Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

Activity : All Comments

onetrickpony

The mix is a bit eclectic for now as I'm uploading a few from the last year or so one by one. Before long, this portfolio will fill with photos taken in London, as that is where I now live.
...Read More
Profile

  • Quote:Long exposures to give effects such as running water a ghostly feel if you follow me?


    Yep. So you are doing landscapes with water in them, and you want it to look smoother.

    For mode: It's the 'S' on the shooting mode dial. Choose that then spin the back wheel (right hand side) to prolong the shutter speed. You can experiment for the effect you want. Don't worry about the ISO, the camera will manage it adequately so keep it in auto. Watch the metering screen (LCD top right) - when the aperture (top left corner) says 'Hi' you've gone too far.

    Be aw

    You will need a tripod (or at least a steady rock/fence post and remote to fire the shutter) because otherwise you will get camera shake. As Oldblokeh points out, you may also need an ND filter, although I would do some experiments before buying one to try and figure out exactly what kind of density you will need, and whether you need a grad filter etc. (take some pics and post them here witha q, someone will tell you whats best). You might not need one, but this depends on a lot of factors (like your min aperture, how fast the water is moving, and of course how light it is when you take the pic). Experiment first, purchase second - that's the rule! (for those of us with short pockets, anyway).

    In general, this effect will not be possible in bright sunlight or with uneven light, such as in the face of a sunset, as the lit parts will be too bright. So you want to work looking away from (or 90 degrees to) the sun, or after sunset or before sunrise when there is an even light, or in cloudy weather (although clouds are not normally overly appealing).




  • Most obviously, put it on shutter priority and extend the shutter time. I'm not really sure if that's what you are asking though?

    Two questions:

    1) Why do you want to take long exposures? What effect are you trying to achieve?

    2) (Assuming you've already found the shutter exposure setting) what problems have you had with long exposures so far?
  • Hi Rasheed,

    What level are you? Personally I think you only need one book that teaches you about all the manual controls. They really aren't that complicated, in fact a few hours is enough to learn what they all do - which is as much as a book can teach you. There are a lot of such 'beginner DSLR books' - my best recommendation would be to go into a bookstore and pick the one you find easiest to understand - and one where you like the pictures. The information in all of them is probably about the same, just the delivery is different. Digital Photography Complete Course Hardcover 1 Sep 2015 0241186099 is a good example.

    You could get the job done online, on youtube etc too, depends on what you prefer. I prefer a book because they are full of printed photographs - which are as much a learning tool as the written advice.


  • Quote:Switching systems will cost you more if you go 4:3, or you will get less camera ability with a compact than upgrading to a recent perhaps second hand Nikon DX body.


    Agreed! After careful consideration, I've decided to get my D90 fixed or at worst replaced.

    I think I want to upgrade to a CSC in a few years time. Right now one with everything I want seems to be 800+ - I just don't fancy the cheaper ones. This ends up over budget when you factor new lenses as well (cheap second hand CSC lenses are rare, I've also found). Some people here seem to love their CSCs / bridge cameras and others don't. I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of money to find out which camp I am in! And a D7100/200 would be amazing, but I have never had a problem with my D90 other than weight and size.

    Hopefully in two years time the CSC market will be different, or my budget bigger, or there'll be a new DSLR to tempt me. Meanwhile, after a few days looking at some ludicrously priced cameras, 150 suddenly seems more reasonable.

    Thanks one final time for everyone's useful advice!

  • Quote:However, I found equivalent quality in a bridge camera, 25-400mm, that has completely eliminated my need to be constantly researching and shopping for something better. I found it.


    Scanning your profile, I'm guessing you mean your Lumix FZ1000?

    You do seem to have some cracking images from it.
  • Thanks everyone. Looks like some people are getting used to their CSCs after all!

