Photographers, do you use a long lens ? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Kevin Marx · 05-09-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

Yeah i was surprised too.. and yes the camera can sync much faster if the flash is connected directly to the camera, but the flash is on a radio trigger (pocketwizard) and i think thats about as fast as you want to go..

from the pocketwizard site.. "sync speeds up to 1/250 with focal plane shutter (this is most likely what you are shooting with) 1/500 with leaf shutter (what my hasselblad has)... fast mode syncs up to 1/1000 with compatible cameras and flashes.

At the worst you should go from 1/125 to 1/160, 1/200 or 1/250 and not notice a problem... I have used mine at 1/340 without issue. So there's one stop of light for you right there. Hell.. if you need another, just up your ISO.. you are only at ISO 100... ISO 200 is still acceptable quality.

Kevin Marx · 05-09-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Based on what? All things being equal the photog ,correct settings ,the same lens. If you gave Rob a Nikon D40 those pics wouldnt look as good as they with his dx2 .

Not necessarily true... but in most cases.. yes.. the tools can make a big difference. I buy the "L" lenses because they improve my images.

Kevin Marx · 05-09-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I have a 20d with L lens and they arent as good as the lens was on my e-10. I think when I upgrade to the mark11 it will make difference based on what ive seen and read. All things being equal the e10 pics popped more and Im a better photog now then I was then.

Well yes... the camera body makes a big difference too... Pictures from a 20d will look different from a 1DS as that will look different from a mark II... Not hugely different, but they will.

You are also talking other factors... such as manufacturer's proprietary formats and the way software programs read them.

Maybe your monitor on your computer is matched to the colorspace and characteristics of the Olympus more-so than the Canon... so many things come into play.

Catalyst · 05-09-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

is lightroom out of beta yet?

yes.. I am trying it for the last week seeing if i like it

JP-pornshooter · 05-09-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

from the pocketwizard site.. "sync speeds up to 1/250 with focal plane shutter (this is most likely what you are shooting with) 1/500 with leaf shutter (what my hasselblad has)... fast mode syncs up to 1/1000 with compatible cameras and flashes.

At the worst you should go from 1/125 to 1/160, 1/200 or 1/250 and not notice a problem... I have used mine at 1/340 without issue. So there's one stop of light for you right there. Hell.. if you need another, just up your ISO.. you are only at ISO 100... ISO 200 is still acceptable quality.

No shit.. i thought it was max 1/125.. learn something every day.
perhaps it was the quantum radios which could only do 1/125..but in any case i dont use those..
and its not about light.. its about shutter speed.
higher speed = less shake.
200 mm heavy glass, long day = more shake.

JP-pornshooter · 05-09-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Based on what? All things being equal the photog ,correct settings ,the same lens. If you gave Rob a Nikon D40 those pics wouldnt look as good as they with his dx2 .

Rob, can you pls borrow a D40, throw your 80-200 on there and put this to rest..

Kevin Marx · 05-09-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

No shit.. i thought it was max 1/125.. learn something every day.
perhaps it was the quantum radios which could only do 1/125..but in any case i dont use those..
and its not about light.. its about shutter speed.
higher speed = less shake.
200 mm heavy glass, long day = more shake.

EVERYTHING is about light. Shutter speed is light. My point is..... look at everything... if you are maxxed at 1/125 because of radios/flash/camera... whatever... look at the next solution ($$$ play into it of course). find the weak link and fix it. If the heavy lens is the issue, find a new one. If you can live with it.. get a faster radio/flash. At the worst.. shoot from a monopod. Ever see Stephen Hicks BTS???? Mounts his camera to a tripod or pole (for slow shutter speeds you have no choice).

I know where you are at with the 1/125. I shoot there most of the time with my strobes. Do some more 8 oz curls.. get into that training regimen!!! get those biceps in order!!!

FTVGirls_Rob · 05-09-2007, 11:01 PM

Of course as long as I can use my 80-200 lens, I'm quite happy. The D2x to me is just more versatile, more user-friendly, and more efficient to use.

However, there is still a significant improvement in overall quality in my images since I moved to the D2x from my original D100. Just the fact that you can do a 4300x3200 or so image and then resize it to 1200x800 -- you can have sharper results. To this day though, I consider film on my N90 with say... kodak portra film to be superior to any digital. But no way I'm going back to film lol.

I just don't get that 'soft, natural' feel I used to get with my portra, like below:

pic looks airbrushed, but there is 0 touchups or sharpening or whatever here. Straight out of negative reader. Digital still doesn't allow for overexposure without washing out everything.

Its annoying though, to have these huge raw files now, 200 photos at 4 gigs... i just bought an external Blu-Ray burner so I can actually back this stuff up without taking up so much space.

JP-pornshooter · 05-10-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FTVGirls_Rob

Of course as long as I can use my 80-200 lens, I'm quite happy. The D2x to me is just more versatile, more user-friendly, and more efficient to use.

However, there is still a significant improvement in overall quality in my images since I moved to the D2x from my original D100. Just the fact that you can do a 4300x3200 or so image and then resize it to 1200x800 -- you can have sharper results. To this day though, I consider film on my N90 with say... kodak portra film to be superior to any digital. But no way I'm going back to film lol.

I just don't get that 'soft, natural' feel I used to get with my portra, like below:

pic looks airbrushed, but there is 0 touchups or sharpening or whatever here. Straight out of negative reader. Digital still doesn't allow for overexposure without washing out everything.

Its annoying though, to have these huge raw files now, 200 photos at 4 gigs... i just bought an external Blu-Ray burner so I can actually back this stuff up without taking up so much space.

I used to shoot chromes, they have some of the same characteristics as shooting digital. If you overexpose you are screwed..
Film handles highlights much better than digital, still.

I am considering to shoot wireless, I have the antenna for the D2X but i never used it, have you ? It would be so convenient compared to always changing out the CF etc..

05-09-2007, 11:01 PM	#58
FTVGirls_Rob Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 187	Of course as long as I can use my 80-200 lens, I'm quite happy. The D2x to me is just more versatile, more user-friendly, and more efficient to use. However, there is still a significant improvement in overall quality in my images since I moved to the D2x from my original D100. Just the fact that you can do a 4300x3200 or so image and then resize it to 1200x800 -- you can have sharper results. To this day though, I consider film on my N90 with say... kodak portra film to be superior to any digital. But no way I'm going back to film lol. I just don't get that 'soft, natural' feel I used to get with my portra, like below: pic looks airbrushed, but there is 0 touchups or sharpening or whatever here. Straight out of negative reader. Digital still doesn't allow for overexposure without washing out everything. Its annoying though, to have these huge raw files now, 200 photos at 4 gigs... i just bought an external Blu-Ray burner so I can actually back this stuff up without taking up so much space.