General Photography Banter Thread

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by csimpson, Dec 16, 2009.

  1. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,854
    Location:
    Sydney
    The newer Tamron kit is similar to Sigma switching over to the 'art' series though. It's worth looking at for sure. Just stoked that these guys are doing native E mount now.

    Also check out the A73 deals at the moment. I just picked up another backup body for $2308 and then $400 cash back makes it a crazy good camera for $1908!
     
    Psyentist likes this.
  2. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,699
    Location:
    Qld
    Are you speaking of lenses like the Canon 24-70 F/2.8?

    That's not the norm. On most the bayonet mount is part of (outside of) the plastic/metal that the front element is directly mounted within. i.e. Canon 70-200. Therefore for lenses with rotating front element (budget example, the older Canon 18-55 - not the STM version) they are not petal shaped.
     
  3. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,958
    Location:
    melbourne
    It is the norm for lenses that come supplied with a petal hood.
     
  4. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,699
    Location:
    Qld
    I think you're confused.

    Bayonet mount hoods come in both petal and "straight", and some lenses with bayonet mount hoods do indeed have rotating front elements which means the hood rotates with them meaning a petal hood is kinda silly.

    As per my prev, older Canon 18-55, 70-300 IS, plenty of others.

    I'm not sure what a bayonet mount has to do with anything, it's just an attachment mechaism.
     
  5. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,958
    Location:
    melbourne
    Trust me fam, I am absolutely not confused. Not a hugely entertaining convo tho, so I'm cool.
     
  6. theSeekerr

    theSeekerr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,610
    Location:
    Broadview SA
    Unless you inexplicably believe that catalyst meant "usually" to mean "most lenses by volume sold" rather than "most lenses by available model", this isn't a very convincing argument. Yes, very cheap very crappy lenses have the bayonet mount on a rotating front element. Most lenses aren't those.
     
  7. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,699
    Location:
    Qld
    I can't believe this is even a topic. The pics show hoods from Canon 18-55 variants iirc - both bayonet mount, with them being straight design up until they no longer had a rotating front element at which you can use a petal shaped hood.

    Of course it's "cheap very crappy lenses" because those are the ones with rotating front elements. I answered the question in perfect context of the images they posted.
     
  8. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,958
    Location:
    melbourne
  9. herzeg

    herzeg Iron Photographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,134
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm gonna eat some of my own words here and state that since this here post on Feb 5, I've been using the X-T4 almost exclusively; It's just an overall bloody bundle of joy and always in my hands...

    I've also tweaked my film simulations to the point where I'm content to shoot jpeg most of the time; happy to share these if anyone is interested.

    (The, 'if I could only have one camera' conundrum is still in favour of the D850, but not by much, and thankfully not pressing.)
     
    Deftone2k likes this.
  10. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,854
    Location:
    Sydney
    That's great to hear. I think this really resonates with me against the whole argument people have about 'menus/ergos/stuff'. If you truly use your camera heaps its forgotten so quickly it's not funny. Even now picking up older 5D DSLR bodies that I used for 6-7 years It feels alien but after 15mins its like riding a bike again and you just get used to it :D

    Really love what Fuji is putting out. I pretty much steer anyone who asks me for camera advice into the X-T30 with 18-55 combo as a starting point and the XT-4 if they have more money and some primes if they got the budget.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2021
    herzeg likes this.
  11. Psyentist

    Psyentist Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    408
    Video enhance/upscale software for Mac M1 - any of you video editors here have any recommendations? I was looking at Video Enhance AI however unfortunately it is currently unsupported.
     
  12. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,920
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Bahaha! I just came here to post the same thing! I've done some fiddling. Made only tiny changes to the image settings (+1 sharpness and small grain) and am super happy with the JPG output. I think I'm going to order the 70-300mm which will help me get over the empty feeling I have about not being able to use my 100-400mm m43 lens anymore.



    16-55mm f2.8 is great but holy shit it's large. 18-55mm is a very good lens if you don't want/need f2.8.


    Edit: gave in and preordered the 70-300mm!
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
    Deftone2k likes this.
  13. TheBear21

    TheBear21 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    Central QLD
    DaVinci Resolve. Plenty of Youtube vids on how to do it.
     
    Psyentist likes this.
  14. Dark Orange

    Dark Orange Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,878
    A model of mine is wanting to print a photo album of her photos for her bloke. Any recommendations on where to go to get it done? (There's a couple of topless images so she'd prefer a place that has a more automated system)
     
  15. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,920
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Got my XF70-300mm fuji lens in the mail yesterday. Doing some pixel peeping versus my G9 and PL 100-400mm combo and I'll be buggered but the m43 is noticeably sharper. It doesn't look like it's lens sharpness - the fuji files just look like they're software softened somehow?
    I just can't work it out.
     
  16. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,678
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Shooting in raw, and what are you processing in?
     
  17. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,920
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yep. RAW.
    Lightroom.
    SOOC jpegs are rubbish too.

    Rather than duplicate I’ll post a link to my post with example images on dpreview.
    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4565109

    RAW files there also.

    Some suggestion of shutter shock... too slow shutter speed. Shouldn’t compare $1400 Fuji lens to $2300 Panasonic lens. Etc.

    End result is that looks like an iPhone level of detail.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2021
  18. Pbx_Jnr

    Pbx_Jnr Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    yeah I'd probably try the comparison again with faster shutter speeds to eliminate that as a possible cause. But it might be just that the resolving power is better on the Panasonic lens :)

    I remember seeing someone comparing a Sigma/Tamron 100-400mm to the Sony 200-600mm with similar results
     
  19. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,920
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Hopefully it is just crappy technique on my part. Or I’ll either be flipping the Fuji stuff and keeping the G9 OR I’ll end up flipping the 70-300 and buying either the 50-140 f2.8 or the 100-400 variable.
     
  20. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,678
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    not at home to check out the raws but some of the DP people suggestions may indeed be relevant
    Also try shooting it wide open, might be getting closer to diffraction

    I wouldnt expect great tele performance from the 70-300 - i can vouch that the 100-400 is quite good though
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: