more a lightroom issue). I mostly just shoot manual exposure >> anyways, but sometimes when people are moving around from light to >> dark areas, I don't have that luxury and have to go to TAv. > > When there is a large variation of the light throughout the frame, > and the camera either cannot cover the full dynamic range, or you > don't care for the extreme parts of it (direct light, dark background > shadows), you can try a very similar technique as described in relation > to AF above: use the central point metering. > I haven't tried it myself yet, but in principle you can couple the > metering and the AF points (in the menu), - and use the same approach > for dancers who are off-center. > You can play with that when not "on assignment". :-) My camera is set to lock AE with AF point. > > >> >> There were also a bunch of pictures that weren't "lost" per se, but >> were rougher than I'd like because in order to have a fast enough >> shutter speed for lindy hop, I was shooting in the ISO 12,800-25,600 >> range. An 8MP sensor with the latest technology would do me more good >> than a 24MP sensor. > > I think you mean that the noise level from a larger pixel is lower. Lower noise, more DR. > I didn't think about it in full depth, but I would assume that > averaging the signal, say, 3 adjacent pixels while downsampling from 24 MP > to 8 MP, if done correctly from the RAW format, should produce close, if > not equivalent result. It might, actually, produce even a better result > under certain conditions (that's my guess only). I think that may work. > But then the question is whether the software you are using (e.g. LR) > is doing a good job in averaging those pixels in a right way in the > process of downsampling. That is an important question. And one I don't know the answer to. > After all, - you see a similar noise-smoothing effect on a 900pxx600px > image, where the noise is not that pronounced. > > >> >> Well done mirrorless technology could alleviate a lot of my problems. >> Without the mirrorbox and needing retrofocus lenses, I could get >> faster wide lenses. When focus is an issue, a sharp 30/1.4 on APS >> would do me more good than a FF 50/1.4. Likewise, for manually >> focusing in the dark, liveview, and I imagine focus peaking , would be >> an immense aid. >> > > I am not sure what you mean by "retrofocus". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens If the registration distance is greater than the focal length, you need extra elements to move the focus point back to the sensor (film). > Are you talking about the crop-factor of the lenses on FF and APS? > If that guess is correct, it's just a question of the sensor size on > the mirroless camera, not the fact that it is mirrorless. > I suspect I am just not understanding what you are trying to say here > about the mirrorless. With a mirrorless camera, you don't have to have the rear element far enough from the sensor for the mirror to swing up out of the way. In theory, the rear element could be practically touching the the sensor. This is why my friend Marco has a 25mm f/0.95 lens for his u4/3 camera, and for camera systems based on 35mm SLRs there aren't a lot (any?) really sharp lenses shorter than 30mm a
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> >> On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> But improved autofocus will be even nicer. If it's truly a step up, the K5 >>> IIs will take the lead spot ahead of my K5, and the current backup, a K7, >>> will go on ebay. >> >> >> I recognize that I tend to take photos in conditions that are a bit more >> challenging than most people face. I've spent the past couple of days going >> through my photos from last weekend. I'd say that I lost the most shots >> through mis-focus. Unfortunately I can't easily tell in lightroom which >> were manual and which were auto focus. The biggest camera change to improve >> my keeper ratio would probably be more focus points, each one restricted to >> a narrower range. I lost several photos because the camera focused on >> someone closer to the camera that was just barely in the frame. Then, of >> course, there is the ongoing problem with focusing on the microphone. > > Use single point autofocus. For singers with microphones use the top spot > and place it right on the eyeball when you squeeze the trigger halfway down. > For dancers, you probably want to use the second one down on verticals and > put it on the head. When shooting horizontals, you can use the upper left of > upper right and put it on the head of one of the two dancers. Once you get > used to using single spots, you can switch back and forth rapidly with your > thumb. To a first approximation, that is the only way that I use autofocus. Sometimes on the center, and recompose, sometimes I pick a point off of center for "rule of thirds" composition. I seem to have gotten into some difficulty on a few shots, where I rotated the camera for a vertical composition and didn't adjust the focus point from being in the lower third to the upper third and the camera did a great job of focusing on the feet rather than the face. Who knew that there was enough angle that it would make a difference? Well, I do now. Also, George, what I do is pretty much the opposite of what you suggest. I have the AF button set to disable auto focus. I set focus with half a shutter press, then use my thumb to hold focus. As to focusing manually, I often do so. I find the split prism focusing screen invaluable for that. Especially with my non-autofocus lenses. I've also found that in low light, low contrast, situations, manually focusing with the screen is nearly impossible, and in almost every case, if autofocus will work, and it happens to focus on the right thing, it is both faster and more accurate than