Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => Article Discussions => Topic started by: barbibul on September 18, 2024, 08:59:27 am
-
Camera BODIES only:
Canon EOS R1: $6,300
Nikon Z9 : $5,500
Leica SL3: $7,000
Hasselblad X2D 100C: $8,200
Canon EOS R5 Mark II: $4,300
Sony A7C II: $2,200
etc...
Dear Jon Swindall,
You wrote "The future of mirrorless is bright – it’s exciting to think about what’s out there currently and where this technology will take us."
Great.
You just forgot to mention that MOST people will be taken nowhere because these cameras and lenses are outrageously expensive. So, instead, they will stick to their phones.
More than 20 years ago, I became interested in photography because good quality cameras and lenses were affordable. Even for a student...
In 2024, good compact cameras don't exist anymore.
In 2009, Michael Reichmann wrote "In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance." Kidding ? No – I’m Not.
(https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/) Kidding (https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/)
BTW, I have a G10 and it's still fully functional...
We cannot do this anymore, because there are no more good and modern $500 cameras.
So, the world of modern mirrorless cameras may be "exciting" for you. However, the hype around pricey mirrorless cameras prevents many young people to discover the wonderful world of photography IMO.
-
You can buy very good digital cameras srcond hand if you need one…
What I don’t understand is how a 24 mp canon can shoot 8K Raw video…?
-
Barbibul.
You have a point. The trouble is, everything has shot up in price over recent years, and inflation leaves many behind. Never mind the buying opportunities for youngsters - think old folks too. The young don’t usually have pots of disposable cash unless they have the luck to be in a wealthy family; the old can sometimes be too concerned with keeping their heads above water if pensions and savings are not robust enough to cope with the inflation to which I referred, and there is another important factor to consider: if you have been out of the work system for several years, your mindset remains very much attuned to what prices were during your heyday, and associated values stay right there with them too.
The suggestion was made to buy used. Well, I have mixed emotions about that. I have bought used lenses (manual), but only from one long-established and exclusively Nikon dealer in London. I would buy a used body from them too, because after several years, I know I can trust them. Sadly, because of Brexit, I can no longer buy from them: import taxes into Spain make it silly, and repair facilities are also pretty sketchy. I would never buy privately. Doubtlessly, if I lived in a city like Madrid or Barcelona, the options and opportunities to see and possibly try before parting with cash would exist, but not out here in the island sticks.
I have just tonight pulled out my old Nikon and fitted a 1.8/105 Nikkor G to it. It looks HUGE. My first thought was God, do I want to wander the streets with that bait hanging on me? Maybe my foray into iPhone photography has been an eye-opener, and that that’s where an old cat should stay to feel safe out there. I have been mugged, and my watch taken, so yeah, shit does happen.
-
All those cameras are so expensive and you can't even make a phone call on them! 🤣
-
Are you people not aware of the current 20mp Nikon DX mirrorless camera, the Z50? This camera can be bought with 2 kit lenses for a mere A$1879 if you search for the best price, which is equivalent to US$1269.
The 2 kit lenses are 16-50mm, and 50-250-mm. With the 16-50 zoom attached, the total weight is a mere 625g. With the 50-250 zoom attached, the total weight is 920g. Here are the full specs from the Nikon website.
https://www.nikon.com.au/z-50-nikkor-16-50mm-50-250mm-vr?srsltid=AfmBOorqOWIMdNfcPqghQI2pTaVdtqn9g3T3oWrtw0tYZVBt5jIP70aa
-
But Ray, the apertures, the apertures...
I enjoy using lenses that are open to the possibility of shallow DOF; that's the main gripe that I have with my iPhone, but fortunately, being in Moriyama mode these days, everything looking crisp across the world doesn't hurt. However, not everybody lives in a spiritual fantasy of hills, meadows, seascapes - or deserts, for that, matter. For an ILC, I would insist on wide apertures being there for when I want them. That absent, one is no better off than before.
;-)
-
Rob,
Regarding DOF... recent phones (I have an iPhone 15 Pro Max) have a portrait mode. You can shoot with a 24mm, 48mm, or 120mm eqv. focal lengths. But, the magic is, you can change the amount of blur or where the focus is in post!
1. The first image, which I post here in full 12 Mpx glory for you to inspect (though squeezed into a jpeg for posting here), was shot in a dim-lit pub, with an eqv. 48mm lens, 1/17s handheld, single shot. By default, the image is displayed at f/4.5 eqv.
2. But the f/stop and focus area can be changed in post: in the next shot, I am showing the focus square and eqv. f/1.4
3. The focus area is now placed on the background, the same f/1.4 eqv.
4. Blurring effect removed completely
Hope this helps :)
-
Slobodan -
Reading this over a plate of pasta and prawns that I made. One day, I will get this right; the simplicity is there to fool you and, subsequently, make you feel worse when it doesn’t live up to the dream when you bought the ingredients. 350gms prawns = euros 5, +or-, in the local supermarket.
The original photo looks lovely; you manage to find some great companions.
I don’t like the look of the next two shots: the edges of the guy’s shirt look so wrong and the girl’s face when you switch to background focus also looks unnaturally bad (IMO), though others may think otherwise. As a straight shot - very good indeed.
Not convinced they can do it yet.
Rob
-
Again, buy second hand. I do it more and more without disapointments.
We live in rich countries where many people buy more than they need or ( have time to) use.
I bought for little money two z3200 printers that had the original half- cartridges in them...
These printer are still at the top of their class and I know how to do basic repairs- the new ones are faster, but not better.
Today i buy a second hand 58mm nikkor f/1.4 lens for less than 600 €. This time not private so i can stll return it if there is something wrong. This lens is special and unique in its rendering style. No mirrorless camera required, but possible.
...
-
Hi Rob,
It seems I was writing my response about the same time that Slobodan posted his, which addresses similar issues. But I'll post my response anyway, in case it's of any help.
"Why do you need wide apertures? Is it to create a blurry background and foreground, or enable a faster shutter speed in low light?
If you want a blurry background and foreground, Photoshop has the tools which enable you to select any parts of an image, at any size, and blur them to whatever extent you want.
If you need a fast shutter speed using long telephoto lenses in poor light, then increased noise from a high ISO will result if you don't use a wide aperture. However, since you appear to be a fan of noisy and grainy, old-fashioned film photos, I don't think that should be a problem for you. ;)
If you need a fast shutter speed for short distances in poor light, the Z50 has a built-in flash."
-
then increased noise from a high ISO will result
High ISO does not increase noise. Under exposure increases noise. One can shoot a very low ISO with noise and a very high ISO without of the same scene because it is exposure that affects noise, not ISO.
-
Yes, you are right, Andrew. It's under-exposure that increases noise. However, the point I was trying to make is that a requirement for a fast shutter speed in low light, using a long telephoto which doesn't have a wide aperture, will result in more noise, despite using a high ISO.
Perhaps I should have written: "then increased noise from the need to use a high ISO will result if you don't use a wide aperture."
-
What I'd say is this: when the ISO setting is cranked up, automatic exposure can lead to more noise because it decreases the exposure (that is, the combination of aperture and shutter speed is set to allow less light to be captured by the sensor).
And yes, altering ISO and, thus, the exposure recommendation can come in handy in low-light situations where you may need to increase the ISO setting and this exposure recommendation to avoid camera shake or stop motion with a higher shutter speed. Or if you wish to alter DOF, that wouldn’t be recommended at a lower ISO setting. This results in less exposure and result in noise.
-
Hi Rob,
It seems I was writing my response about the same time that Slobodan posted his, which addresses similar issues. But I'll post my response anyway, in case it's of any help.
"Why do you need wide apertures? Is it to create a blurry background and foreground, or enable a faster shutter speed in low light?
If you want a blurry background and foreground, Photoshop has the tools which enable you to select any parts of an image, at any size, and blur them to whatever extent you want.
