The photography thread

dbphoto

I haven't checked out the X-E3 @Jimbro66 but i'm sure I would really like it.

I switched from using Nikon D3s's to Fuji X-E2's then X-T1's around the end of 2013, and did my last two years of weddings on them, so over 100 of the damn things, and liked the jpg's straight out the camera so much I stopped shooting RAW.

The thing is, even with these two in the workshop, I tend to only ever use my iPhone to take a picture these days!

Jimbro66

dbphoto said:

I switched from using Nikon D3s's to Fuji X-E2's then X-T1's around the end of 2013.............and liked the jpg's straight out the camera so much I stopped shooting RAW.

The Fuji's jpgs are certainly one the the camera's strengths. When using the Fuji's film simulations excellent and very useable jpgs are produced. The Acros monochrome simulation in the X-E3 is particularly good. Which is probably just as well because processing the X-Trans RAF files can be a little more challenging than mainstream RAW formats.

Grumpyrocker

I find Fuji RAW to be fine for editing. I think the reason they became known as difficult is because Adobe isn't very good with them. But other programmes I use such as Capture One, RAWTherapee, Affinity - don't struggle at all. Adobe is a very complacent company, sat on a lot of money and not innovating enough. Used to use LR but it feels like it's treading water these days.

That being said, thanks to those Fuji JPG files I tend to do less RAW editing than I did in my Canon days. Quite often I'll do a light edit to the JPG and that's all I need. I do shoot RAW + JPG so I have the negative if I need it.

RiftAmps

ThePrettyDamned said:

RiftAmps said:

ThePrettyDamned

Cool. I think I might do a trade for an a7. I'm not going to use autofocus lenses on it  but it'll get me taking more pictures... And if I really love it, maybe it's the start of something new. 

Thanks! 

I have the A7Rii and use it with both fully manual Cine lenses and adapted vintage. I have no AF lenses for it although when I do need one I just hire one. 

Definitely don't want an a7rii - I have a pretty powerful computer but 42mp raws will be a pain the arse to process. If I was looking at a7rii money is probably save a bit more and get a7iii.

I really haven't had any trouble, but I suppose that depends what computer you're using. My MBP (207 model) processes a full 32gb SD card full of RAW files in less than a minute. Each file is around 80mb. Once they're in Lightroom everything is lightning quick. I don't even think about it now.

Yes, I suppose I don't need 42mp images, but I like the option and allows me to do things that I couldn't do with an 18mb sensor or similar.

zepp76

RiftAmps said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

RiftAmps said:

ThePrettyDamned

Cool. I think I might do a trade for an a7. I'm not going to use autofocus lenses on it  but it'll get me taking more pictures... And if I really love it, maybe it's the start of something new. 

Thanks! 

I have the A7Rii and use it with both fully manual Cine lenses and adapted vintage. I have no AF lenses for it although when I do need one I just hire one. 

Definitely don't want an a7rii - I have a pretty powerful computer but 42mp raws will be a pain the arse to process. If I was looking at a7rii money is probably save a bit more and get a7iii.

I really haven't had any trouble, but I suppose that depends what computer you're using. My MBP (207 model) processes a full 32gb SD card full of RAW files in less than a minute. Each file is around 80mb. Once they're in Lightroom everything is lightning quick. I don't even think about it now.

Yes, I suppose I don't need 42mp images, but I like the option and allows me to do things that I couldn't do with an 18mb sensor or similar.

What would be your minimum mp rating that you would shoot with? My camera is only 18 megapixels, does that mean I'm pissing in the wind trying to get decent photo's?

stickyfiddle

I’m a big Fuji fan. I’ve had my XT1 for 3 years, o think and still fairly happy with it, though I’m slightly loving for an XT3 as that looks phenomenal. 

I’ve had no real issues with processing in Lightroom, at least once you work out how to get the best from the sharpening and nose reduction, which is a little different from how you’d treat a typical Canikon file. These days I typically import via iPad for quick sorting & initial processing then cloud it up to my laptop for detailed processing if needed. Even just in the iPad I don’t usually have to spend more than a minute processing anything unless it needs really serious work.

dbphoto

As with guitar related purchases, with camera equipment what you want is often unrelated to what you need @zepp76 ;;

An 18mp sensor is more than enough for the vast majority of uses.