    I tracked down an Olympus EM-10 and some other similar priced CSCs (can't remember all of them) today in a store to have a play around. The plastic feels to cheap and I don't like the shiny buttons on top. I had similar problems with all the 500 or so CSCs. So, I'm going to look for an EM 5. I can't seem to find another option that sits somewhere between 500 and 1000 and is made of metal, and weather sealed.

    I also tried the 'pro' 2.8 12-40mm lens on the Olympus. What a game changer! I'd never have carted the 24-70mm 2.8 Nikkor around anywhere, despite on paper it being the perfect travel lens. But on the Olympus its only 300g! I have to say that alone was quite persuasive. I had no idea such things existed.

  • Quote: I prefer to use cameras that have a VF but I agree with the earlier comment that if you want to stick with a DSLR why not look for a used D7000 or D7200?


    Thanks for all your considered replies!

    I mentioned desirable features, but ultimately I feel that if I spend 500 - 1000 on a new camera, weight and size reduction is going to be the main aim. If it wasn't, I'd just get the D90 repaired / replaced - I have no problems with its performance in general - I only want to match its performance and usability but in a smaller body (with a few extra features like wifi, because why not?!)

    Seahawk - as someone who clearly loved your D90 - are you likely to develop the same love for your Lumix G80? I guess that's my main question. Jester has made it clear that his D90 could never be replaced.

    Personally, after 10 years of the D90 I'm sure there'll be an adjustment period, but I'm wondering if ex-DSLR users ever get to the point where they pick up their CSC and have no desire for it to be a DSLR?
  • I once upgraded from a D60 to a D90 (entry level to enthusiast level Nikons). After hours looking at reviews and photos of brick walls, I 'realised' a D90 was going to produce much better quality images.

    Honestly I was so glad for the upgrade - the viewfinder was a revelation, as were all the extra manual controls and general feel of the body. But the image quality difference was negligible in everyday use. I suspect you could buy a D5 and not really notice the difference between that and what you have now in normal sized prints.
  • I have owned and been using a D90 for years. It's developed some auto focus problems, it's probably getting on a bit now anyway. I'm thinking it makes sense to get a smaller camera . I do a lot of walking and on longer hikes (especially multiple day hikes) I often just leave the DSLR at home. I rarely if ever take out the extra lenses, sticking to my 18 - 200mm (or occasionally a fixed 20mm or 35mm).

    I'm basically looking for everything I have now (high image quality, good viewfinder, fast autofocus, long lasting battery, decent flash and hot shoe mount, usable shots up to ISO1600, and most importantly comfortable manual controls), plus a few extras (wifi, image stabilisation,), in a much more portable body, for around 500 (excluding lenses) - I could go up to 1000 if I needed to though. Maybe one of those flip screens for taking selfies wouldn't go amiss too Smile

    Am I asking too much? It's almost 9 years since I bought my D90, I feel technology should have moved on to the point where I can get all of this. Option 2 is I get my D90 fixed - I've had an estimate of 200 - and wait a few years until all my wishes come true Smile Option 3 is I just buy a new DSLR? I am an enthusiast and I generally shoot in manual mode. It's mainly travel photography, so I commonly shoot landscapes, portraits,macros, sports... basically anything as every day is different! Maybe a DSLR is just inherently better for my needs?

    Have any ex-D90 users (or similar) found a CSC they are comfortable with? Any recommendations or experiences? And what about compacts like the Lumix LX10? (the thought of a compact somehow makes me shudder, yet the on-paper stats are hard to ignore)

  • Quote: most Samsung phones use "TouchWiz" AFAIK.


    Fair enough, whatever it is it isn't as good as Sense imo.


    Quote:I decided to replace my 4S with another 4S


    I think thats a sensible decision for someone who owns an ipod and an ipad.

