All Forum Comments
Algernon wrote:
It's obvious on here that people don't want to pay for R&D..... So Ricoh can sack their R&D staff to keep the prices low for their not very valuable customers
--
Speaking as someone who can only afford to buy a camera when a new one comes out and either the previous model gets discounted or low-use used ones hit the second-hand market, can I just say "Thank you," to all you rich early adopters who 'subsidise' both the R&D and my hobby?It's obvious on here that people don't want to pay for R&D..... So Ricoh can sack their R&D staff to keep the prices low for their not very valuable customers
--
Oh, and to SRS who are now selling off K-S1 bodies for under £300.
Comment by Aitch53 posted on Discount offers - a good thing or not? at 12/06/2015 - 19:14
Comment by Aitch53 posted on 'f stop' versus 'aperture value' at 30/05/2015 - 10:23
andrewk wrote:
Andrew
Oops! Gotcha.Aitch53 wrote:
Second, I prefer a fast shutter speed especially at the longer end of the range. It's a heavy beast and I'm not as young as I was.
I think you might have overlooked "or equivalent". Shooting at f/8 1/500sec ISO100 is equivalent. Personally, I find shooting manual is way less faffing about - you do not have to reshoot when the automatics get it wrong, which in my experience is most of the time. Second, I prefer a fast shutter speed especially at the longer end of the range. It's a heavy beast and I'm not as young as I was.
Andrew
First thing I need to do is get really comfortable with the controls - I do miss the simplicity of my old MX - and that comes with use.
Comment by Aitch53 posted on Down by the river... at 16/05/2015 - 17:26
andrewk wrote:
I do remember the Weston meter and invercone but have never owned one. If you don't have an incident lightmeter, the best way to meter that shot is probably to take a reading off the palm of your hand (in the same light as the swans) using your camera set to spot metering and manual exposure - and then open up one stop. Alternatively, you could spot meter off the brightest part of the swan and open up two stops.
Back in the days of my first SLR (a Zenit 3m with the f3.5 Industar!), I used a cheap Boots exposure meter - a selenium cell one. By coincidence, my grey school trousers just happened to be just the right shade that I could take a reading off them and it would be spot on.I do remember the Weston meter and invercone but have never owned one. If you don't have an incident lightmeter, the best way to meter that shot is probably to take a reading off the palm of your hand (in the same light as the swans) using your camera set to spot metering and manual exposure - and then open up one stop. Alternatively, you could spot meter off the brightest part of the swan and open up two stops.
andrewk wrote:
I have just checked the EXIF data for the swan shot. It was taken at F/9.5 1/750 ISO100 - which suggests that the camera was on full auto. It is about 1 full stop down on the Sunny 16 rule. Ignoring the camera metering and shooting at f/16 1/100sec ISO100 (or equivalent) would probably have worked out fine too.
Andrew
True, however...I have just checked the EXIF data for the swan shot. It was taken at F/9.5 1/750 ISO100 - which suggests that the camera was on full auto. It is about 1 full stop down on the Sunny 16 rule. Ignoring the camera metering and shooting at f/16 1/100sec ISO100 (or equivalent) would probably have worked out fine too.
Andrew
First, I am still getting used to the 'new' beast, so I want to get the feel for the Auto setting prior to branching out into the murky waters of manual.
Second, I prefer a fast shutter speed especially at the longer end of the range. It's a heavy beast and I'm not as young as I was.
Finally, when trying to follow fast moving (relatively) birds etc, one doesn't have time to faff around too much.
But thanks for your advice.
Comment by Aitch53 posted on Down by the river... at 16/05/2015 - 10:33
Smeggypants wrote:
Photography and editing of photographs is only a fraction of the intended usage of Photoshop. People use Photoshop for making packaging, game textures, drawing, fliers, posters, digital painting,etc,etc,etc
True. Not to mention being silly...Photography and editing of photographs is only a fraction of the intended usage of Photoshop. People use Photoshop for making packaging, game textures, drawing, fliers, posters, digital painting,etc,etc,etc
Picture not taken with a Pentax - sorry - but was 'improved' in PSE-11...
Comment by Aitch53 posted on lightroom, photoshop...or something else? at 15/05/2015 - 13:14
I think the main problem is the fact that most of the frames have a lot of (highly reflective) water in them. Guaranteed to confuse any exposure meter. Except possibly a Weston Master with the invercone in place. Anyone old enough to remember them?
Anyway, a slightly earlier picture of the two swans - where he's chatting her up - with less blown-out whites.
Anyway, a slightly earlier picture of the two swans - where he's chatting her up - with less blown-out whites.
Comment by Aitch53 posted on Down by the river... at 15/05/2015 - 10:43
...with the k20d and 50-200mm lens.
Black headed gull
A small flotilla of mallards.
A pair of swans
And a very shy chaffinch!
All quite cropped - I think I should have gone for the 50-300mm!
Black headed gull
A small flotilla of mallards.
A pair of swans
And a very shy chaffinch!
All quite cropped - I think I should have gone for the 50-300mm!
Comment by Aitch53 posted on Down by the river... at 15/05/2015 - 09:45
johnriley wrote:
From time to time we seem to go through a slow patch and I suspect it's to do with the loading of the ads.
Ha! Been on the AP site recently?From time to time we seem to go through a slow patch and I suspect it's to do with the loading of the ads.
They insist on eBay ads on every page. And eBay has been sloooow recently.
Guess the effect on the AP site.
Comment by Aitch53 posted on Site very slow, just me? at 09/05/2015 - 11:49
And me. Very nice.
Hmmm, so, if I got a Q7 and the right adaptor it would make my old Tamron 400mm eqivalent to... 483 / 105 x 400... 1840mm.
I don't think I'd try hand-holding that!
Hmmm, so, if I got a Q7 and the right adaptor it would make my old Tamron 400mm eqivalent to... 483 / 105 x 400... 1840mm.
I don't think I'd try hand-holding that!
Comment by Aitch53 posted on 500mm on the Cheap at 05/05/2015 - 17:52
Made a change from Mick Ashton's C*n*n!