Around 12mp in a 35mm sensor was for a long time considered to be the ideal mix of resolution, file size and pixel size, giving a good combination of quality, high ISO usability and speed of processing.

Ok, if you often need to crop heavily or print really big then more pixels is of course good, but more doesn’t always mean better!

boogieman

Absolutely, huge pixel counts aren’t really necessary unless you’re going to be printing off huge photos. 

dbphoto

And even then it’s not necessarily required as viewing distance increases with print size.

For a 12x8” print, 300dpi is industry standard.

but you can easily drop down to 150dpi if printing around 36x24” for example.

Grumpyrocker

dbphoto said:

As with guitar related purchases, with camera equipment what you want is often unrelated to what you need @zepp76 ;;

An 18mb sensor is more than enough for the vast majority of uses.

Around 12mb in a 35mm sensor was for a long time considered to be the ideal mix of resolution, file size and pixel size, giving a good combination of quality, high ISO usability and speed of processing.

Ok, if you often need to crop heavily or print really big then more pixels is of course good, but more doesn’t always mean better!

Yeah most people really don't need a 35mm sensor. Heck, there are plenty of professionals who don't really need one. But there are certainly few hobbyists that do. But the marketing of "full frame" has been very well done. 35mm was the piffling joke runt of the film world, but camera makers have convinced photographers it's the pinnacle of digital photography and the thing you're supposed to upgrade to if serious. 

I've got great photos from 2/3 sensor, APSC, Micro Four Thirds, 35mm film and my phone. I've got rubbish ones too. The expense of 35mm glass is a red herring for all but a few. I've got a 35" x 20" poster print of one of my shots on the wall over my desk. It was a photo taken with an APSC sensor, there's nothing about it that could tell you whether it was shot on 35mm or not. 

ThePrettyDamned

zepp76 said:

RiftAmps said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

RiftAmps said:

ThePrettyDamned

Cool. I think I might do a trade for an a7. I'm not going to use autofocus lenses on it  but it'll get me taking more pictures... And if I really love it, maybe it's the start of something new. 

Thanks! 

I have the A7Rii and use it with both fully manual Cine lenses and adapted vintage. I have no AF lenses for it although when I do need one I just hire one. 

Definitely don't want an a7rii - I have a pretty powerful computer but 42mp raws will be a pain the arse to process. If I was looking at a7rii money is probably save a bit more and get a7iii.

I really haven't had any trouble, but I suppose that depends what computer you're using. My MBP (207 model) processes a full 32gb SD card full of RAW files in less than a minute. Each file is around 80mb. Once they're in Lightroom everything is lightning quick. I don't even think about it now.

Yes, I suppose I don't need 42mp images, but I like the option and allows me to do things that I couldn't do with an 18mb sensor or similar.

What would be your minimum mp rating that you would shoot with? My camera is only 18 megapixels, does that mean I'm pissing in the wind trying to get decent photo's?

I'd say, well composed and exposed, 6mp is enough for most purposes. You won't find a modern m43, apsc or 35mm sensor with so few pixels.

I have a 1 metre print from a nikon d200 - that's an old CCD sensor with 10mp. Looks great - resized and edited for print in photoshop. 

I now shoot 24mp and it's fantastic. I've printed to over 1m and it looks great. On screen the detail is awesome, and noise is attractive (as opposed to the noise from the CCD which was nasty). 

I've handled 42mp files from an a7rii and it was slower - slower to load and render 1:1 previews, slower to Lightroom process, slower to load into photoshop, photoshop files are enormous... The detail is there if you have good lenses, and the dynamic range is enormous, and I found I could export to 12mp and get absolutely flawlessly clean images from iso 3200 and could easily go higher... But it's overkill for most stuff. 

It's fun though - I'd definitely like such a beast, but on balance I'm never going to print big enough and I don't think we'll be getting 42mp screens anytime soon so I found myself exporting to 24ish mp jpegs to minimise noise and get nicer tones than a native 24mp sensor would. 