manually focusing. What I frequently do in situations where the light is too low for either normal manual focus, or autofocus, is to put the camera in live view, maybe use the info button to zoom in, and manually focus that way. Unfortunately, it takes so long to take a picture in live view mode that leaving the camera in live view when shooting action is useless. Even without shutter lag, the visual lag in live view, in low light, is a significant fraction of a second. I have to focus in live view, switch it back to optical, then hope that my subject doesn't move out of focus. I also have to remember to move my face to the camera, rather than move my camera to my face, or I'll front focus by 10-20 cm. > > That being said, a narrower range and more points would be nice, even when > using single point. > >> >> Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really help. >> Dancers just are not considerate enough to only move perpendicular to the >> line of focus. >> >> One feature that would really help me would be different exposure metering >> modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back lighting, >> another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that is more a >> lightroom issue). > > You already have that. It's called exposure com. If you don't want it to > meter on the bright background, give it a plus one stop or more. If you don't > want it to meter on the dark background, minus the exposure. If the background were consistent, and exposure compensation would work, I could just set the exposure manually and leave it be. What I need is to be able to tell the metering to ignore any point that is above (or below) a certain EV. A case that I run into often is photographing dancers, or martial artists, in a room where the light source is often, but not always, in the frame of the picture, and there is nothing that I can do about it. The light source is where it is, I am where I am, and the subject moves around. I'm going to pull numbers out of the air, I don't know what EV actually relates to how much light. I don't use a manual meter enough for that. Sometimes the light is falling on the subject and they might be at EV 7, sometimes they have their back to the light and they are a
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
Larry Colen lrc at red4est.com Wed Sep 19 15:31:43 EDT 2012 > On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > But improved autofocus will be even nicer. If it's truly a step up, > > the K5 IIs will take the lead spot ahead of my K5, and the current > > backup, a K7, will go on ebay. > > > I recognize that I tend to take photos in conditions that are a bit > more challenging than most people face. I've spent the past couple of > days going through my photos from last weekend. I'd say that I lost > the most shots through mis-focus. Unfortunately I can't easily tell > in lightroom which were manual and which were auto focus. The biggest > camera change to improve my keeper ratio would probably be more focus > points, each one restricted to a narrower range. I lost several > photos because the camera focused on someone closer to the camera that > was just barely in the frame. Then, of course, there is the ongoing > problem with focusing on the microphone. Often suggested technique to deal with those cases is to set the AF to use the central point. That can be done for centered objects or for static ones even when they are off center (AF, hold, reframe). That can work for shooting single musicians who are more steady, and/or typically are in the middle of the frame. The problem with that when you are shooting dancing couples is that in many cases, the central AF point is right between the dancers. A possible work-around that is that you switch AF to a point that you choose off center, where you expect one of the two to be. This is not universal and requires switching (so it is not suitable if you are trying to shoot several couples within one song), but it is good, e.g. when you are trying to get a good shot of a particular couple and taking a series of their shots with simillar framing and camera orientation. I've done this with *istDS, and it seemingly worked. I haven't done it much with K7, as its frame-based AF engine improved drastically. But I am considering using that again at some events. > > Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really > help. Dancers just are not considerate enough to only move > perpendicular to the line of focus. I feel for you Larry! Those damn dancers! Shoot them! ;-) > > One feature that would really help me would be different exposure > metering modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back > lighting, another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that > is more a lightroom issue). I mostly just shoot manual exposure > anyways, but sometimes when people are moving around from light to > dark areas, I don't have that luxury and have to go to TAv. When there is a large variation of the light throughout the frame, and the camera either cannot cover the full dynamic range, or you don't care for the extreme parts of it (direct light, dark background shadows), you can try a very similar technique as described in relation to AF above: use the central point metering. I haven't tried it myself yet, but in principle you can couple the metering and the AF points (in the menu), - and use the same approach for dancers who are off-center. You can play with that when not "on assignment". :-) > > There were also a bunch of pictures that weren't "lost" per se, but > were rougher than I'd like because in order to have a fast enough > shutter speed for lindy hop, I was shooting in the ISO 12,800-25,600 > range. An 8MP sensor with the latest technology would do me more good > than a 24MP sensor. I