Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
 71 
 on: Today at 12:16:26 PM 
Started by N80 - Last post by N80
Thanks guys. I probably would not use QTR just to print with Epson's K3 ink set. The Cone K7 ink set comes with a wide range of curves from Jon Cone that are designed to work with QTR so I'd probably be able to find a paper combo that I liked which means that I still probably would not need a device for printer profiling. However, I just priced the Cone K7 ink set and it is like $380, plus you have to buy empty cartridges and a device to reset some sort of chip. I don't print enough and my images probably can't justify that sort of expense.

So I think it just comes down to monitor profiling for me and using the basic Epson K3 ink set.

As for the ColorMunki Display verses the i1Display Pro, the X-Rite website comparison pretty much says that the main difference is how long calibration takes and more options in the software. They seem to indicate that the quality of the hardware calibration is pretty much the same between the two. Speed is not an issue I'd pay extra for and I probably do not need the extra options in the 'advanced' mode so I'm currently leaning toward the ColorMunki. Would be interested in knowing any additional advantages of the i1Display Pro.

 72 
 on: Today at 12:15:17 PM 
Started by feppe - Last post by feppe
Other than Mirrorless, you described a Nikon D810 w/ the new 105mm f/1.4 or even the older DC lenses.

Sony cameras are wonderful and mirrorless has some advantages for non-action subjects, but I find compactness is not one of them.  Everyone has their own personal preferences, but while I can agree that an 1DX or F5 might be too big for some people, I find anything smaller than my D500 or maybe a D7200 almost unusable.  And I have small hands.

D810 would stretch my budget, especially with that lens. But IQ is quite a bit better than anything on my shortlist, wow! Going down to more affordable D750 the IQ edge disappears, though, as it is on par with the others on the shortlist as far as I'm concerned.

Aside: there's a Canon 5D Mk IV coming out? At 3,700 EUR for body only :o Last time I looked at camera bodies was in the Mk II days, costing 2,500 at launch. Glad I got out of that race. And yet, here I am again...

For me camera's usability is more about the control layout than too small/big size. I shot Canons for years before moving to MFT.

I haven't done bulk and weight comparisons recently, but you're right in that mirrorless doesn't offer much - if any - improvements on size when comparing the same crop factor cameras. Here a size comparison between Fujifilm X-T2 with 90mm (135mm equivalent), Sony A7II with 90mm (longest Camera Size has), and Nikon D810 with 105mm. Fuji is also lightest at 1,047g, Sony 1,201g, Nikon 1,770g. Pretty striking differences between APS-C and FF. The apertures between the three combos are roughly similar, but the weight and size differential between the Sony and Nikon would be smaller with a native or adapted 105mm lens.

Looking at the comparison I wouldn't want to do travel photography with either of the FF behemoths, so that would limit their use to the studio, keeping my MFT gear for travel and backup. That might be ok, though.

If you decide to go the full frame route with adapted lenses, another lens I would recommend is the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. It is a great macro but also works beautifully as a portrait lens and short tele. The images have a rightness to them that I have only seen in the Otus and super tele, as well as some MF glass.

I replaced my Zeiss 100mm f2.0 and 135mm f2.0 APO and don't regret it.

Good to see you here, Bernard, still active!

That Voigtlander does look good, and second hand is within reach financially. Seems like it's discontinued, and unfortunately it hasn't appeared once on eBay in the EU in the last months, so would be a long shot to acquire.

In my book the FOV of the 90 F2 is shallow enough. If you want more and you don't mind manual focus (with focus peaking or split view) then you have some interesting options using the Metabones Speedbooster adapter; I use it with a Samyang 135 F2 but to keep it under 135 mm equiv you could use something like Nikon 105 (maybe the DC version) or the above mentioned Voigtlander 125.

Keep in mind only the newer Fujis have double SD card, the X-Pro2 and the X-T2.

Yes, I'd expect f2 (I believe f/3 full frame equivalent) to be sufficient as well. I'm not entirely convinced I'd really need paper-thin DOF, and I have MF film gear for the rare occasion.

Nevertheless, Speed Booster sounds like a workable compromise, but I'd have to rent the Fuji to be able to tell if I can easily and accurately pull focus manually with whatever aids they have. I'm really disappointed with the fiddliness of Olympus OM-D EM-5's aid, which is very difficult to use handheld.

I'm attracted to the X-T2 for the control layout, dual card slots, solid native prime lens selection, and reasonable price. I'll have to confirm how well the control layout works for me by renting, and see if it's any less fiddly to use than my Olympus.

In any case, I think there are rentals ahead, as there are pros and cons to every option!

 73 
 on: Today at 11:50:12 AM 
Started by FranciscoDisilvestro - Last post by RSL
A fine shot, Frank. The dog in the background finishes the picture. I don't usually disagree with Bob, but I don't think you need to mess with the ground's shape. It's clear the ground slopes off on the right. It's parallel on the left. But if it were mine I'd surely see if I couldn't find a bit of detail inside the hull of the boat.

 74 
 on: Today at 11:49:24 AM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by Paul2660
The easiest way to do mirrorless for P1 would be to release an EVF based finder for the current XF camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

+1 on that.