I think if you do professional stock photography, a 42mp Sony or the d850 from nikon is probably the best way to go - they're very anal about noise,resolution etc. 

dbphoto

Grumpyrocker said:

Yeah most people really don't need a 35mm sensor. Heck, there are plenty of professionals who don't really need one. 

Out of the few thousand professional wedding photographers on my database I would bet less than half are still shooting on 35mm DSLR's these days.

Grumpyrocker

dbphoto said:

Grumpyrocker said:

Yeah most people really don't need a 35mm sensor. Heck, there are plenty of professionals who don't really need one. 

Out of the few thousand professional wedding photographers on my database I would bet less than half are still shooting on 35mm DSLR's these days.

Am surprised it's so few. What's popular among them right now that's not 35mm?

dbphoto

Size/weight/cost

A 12 hour day with a couple of Fuji X series and lenses over your shoulders for example is a much more enjoyable experience compared to big DSLR's

Easier to blend in as well, a real benefit for the reportage guys, and when asked by an arse of a minister if you are the professional photographer as no photos are allowed during the ceremony it's much easier to get away with saying no, i'm just a  guest.  Not to mention the fact that the shutter noise/mirror slap on most DSLR's is quite noticeable.

An EVF also gives huge advantages as you have to be a bit of a muppet to get the exposure out, so the time saved when you have taken a few thousand images throughout the day once sat in front of the computer is considerable.  In fact, most guys I know now shoot considerably less throughout the day as WYSIWYG, again saving lots of time later.

I went from turning up at a wedding with at least £20k worth of gear in my bag at the end of 2013, which weighed god knows how much, to less than £5k in a much smaller, and so much easier carried one. 

For me it was like when I switched from working with 'Blad's on sticks, Metz hammerheads and Weston lightmeters to DSLR's exclusively around 2004, the benefits were considerable and outweighed any difference in 'quality'

Jimbro66

dbphoto said:

Grumpyrocker said:

Yeah most people really don't need a 35mm sensor. Heck, there are plenty of professionals who don't really need one. 

Out of the few thousand professional wedding photographers on my database I would bet less than half are still shooting on 35mm DSLR's these days.

Just out of interest, how many would you say roughly are using large format cameras for wedding work? (i.e. larger than 35mm equiv).

dbphoto

Very few. 

There are a few 'hipster' types that are shooting weddings on medium format film, and charging a healthy premium, but they are definitely in the minority.

I do know lots of studio based guys that are shooting on medium format digital, but many switched over to Nikon D850's etc when they became available.

If you are a studio based advertising guy then fair enough, investing £40k or whatever in a 'Blad H6D and a few lenses probably makes sense, but for everyone else, why the hell would you!

Axe_meister

My wife has her sculpture professionally photographed for 90x90 prints.
The detail that comes out of the Hasleblad is outstanding and picks up the tiniest reflections in the diamond dust covered sculpture.
Mind you the photos absolutely kill her Macbook. 

stickyfiddle

Axe_meister said:

My wife has her sculpture professionally photographed for 90x90 prints.
The detail that comes out of the Hasleblad is outstanding and picks up the tiniest reflections in the diamond dust covered sculpture.
Mind you the photos absolutely kill her Macbook. 

Can we see them? That sounds fascinating!

Jimbro66

zepp76 said:

............. Because I suffer from quite serious mental health issues I struggle to get out but I'm hoping this new hobby will help with that although I may struggle with the street photography that I'm interested in, being in a crowded high street is pretty much my worst nightmare........

@zepp76 an alternative to street photography that might be less daunting for you is social documentary photography. Take a look at the work of Jim Mortram for example. It is a field of work that takes sensitivity and empathy to do well but might it suit you?

Lodious

I'm seriously considering flogging my 5D3 and lenses to go mirrorless, but it won't be to go Full Frame mirrorless. I can't see the point of having smaller bodies with FF sized lenses. Even with the reduced flange distances mirrorless can bring, the FF lenses are still huge.

I wish the X-T3 had IBS, as this would look to be perfect.