  • Quote:So that's both the same CPU, both 64bit and the CPU performance on Windows comes out on top. Make of that what you will, no synthetic benchmarks are perfect, but it's certainly not clear cut that Macs are faster - and that's how most people would tend to define better, although I'm sure some people would chose pretty over efficient


    I dunno. Most people report windows getting much slower over time. My partner has a three year old mac and it still runs everything at the same speed it did on day 1, thereabouts. I've never found a windows PC that managed that, even with all the time consuming registry maintenence and stuff that you are supposed to do to keep PCs running nicely. It's not just about benchmark tests either - the mac interface is smoother (e.g. switching between applications), the controls are easier (mac gestures) and better and the operating system has more features. The Mac OS has things like facetime, integrated SMS messaging, and airdrop.

    PCs are better for games, but this thread wasn't about gaming. It was about video editing.
  • I now have a Samsung but I used to have a HTC. All I'll say is that HTC has its own version of Android (HTC Sense) which is much better than the standard android used by Samsung. Android phones take mini SD cards and 32 gb cards are cheap, and you can buy several if you really need them, so for starage andoir beats iphone hands down. Android also has a lot more free apps, most of the **** you pay for on iphones is free for android.

    However, the iphone camera is better than all other phone cameras. Some reviews say a little differently, but my partner has an iphone 5 and it seems to take good photos in almost all conditions, whereas others take good photos sometimes, bad photos the rest. Apple spent a shitload of money on the r&d of their camera, which they can do because they only make one phone. If camera is your main thing, get an iphone 5.

  • Quote:
    I have processed 300-400 RAW files (converting to 16-bit TIFF) at a time from a 21Mp camera, using my current computer which has a mere 4GB of RAM



    For that kind of thing, RAM isn't going to be too important because the computer is going to pre-load the parts it needs to deal with into the ram. It's a linear process. The bottleneck will be the processing speed, not the amount of RAM available. It's more when you have several windows of something and you want to flick between them, i.e. when the computer doesn't know what bit it might need next.

    A lot of programs run in the background eating up memory and photoshop keeps getting heavier and heavier. Web browsers are also getting pretty heavy: chrome can take up 2gb with a few tabs open by itself. 2Gb used to be a lot, now it isn't so much. Right now I have a HD youtube tutorial on how to use adobe premiere running, a virus scan, adobe premier with three short videos and chrome with a couple of tabs, and I'm using about 6gb of RAM. I would normally have some sort of game running in the background too, which I would flick to for about 1 in every 10 minutes. If I only had 4gb on the system, it would all run a lot slower. If history repeats itself then in two-three years time the same stuff might use up to 10-12GB (higher quality videos, more features on all the programs, more background processes etc.

    If someone said ' I have 8GB of ram, do I need to upgrade?', I would say no. But that wasn't the question, the question was 'if I'm buying a new system, should I get 8 or 16?'. Then again, adjusted answer, I would say that it depends on how much of a multi-tasker you are. If you want to leave your computer alone whilst it processes files or work just with your photo editor, your fine with 8 (or 4 even). If you like to have your computer processing several things in the background whilst you constantly switch between the web, several different programs and your photo editor/video editor all at the same time, you need more RAM. I've noticed a generation gap there as well, I think. My parents (both very competent computer users) like to do one thing at a time, but me and my brother tend to do at least several things at once. Probably a symptom of having short attention spans!
  • Almost every program released still supports windows XP, which is now 12 years old, so I don't think that they will be phasing out support for Windows 7 anytime soon.

  • Quote:A 60GB capacity is very small by today's standards.


    Yes, but thats why you get a bigger one too Grin

    I have a PC at home with a solid state drive and occasionally do some editing work (for work, nothing to do with photography). I put everything onto the SSD whilst I am working with it, it all runs considerably faster than when it is on the normal hard drive (no loading time at all, even for really big processes). After I am finished, I put it all back on the other drive for storage.

    60gb is small but there's no reason it shouldn't be big enough, unless he is putting some fancy games on there (I have a 128gb drive, but it has four games on it which take up over 80gb between them anyway)
  • If you have the money, get a mac. Macs are more expensive because they are better. PCs can be made to look good on paper, but still be significantly slower than macs with what look like lower specs.