If you need a fast shutter speed using long telephoto lenses in poor light, then increased noise from a high ISO will result if you don't use a wide aperture. However, since you appear to be a fan of noisy and grainy, old-fashioned film photos, I don't think that should be a problem for you. ;)
If you need a fast shutter speed for short distances in poor light, the Z50 has a built-in flash."
Ray, Ray! You are being slightly disingenuous here: we both know the awkward reality behind those points you put forward, and I get the distinct impression that you are recycling the same arguments you made to yourself in order to convince the wiser, younger you that what you were about to commit to was, in fact, sensible.
I have been a past master of self-deception; takes one to know one etc. etc.
;-)
-
https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/more-questions-asked-and.html
The above deals with some iPhone issues, especially regarding long lenses.
-
High ISO does not increase noise. Under exposure increases noise. One can shoot a very low ISO with noise and a very high ISO without of the same scene because it is exposure that affects noise, not ISO.
Isn't this just silly? Shooting with high ISO always gives me more noise. Good enough for me! If A always causes D, then A causes D regardless of whether there are also B and C in between.
Would you say that shooting someone in the heart does not cause death, it's the loss of blood that causes death? I sure wouldn't.
-
Isn't this just silly? Shooting with high ISO always gives me more noise.
Because how you don't control the exposure and allow the capture to be under exposed. Under exposure causes noise, not ISO.
Want to see a higher ISO produce lower noise than a lower ISO?
Setting ISO speed does not change the sensitivity of the sensor to light like volume control does not change the sensitivity of a radio. In both cases the setting (ISO or volume) controls only the signal processing, while the input stage (sensor, antenna) provides the same input signal. When the ISO setting is cranked up, automatic exposure results in more noise - automatic exposure, in this case, decrease the exposure (that is, the combination of aperture and shutter speed is set to allow less light to be captured by the sensor). Less exposure, less light, more noise. A higher ISO may provide less noise (due to exposure). A doesn't (always) cause D. C can cause D if you let it.
-
This is confusing.
Let’s think of a photo of a car.
1. Stationary vehicle: If you set ISO at the base figure, meter manually to find the setting required, then you get the least noise.
2. Okay, that seems reasonable, but what if you need the same aperture for DOF reasons, but need to raise the shutter speed to cope with subject motion if that same car now starts to move? (Ignore panning shots.)
You can’t open the lens up without losing the required depth, and neither can you avoid raising shutter speed if you want to keep the car sharp. If you don’t raise the ISO setting you can’t change the shutter speed because then you underexpose, creating noise. If you do raise the shutter speed and raise the ISO setting you still cause noise. Either way, doing nothing to the ISO, or raising the ISO, you get noise.
How can you avoid this and not get noise?
-
This is confusing.
Let’s think of a photo of a car.
1. Stationary vehicle: If you set ISO at the base figure, meter manually to find the setting required, then you get the least noise.
2. Okay, that seems reasonable, but what if you need the same aperture for DOF reasons, but need to raise the shutter speed to cope with subject motion if that same car now starts to move? (Ignore panning shots.)
You can’t open the lens up without losing the required depth, and neither can you avoid raising shutter speed if you want to keep the car sharp. If you don’t raise the ISO setting you can’t change the shutter speed because then you underexpose, creating noise. If you do raise the shutter speed and raise the ISO setting you still cause noise. Either way, doing nothing to the ISO, or raising the ISO, you get noise.
How can you avoid this and not get noise?
Was it confusing during the film days? What I would have done is put the ASA 100 back in my bag and pulled out ASA 400 and I'd get the results with more grain.
The point is this: ISO has no direct effect on noise. It has a direct effect on an exposure recommendation that does affect noise. One doesn't have to take that recommendation from an automatic exposure system that uses ISO. But yes, there are absolutely times when you need more (resulting) brightness from the ISO attribute, and you'll get more noise because the capture will be underexposed. If you had enough light to get the job done as you wish, you would expose optimally (at any ISO). I outlined several circumstances when you must raise the ISO (and get the resulting underexposure + noise). Just as one did with film resulting in more grain.