think you mean that the noise level from a larger pixel is lower. I didn't think about it in full depth, but I would assume that averaging the signal, say, 3 adjacent pixels while downsampling from 24 MP to 8 MP, if done correctly from the RAW format, should produce close, if not equivalent result. It might, actually, produce even a better result under certain conditions (that's my guess only). But then the question is whether the software you are using (e.g. LR) is doing a good job in averaging those pixels in a right way in the process of downsampling. After all, - you see a similar noise-smoothing effect on a 900pxx600px image, where the noise is not that pronounced. > > Well done mirrorless technology could alleviate a lot of my problems. > Without the mirrorbox and needing retrofocus lenses, I could get > faster wide lenses. When focus is an issue, a sharp 30/1.4 on APS > would do me more good than a FF 50/1.4. Likewise, for manually > focusing in the dark, liveview, and I imagine focus peaking , would be > an immense aid. > I am not sure what you mean by "retrofocus". Are you talking about the crop-factor of the lenses on FF and APS? If that guess is correct, it's just a question of the sensor size on the mirroless camera, not the fact that it is mirrorless. I suspect I am just not understanding what you are trying to say here about the mirrorless. Best, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
Wed Sep 19 15:31:43 EDT 2012 Larry Colen wrote: > > Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really > help. Dancers just are not considerate enough to only move > perpendicular to the line of focus. I feel for you Larry! Those damn dancers! Shoot them! ;-) Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
Paul and Bruce have given great advice. You also might find it helpful to de-couple focus from the shutter button and use the back focus button. Once you focus on something, the camera will stay focused at that distance, eliminating the camera's need to re-focus every time you touch the shutter button. gs George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Paul Stenquist > wrote: >> >> On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> >>> One feature that would really help me would be different exposure metering >>> modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back lighting, >>> another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that is more a >>> lightroom issue). >> >> You already have that. It's called exposure com. If you don't want it to >> meter >> on the bright background, give it a plus one stop or more. If you don't want >> it to meter on the dark background, minus the exposure. > > Then there's the spot-metering exposure mode. That's been available > for a while too. :-) > > -- > -bmw > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> One feature that would really help me would be different exposure metering >> modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back lighting, >> another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that is more a >> lightroom issue). > > You already have that. It's called exposure com. If you don't want it to meter > on the bright background, give it a plus one stop or more. If you don't want > it to meter on the dark background, minus the exposure. Then there's the spot-metering exposure mode. That's been available for a while too. :-) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> But improved autofocus will be even nicer. If it's truly a step up, the K5 >> IIs will take the lead spot ahead of my K5, and the current backup, a K7, >> will go on ebay. > > > I recognize that I tend to take photos in conditions that are a bit more > challenging than most people face. I've spent the past couple of days going > through my photos from last weekend. I'd say that I lost the most shots > through mis-focus. Unfortunately I can't easily tell in lightroom which were > manual and which were auto focus. The biggest camera change to improve my > keeper ratio would probably be more focus points, each one restricted to a > narrower range. I lost several photos because the camera focused on someone > closer to the camera that was just barely in the frame. Then, of course, > there is the ongoing problem with focusing on the microphone. Use single point autofocus. For singers with microphones use the top spot and place it right on the eyeball when you squeeze the trigger halfway down. For dancers, you probably want to use the second one down on verticals and put it on the head. When shooting horizontals, you can use the upper left of upper right and put it on the head of one of the two dancers. Once you get used to using single spots, you can switch back and forth rapidly with your thumb. That being said, a narrower range and more points would be nice, even when using single point. > > Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really help. > Dancers just are not considerate enough to only move perpendicular to the > line of focus. > > One feature that would really help me would be different exposure metering > modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back lighting, > another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that is more a > lightroom issue). You already have that. It's called exposure com. If you don't want it to meter on the bright background, give it a plus one stop or more. If you don't want it to meter on the dark background, minus the exposure. > I mostly just shoot manual exposure anyways, but sometimes when people are > moving around from light to dark areas, I don't have that luxury and have to > go to TAv. > > There were also a bunch of pictures that weren't "lost" per se, but were > rougher than I'd like because in order to have a fast enough shutter speed > for lindy hop, I was shooting in the ISO 12,800-25,600 range. An 8MP sensor > with the latest technology would do me more good than a 24MP sensor. > > Well done mirrorless technology could alleviate a lot of my problems. > Without the mirrorbox and needing retrofocus lenses, I could get faster wide > lenses. When focus is an issue, a sharp 30/1.4 on APS would do me more good > than a FF 50/1.4. Likewise, for manually focusing in the dark, liveview, and > I imagine focus peaking , would be an immense aid. > > However, most of these things would make no difference to a landscape > photographer. Sure, fast wide glass would be nice, but it's not as big of an > issue if you have a tripod. Ralf's probably the only one crazy enough to > shoot landscapes at night. > > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:31:43PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote: > > Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really help. >From some of the reports I've seen, this is one area where the K-5 II has >significant improvements. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > But improved autofocus will be even nicer. If it's truly a step up, the K5 > IIs will take the lead spot ahead of my K5, and the current backup, a K7, > will go on ebay. I recognize that I tend to take photos in conditions that are a bit more challenging than most people face. I've spent the past couple of days going through my photos from last weekend. I'd say that I lost the most shots through mis-focus. Unfortunately I can't easily tell in lightroom which were manual and which were auto focus. The biggest camera change to improve my keeper ratio would probably be more focus points, each one restricted to a narrower range. I lost several photos because the camera focused on someone closer to the camera that was just barely in the frame. Then, of course, there is the ongoing problem with focusing on the microphone. Beyond that, faster accurate focus in stupid low light would really help. Dancers just are not considerate enough to only move perpendicular to the line of focus. One feature that would really help me would be different exposure metering modes, one where I could say to not meter on the bright back lighting, another, where it would ignore dark backgrounds (though that is more a lightroom issue). I mostly just shoot manual exposure anyways, but sometimes when people are moving around from light to dark areas, I don't have that luxury and have to go to TAv. There were also a bunch of pictures that weren't "lost" per se, but were rougher than I'd like because in order to have a fast enough shutter speed for lindy hop, I was shooting in the ISO 12,800-25,600 range. An 8MP sensor with the latest technology would do me more good than a 24MP sensor. Well done mirrorless technology could alleviate a lot of my problems. Without the mirrorbox and needing retrofocus lenses, I could get faster wide lenses. When focus is an issue, a sharp 30/1.4 on APS would do me more good than a FF 50/1.4. Likewise, for manually focusing in the dark, liveview, and I imagine focus peaking , would be an immense aid. However, most of these things would make no difference to a landscape photographer. Sure, fast wide glass would be nice, but it's not as big of an issue if you have a tripod. Ralf's probably the only one crazy enough to shoot landscapes at night. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
But improved autofocus will be even nicer. If it's truly a step up, the K5 IIs will take the lead spot ahead of my K5, and the current backup, a K7, will go on ebay. Paul On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:11 PM, DagT wrote: > A 24MP APS-C without AA-filter would have been nice. > > DagT > > Den 19. sep. 2012 kl. 20:03 skrev Bruce Walker: > >> I'm with you there. A jump in rez of that amount would be welcome, and >> would continue to justify my investment in only DA and DA* lenses. >> >> Anyways, so far my K20D isn't stopping me from just shutting up and >> shooting. :-) >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, P. J. Alling >> wrote: >>> >>> So far my snark at Ricewhine stands. I wish I could say it makes me feel >>> good but I had really hoped for a 24mp APS-C DSLR, a FF was just to much to >>> hope for. >>> >>> -- >>> Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid >>> a lengthly search. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
A 24MP APS-C without AA-filter would have been nice. DagT Den 19. sep. 2012 kl. 20:03 skrev Bruce Walker: > I'm with you there. A jump in rez of that amount would be welcome, and > would continue to justify my investment in only DA and DA* lenses. > > Anyways, so far my K20D isn't stopping me from just shutting up and > shooting. :-) > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, P. J. Alling > wrote: >> >> So far my snark at Ricewhine stands. I wish I could say it makes me feel >> good but I had really hoped for a 24mp APS-C DSLR, a FF was just to much to >> hope for. >> >> -- >> Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid >> a lengthly search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photokina opens nothing beyond the already announced items on display.
I'm with you there. A jump in rez of that amount would be welcome, and would continue to justify my investment in only DA and DA* lenses. Anyways, so far my K20D isn't stopping me from just shutting up and shooting. :-) On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > So far my snark at Ricewhine stands. I wish I could say it makes me feel > good but I had really hoped for a 24mp APS-C DSLR, a FF was just to much to > hope for. > > -- > Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid > a lengthly search. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