    I noticed you have a d7000 which takes nice big 16mp photos. If you're shooting those in raw, then I guess 16gb of memory would be handy for helping the thing process those huge images, especially if you are working with several at a time.
  • "I can run all of the programmes on here from the desktop, which is just a slightly re-vamped Windows 7, without ever using the 'tiles' screen."

    Yes, now I have changed all of the default access programs so that the app interface is never used and I run everything in desktop mode. Occasionally, things like pdfs mysteriously revert back to the default windows 8 viewer which runs as a clunky app which is less functional than the most basic free pdf viewers were ten years ago, and I have to go and change the default program to something more sensible again. I run most things as apps in chrome or desktop applications.

    But, like you say, if you are trying to run everything like its windows 7 (which I think is what everyone does), you'd be better off with windows 7. Almost every 'upgrade' they have made sucks. You know, the new Microsoft word is almost as bad. I think microsoft might run into big problems sooner or later, if they don't re-start developing half decent software!
  • I use windows 8 and I HATE it. It makes no sense. There are two completely different interfaces - the 'ap' interface and the traditional desktop interface that runs as an ap. A lot of programs won't run as 'apps' and therefore must be run as desktop programs. This means that if you frequently operate with several programs open, like I do, you constantly have to remember whether that program is running as an app or on the desktop when you want to switch between programs. To make matters worse, it can be clunky to operate programs as apps. For example, say you have your web browser open and you want to re-type something from a browser (I do this a lot, retyping words from pictures). Whereas with windows 7, you can choose the window sizes and have both easily visible, Windows 8 only lets you have one app visible on precisely one fifth of the screen and one other app visible on the other part of the screen, unless you re-launch both as desktop applications. What's worse is that the start screen is really ugly, as are a lot of the screens. It also has two versions of programs such as file explorer. It has the old, sensible version and it has a shitty new version. If you run a program in desktop mode, you get the old file explorer when you need it (say, for example, when you right click a file in Chrome and choose 'save as'). If you run in app mode, then you get the new version, which is a) really ugly and b) completely useless, as it doesn't let you do things like create new folders.

    I could go on about this all day, to be honest. But as a heavy PC user I find Windows 8 illogical and practically unbearable. Stay with windows 7.
  • oh right, yeah. duh! I thought it was some fancy softwear suite or something!
  • Although not technically 'exif data', I think there should be options to add filters in the detailed camera settings info.

    This would encourage more people to mention what filters they are using. I realize this can go in the body of text, but most people omit this information.

    As someone looking to get to grips with using filters, it would be good to see what filters people are using when, for example what level of ND grads are being used for long exposures.
  • rty???
  • I should add that you do't actually need a high-end graphics card. A low-midrange one with lots of memory will be fine. High end cards are designed for processing complex 3D processes, basically they are for gaming, but won't make HD video much faster so you can save some money there.
  • To agree with the above - I would go with 16gb of ram, as that will make the most difference. However, the speed of working will still bottleneck at the hard drive write times, because your RAM won't be able to hold the whole video file.

    To be clear, hard drives (disks) hold long term information (disk space). This is loaded into the RAM (memory) which can be accessed and used by the processor. Hard drives are much slower than RAM. Hard drives hold large amounts of information, but RAM is limited to 4-16gb. Say your playing a game, for example: the game is stored on your hard drive where it sits unused. When you open the game, all the information the game might need to access is loaded into the RAM when the game is 'loading'. While playing, the computer simple accesses the RAM which it can do quickly. If it comes across something which isn't in the RAM (say, a new level), then it has to load information from the hard drive to the RAM again, which takes up time because the hard drive is slower.

    Your problem is that your video files are huge, meaning the whole file will not load into the RAM (memory), no matter how good your computer. Whatever you do, you will have to constantly wait for the hard drive to load into the RAM. There are three things you can do about this.

    Firstly, maximise the amount of RAM. 16gb is the highest you can get without spending a lot of money (RAM is cheap, but you will need more expensive versions of windows and advanced motherboards to support more than 16gb). You should look for 16gb systems.