But again, high ISO (or low) isn't the attribute that affects noise; it's all about exposure.
Anyone you can test this thenmselives quite easily.
Set up your camera on a tripod, outside on a sunny day. We will not even use your camera meter, just use the good old “Sunny 16 rule.”
Set ISO to 125 and camera to full manual. Set exposure (the only two exposure attributes) to 125th of a second at F16.
1. Take a capture using the above exposure and ISO.
2. Set ISO to 800; change nothing else. The exposure is still 125th at F16.
3. Set the ISO back to 100. Change the shutter to a 500th of a second, nothing else! This is what the meter would have recommended from capture #2. This 3rd image will, of course, be 2 stops underexposed. And it will need to be brightened in the raw converter.
#1 and #2 have identical exposure; the only change is ISO. Both have identical noise!
#1 and #3 have identical ISO, but #3 will be far more noisy because it is underexposed. As #2 would be if the photographer followed the automatic exposure recommendation.
And now we see that an increase in noise has little if anything to do with ISO and everything to do with exposure.
Yeah, sometimes the tradeoff of the capture you need is less exposure and more noise.
Well summed up by the creator of RawDigger here: https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
-
Andrew,
I think this is all basic stuff. We all know that less light reaching the sensor results in more noise, which is particularly noticeable in the shadows.
I always shoot in manual mode, moving the the focussing point in the viewfinder to the brightest part of the image and adjusting the shutter speed, whilst looking at the camera's metering system in the viewfinder, to ensure that the brightest part, usually the sky, is not overexposed.
If the shutter speed is too slow for a sharp image in the circumstances, then I'll raise the ISO and increase the shutter speed proportionally.
However, if I raise the shutter speed without raising ISO, I usually find during processing in Photoshop, that the image is more noisy than the same image with increased ISO, therefore, logically, one could argue that raising ISO reduces noise.
In common language, 'cause and effect' are often confused. An obvious example, often repeated in the media, is the claim that an extreme weather event is caused by climate change.
However, it should be obvious that climate change is not a cause of any weather event. Climate change is a result of the changes in weather patterns. Climate is defined as an average of weather events over a 30 year period. Changes in weather patterns have numerous, interacting causes, which are often too chaotic to accurately quantify, which result in a change of climate.
Oops! Have I strayed off topic? ;)
-
Andrew,
I think this is all basic stuff. We all know that less light reaching the sensor results in more noise, which is particularly noticeable in the shadows.
I honestly don't know what 'we' all know. Someone wrote: "then increased noise from a high ISO will result" which was corrected, nothing more.
In common language, 'cause and effect' are often confused.
Agreed, the sentence above in quotes is an example. ;)
Here's another silly one: "then increased noise from a high Aperture will result". ::)
-
Because how you don't control the exposure and allow the capture to be under exposed. Under exposure causes noise, not ISO.
Want to see a higher ISO produce lower noise than a lower ISO?
Setting ISO speed does not change the sensitivity of the sensor to light like volume control does not change the sensitivity of a radio. In both cases the setting (ISO or volume) controls only the signal processing, while the input stage (sensor, antenna) provides the same input signal. When the ISO setting is cranked up, automatic exposure results in more noise - automatic exposure, in this case, decrease the exposure (that is, the combination of aperture and shutter speed is set to allow less light to be captured by the sensor). Less exposure, less light, more noise. A higher ISO may provide less noise (due to exposure). A doesn't (always) cause D. C can cause D if you let it.
I don't buy it. I defy you to describe a real world situation, where the goal is a properly exposed image, where A does not cause D.
-
I don't buy it. I defy you to describe a real world situation, where the goal is a properly exposed image, where A does not cause D.
I already did (and have done so for 4+ decades) on film (transparency no less) and digital, for a living.
"Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes." -Jawaharlal Nehru
-
Digitaldog, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions; that link you provided was an eye-opener. I had never questioned the truth of the “triangle” with film, though it had not been called that in my time on the job. I thought it would be the same with sensors.
The take-away I get is that no, one cannot equate exposing film with exposing a sensor. Basically, I think it’s not the same thing as simply using a faster film stock, but more akin to pushing film. I must try out that three-exposure experiment you suggest.
Thank you again for your time.
Rob
-
Digitaldog, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions; that link you provided was an eye-opener.
Another good video (If I didn't already post it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=il28la8DRCU
Kind of long but worth the time to view.
-
Cause and effect indeed:
Once More into the Negatives of the “Exposure Triangle” Dear Friends, Abridged Version:
The triangle model states that noise rises as a result of ISO being increased.
This is tosh, it’s worse than saying that “well, the wind is blowing because the trees are swaying” (in that case, all that’s happened is a mix-up of cause and effect), it’s like saying that the sea is salty because of all of the lox swimming in it (which goes beyond just confusing cause and effect, because here the “cause” is an absolute invention – a salmon swimming in the sea isn’t salty, while lox, a product of brining salmon fillets, doesn’t swim in the sea. It doesn’t swim at all).
The model warns against raising ISO “because of increases in noise”.
Another lie – everything is exactly the opposite; when the exposure is fixed, not only will raising ISO not worsen the signal-to-noise ratio, it may noticeably improve it.
The model says, right in the name, that ISO is a part of exposure, which is absolute balderdash.
The model presents ISO as a part equal to exposure itself (highlighted by the fact that the sides of the triangle are equilateral), which is, again, absolute nonsense.
The model does not at all underscore the leading role of exposure in controlling noise and dynamic range. In fact, the model hides it.
Exposure is much more important, and it needs to be set first so as to be as high as possible, while ISO is set afterwards so as to reach the desired lightness, but without clipping the elements in the highlights that are important to the composition of the scene. In this case, even the simple in-camera histogram isn’t unhelpful, because a mistake towards insufficiently high ISO leads to less, if any, additional noise than a mistake with the exposure due to a premature clipping indication taken “from the JPEG”.
The model suggests that one consider the goal of exposure to be lightness.
Absolute hokum. Lightness only appears as a result of rendering and processing, and all of that happens after exposure. Exposure and lightness are different physical quantities, with different units of measurement – how can they be interchanged?
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
-
Another good video (If I didn't already post it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=il28la8DRCU
Kind of long but worth the time to view.
Thanks again for the new link.
-
Ray, did you buy too late or too soon?
That's one of the problems with modern photography; with film cameras, model changes were years between, and most of the time you could ignore them. Perhaps that’s partly why camera sales have plummeted… the investment seems a risk too far, especially higher up the tree.
-
As a professional my investment in equipment was always needs based and income related.
Now, happily, any 'investment' in equipment within my limited means is based solely on the love and enjoyment of what it is I continue to do.
What the fuck else am I going to do with the limited time left?
;)
-
Keith, you have to save for the next go round. That's why some people are born into rich families: they were thrifty the previous incarnation, and reap the reward the next time!
Have you noticed that it's mainly institutions that try to tell you that you can’t take it with you, and then go on to suggest you leave it to them? You gotta believe positively, just like Mr Trump obviously does.
Rob
-
Rob, with my luck I'll be reincarnated as a dung beetle.
Keith
-
Rob, with my luck I'll be reincarnated as a dung beetle.
Keith
I just knew that we could raise LuLa from its literary slumber! The thought that instantly hit me was this: is a dung beetle a happy beetle? Discuss. ;-)
-
I just knew that we could raise LuLa from its literary slumber! The thought that instantly hit me was this: is a dung beetle a happy beetle? Discuss. ;-)
Shit, yes!
-
You see, Keith? The future, politicians be damned and even notwithstanding, could still offer a bright new dimension!
The residual lesson to keep under the carapace from this life is this: beware those freakin’ trapdoor spiders and avoid like the plague those odd little depressions in the sand.