I’ve mostly been doing video stuff on this trip, as I’ve got loads of photos from my previous trips. But, as it happens, I did take some photos yesterday specially for wallpaper reasons, mostly for my iPad and iPhone.
That’s great, I do similar things with photo collections when I get the time to go on holidays. I’ve found that the photos have their own sentimental (obviously) since the person that takes the shot usually has some memory of other senses they were experiencing during this period.
I have all my photographs from my trip to Japan but can’t convey how very humid it was but whenever I see a photograph from that trip I remember it and maybe the meal I had in a close by udon place.
Glad you’re enjoying yourself.
I want to be able to record from 3 or 4 different mics and maybe 2 or 3 cameras when doing video of aircraft engine runups, to try and catch the range of sound from these things. I’ve got stuff like outdoor airport wind noise, propellers, exhaust note, etc. And I want to capture it fairly accurately at different points so I figure multi channel recording is in order.
I know some of you guys are up on the audios. Think something like a Tascam DR-40 would be sufficient for a portable, low cost solution?
For those into astrophotography.
That seems mad risky compared to just screwing a sodium filter onto the end of your lens.
The advantage of sensor filters is that you can use different lenses without having a collection of different sized screw on filters.
Also, if you’re using a telescope, it’s the only option.
Anyone have experience with teleconverters? How big of a pain is it to use one? How much sharpness are you losing, with say a 2x?
Sharpness depends entirely on the quality of the lens and the teleconverter. But really, are you a pro shooting stuff that is going to be printed onto a gigantic advertisement outside my office? How much sharpness do you need? Will you even notice?
If you have a 50mm lens and want a 100, and a 2x teleconverter is cheaper, why not?
Honestly, I’ve never used one. I just have a bunch of cheap lenses, so they aren’t really useful. But my camera does have a setting for 2x digital teleconverter, which is basically just cropping in-camera. Instead of using the whole sensor for 1080p video, it just samples the middle instead. You can tell it’s not as good quality as without it, but it’s still just fine if you really need some extra zooming.
Astrophotography - all the sharpness ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 Like
SONY just announced the god camera.
1 Like
Forward facing screen option?
This sounds weird, but are the mirrorless bodies getting too small? That looks really tiny in those pictures. It’s nice to have something to hang on to, especially with a long lens mounted.
Does this NOT have a tilty flippy screen? Why even make a camera with a screen that isn’t tilty and flippy in 2017?
Mirrorless bodies being small is great. That’s the whole point. Nobody wants to carry around big heavy stuff for no reason. You want to carry less. Most power in the smallest space.
The problem is that when you’ve got a large sensor, you’ve got larger lenses. This has a full frame sensor, so the longer and wide aperture lenses are quite large and heavy. This is why I stick with micro 4/3. Smaller camera, but also smaller lenses.
“Articulated LCD - Tilting”
Sigh. Why not flip-around-able screens on every camera? Tilting is almost pointless.
Tilty only? I agree that every camera should be tilty and flippy, but just tilting is far from useless. It’s very useful when you have the camera up high or down low.
Yes, it’s good for that, but compared to the canon flippy turny screen, it’s super limited.
I tried to figure out which camera had the articulating screen first, and that information was not easy to find. Even so, I don’t think Canon gets the credit for that one. Their top of the line cameras don’t have screens that move at all. Still don’t see why any camera made today by any company would have a screen that isn’t fully articulate.What is the reason not to do it?
Maybe durability? Pro cameras are built to take a lot more abuse than baby’s first SLR.