    The second thing you can do is to buy a system with a faster hard drive. I really recommend you buy a system with a solid state drive which will run considerably faster than a standard hard drive. You need a system with a solid state drive (60gb should be enough) and a standard hard drive (1TB+) (affordable solid state drives aren't big enough to be used on their own). When editing, you can put the files you are working with into the solid state drive. Whatever you do, don't edit videos off an external drive attached by USB, this will slow you down massively.

    The third thing is to make sure you get a dedicated graphics card. Make sure you make it clear in the shop that you do NOT want 'integrated graphics', which is basically a way that computer manufacturers use to hide the fact that systems have no graphics cards. Graphics cards will further increase your RAM, because they have separate RAM which takes the load off the main computer.
  • Well, I've posted no end on these forums now, so a bit late for this. But I just became a full 'member' and have decided to use epz a bit more, so I thought I'd post here.

    I live in London now, having spent the last four years travelling and living abroad, in Vietnam, China, Cambodia and Australia. I'm an English Language teacher by profession. I originally took up photography because I went travelling for a year when I was 18 and every picture I came home with was awful. My aim is, and always has been, to become a competent 'snapshotter' capable of recording anything that's happening around me and taking images which give a strong sense of wherever I am. Being in London, my current project is to get more comfortable shooting in the rain or on grey days, as waiting for sunny days means I never get out.

    I am currently a photoshop no-hoper but hope to spend some time on this soon, although I find it terminally boring and much prefer to adjust my camera settings whilst out.

    Due to some recent health problems, I am spending a lot of time at home, hence all the forum posts. I'm hoping to spend more time taking photos and less time talking about it soon, but at the minute its a bit draining going out. Macro / indoor photography just isn't my thing, either.

    My other hobbies, when health permits, are walking, cycling and cooking.
  • Thanks everyone. In the end I went for a Velbon Ultra Stick L50 with Manfrotto tilt head, taking in advice on here about clips being a pain - as it has a twist lock which I tried in store and found much faster and easier. I liked the idea of the hybrid, but it was a little over budget and also a little on the heavy side.

    The Velbon is great and I really reccomend it for anyone looking for a budget monopod, it's really quite sturdy for the price/weight (a touch flimsy fully extended, perhaps), it's also very tall (goes above eye level for me, and I'm 185) and very compact (goes to about 35 cm).

    Uploaded first picture I took with it tonight already. Looking forward to taking more.

  • Quote:Someone (wish it was me) once said of high-end lenses that you don't really own them; that you're just keeping them safe for the next generation.


    Are you sure that isn't an advert for watches that you saw Smile?
  • "When a lens is to be sold cheap, something has to be made less well and the most expensive part will be mechanical."

    I really don't think that 300 is that 'cheap'. I bought my first car for about the same. I can a decent pushbike for that, or several other objects which are much larger and seemingly more complicated. A new moped can be bought for less.

  • Quote:However, with the IS system in our E-M5s they're hardly essential kit, are they? I wouldn't use one for a long exposure, so when would one be used?


    I use it mainly for night portraits without flash, shots at longer telephoto lengths in less than perfect light, and a fair few night city street shots. I also use it at shows, matches etc when holding a camera would get tiresome and tripods won't fit.

    Unlike a tripod, I feel comfortable having it strapped to my camera bag all the time, so I end up using it quite a lot.
  • The sigma has a lock but it only works at 18mm and, as you say, is really annoying to put on and off every time you lower the camera.
  • I used to have this problem. Actually in many situations I still do :-( .

    Try going for walks at night, taking your camera along 'just in case'. Even if you don't take any pictures, you can still go for a walk, or just photo empty streets.

    Something I did for a while was to 'tail' photographers with DSLRs who were taking photos everywhere and anywhere. It helped to realize how little people react to having their photo taken (they don't react at all, they just keep walking).

    If al else fails - how about a little liquid confidence? Smile