Paul C

 75 
 on: Today at 11:38:50 AM 
Started by rdonson - Last post by rdonson
Mark,

Thanks so much for the well thought out and detailed article.  My wife and I are particularly interested in the Photo Album and the Tin Photo Box and your review will likely save us a great deal of frustration and wasted materials.  I'll be printing on my Epson SC P800 from Lightroom so your article is just perfect for my needs.  The next task is finding the materials and hoping not to break the piggy bank.  😜

 76 
 on: Today at 11:20:40 AM 
Started by Alan Smallbone - Last post by Alan Smallbone
Hi Alan,

Great shot(s), and well processed.

You presumably took multiple 'shorter' exposures to allow for stacking with a better S/N, limit the buildup of lightpollution, and reduce the limitations of accuracy from the automatic mount. How good is its accuracy (is it as good as the AstroTrack)? From what I've read, its good for wide field imaging, but for longer focal lengths (say 300mm and up) it's less suited (also because of the payload limitation, which is good enough for compact transport, lighter cameras, and Wide-field work).


Thanks a lot Bart. Yes the shorter exposures were for all the stated reasons. The Star Adventurer is pretty good, the payload is 11lbs as stated and you can get holder with a counterweight system and as long as you had it balanced well you could probably go higher. The problem with these small portable mounts is there are realistic limitations on what the tripod and setup and can be expected to do.

I am currently evaluating several small portable mounts and will write up the results. I also own an Astrotrac with the portable pier system and that is a very stable unit, though the big limitation of the Astrotrac is the limited tracking time, 2 hours before having to reset it. I cannot say for sure what the tracking accuracy of the mounts are, I have yet to do that testing but I have come up with a way of doing it. I am planning on testing that soon, I have to go to another location to do a lot of the testing as my home is almost always clouded over or has a high level of dew and moisture. (on the coast) so that limits my testing time.  The mounts I am testing and comparing are the Astrotrac, Star Adventurer, Vixen Polarie, IOptron Skytracker, and the Kenko Skymemo. I should be able to measure and compare the PE of the mounts with a guiding setup that I have and be able to run it on each of the mounts, just need to get them all setup and running on the same night. The critical thing with these one axis mounts is getting a really good polar alignment as that will dictate exposure length for longer focal lengths more the PE of the mount, at least for portable setups.


With the help of PixInsight you managed to get an excellent result (at this size anyway).

PixInsight is extremely capable, but comes with an assumption that one is somewhat versed in Astronomical imaging. Its power also requires a different user interface compared to an average photoeditor. But there are a lot of things that are implemented very well, and the makers are responsive when it comes to questions/suggestions from the user community. Some features are so well designed that one would like to see those in Photoshop as well, for regular image use.

The lack of complete documentation does make for a bumpy ride, although the parts that are documented (and the tooltips) are very well done, but there is also a lot of user generated (tutorial) material available. In addition, PixInsight is also a development environment, where users can write their own code that uses the PixInsight Libraries. The makers are professionals in their field, and it shows that they understand the needs of Astronomers. but it's certainly not kids stuff.

I agree that Pixinsight is not kids stuff. It has some really nice features and it is one of those things that you need to really use a lot, and just the nature of the software make it more trial and error than anything else. The documentation is getting better and there are certainly a lot more tutorials out there than they used to be. I do look at the forums a lot, there is a good deal of information available. What the biggest difference for me was attending an immersive workshop for 5 days with one of the developers, it was all hands on and that really boosted my abilities with the software. I also keep lots of icons and add my own notations to the icons, a series of notes of what I have discovered about the tool, something I call my "old man notes". I also take detailed notes when using it, it really helps when I don't use the software for a time and be able to go back and review things. I know I have only scratched the surface on what the program is capable of doing. I am sure there are features I will probably never use or need. It is hard to describe the software to those who have no need to use it.

Alan

 77 
 on: Today at 11:11:52 AM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by BernardLanguillier
The easiest way to do mirrorless for P1 would be to release an EVF based finder for the current XF camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

 78 
 on: Today at 10:54:19 AM 
Started by Alan Smallbone - Last post by Alan Smallbone
One of the main reasons I switched to the K1. the Astrotracer feature is most impressive.

This is a 2.5 minute single exposure for the sky combined with a shot of the foreground. Astrotracer does blur the foreground. But for the cost the K1 packs quite a punch.

Nice Paul, interesting tech on the K1.

Alan

 79 
 on: Today at 10:53:31 AM 
Started by Alan Smallbone - Last post by Alan Smallbone
Wow, Alan, I'm really impressed.  Did you get that while being in OC?  If so, I'm doubly impressed!!!

Rand

Thanks Rand, not quite the OC but just east of Temecula, still a lot of light pollution, mostly from San Diego and Temecula.

Alan

 80 
 on: Today at 10:38:26 AM 
Started by Robert-Peter Westphal - Last post by sandymc
I've recently completed the process of scanning a large number of transparencies and negatives using a Nikon scanner. After experimenting with various workflows, I ended up scanning to Nikon NEF, then converting to DNG in batch via DNG converter, then importing into LR. I chose to go that way largely because of it was the easiest way to efficiently add metadata, and because I could convert to compressed DNGs. A lot of scans take up a LOT of storage. I did experiment with adjustments, including sharpening. I noticed no difference between importing TIFF format scans, Nikon NEF format scans, or converted DNG scans.

Sandy

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10