RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Camera Question (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14627)

Indecline 11-27-2011 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 146054)
Exactly...



Or you have to crop around it, which works most of the time.

Slides are hard to crop when you are projecting them! :wink:

JimThias 11-27-2011 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indecline (Post 146051)
At the risk of pissing every one off again, it is nice to have a screen full of auto focus points to ensure that the composition you want has what you want in focus. If your focus point is dead center, more often than not your subject will end up centered.

I point the center dot at what I want focused, push the focus button and then compose my shot. It's a pretty quick and simple procedure. I've never really done it any other way. Not sure what you mean by the subject ending up being centered.

Quote:

Fast moving trains are hard to do a focus hold and recompose.
I must get lucky and get slow trains all the time then. :wink:

Indecline 11-27-2011 03:49 AM

I use a tripod for 99% of my shots.

Mr. Pick 11-27-2011 03:52 AM

Everybody develops their own style of what works for them. No right or wrong, whatever makes you comfortable.

JimThias 11-27-2011 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indecline (Post 146060)
I use a tripod for 99% of my shots.

I would, but photography, especially railroad photography, is too fluid for me. And it's awful hard to use a tripod when you're up in a tree or in a tight spot, on a ledge, leaning over a cliff, etc. :lol:

mark woody 11-27-2011 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 146062)
I would, but photography, especially railroad photography, is too fluid for me. And it's awful hard to use a tripod when you're up in a tree or in a tight spot, on a ledge, leaning over a cliff, etc. :lol:

I remember the tree shot and the ambulance provided by Nick Benson LMAO.

Indecline 11-27-2011 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 146062)
I would, but photography, especially railroad photography, is too fluid for me. And it's awful hard to use a tripod when you're up in a tree or in a tight spot, on a ledge, leaning over a cliff, etc. :lol:

I kind of do the zen thing with mine. I'm very patient.

Dennis A. Livesey 11-27-2011 12:33 PM

Once I got a ball head for the tripod a 3 years ago, I use the it as much as I can including day shots like yesterday with the CP Holiday Train.
When know the action will be fast and furious, no, the tripod stays in the car. But, yes, most anytime else.
This came with the desire for ultimate sharpness and memories of too many soft shots in my collection.

Ron Flanary 11-27-2011 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 146054)
Or you have to crop around it, which works most of the time.

I only use the center focus point on my Nikon. If it's a moving train, I focus, and then quickly recompose my shot (the subject is not usually in the center of the frame). Perhaps I could select another focus point, but I'm just accustomed to doing it that way.

I purchased my first auto focus camera about 14 years ago---a Nikon N90 (film)----when I realized I was just missing sharp focus on many shots because of my eyesight (I wear glasses). Before, I would focus manually---but when I looked at the slides through a loupe, I wasn't happy with the results. Auto focus isn't always perfect, but it improved my photography considerably, particularly on the tele shots.

JimThias 11-27-2011 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 146074)
I only use the center focus point on my Nikon. If it's a moving train, I focus, and then quickly recompose my shot (the subject is not usually in the center of the frame).

Well, now I don't feel like such an oddball. :D

khalucha 11-27-2011 02:16 PM

I primarily use center focus point also. If I want the camera to focus on a certain area I will move that AF point on the multi-controller to that point of the subject and then shoot.

I also recall reading some where, correct me if I am wrong, that the center point is "more sensitive" than the rest of the AF points. Now with the newer cameras like the 7D for example with the bazillion different ways to set up your focus point(s) I am not sure of. (Better AF system also) I guess Chase would be the person to ask on that one.

khalucha 11-27-2011 02:29 PM

Jim, on the same note, why do they put JPEG in some of the higher end cameras as well? You would think it would be all RAW. Not to change subject here but a thought to ponder.

JimThias 11-27-2011 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalucha (Post 146079)
Jim, on the same note, why do they put JPEG in some of the higher end cameras as well? You would think it would be all RAW. Not to change subject here but a thought to ponder.

Funny you mention that. I was going to say "raw only" in my earlier post, but then as I thought about eliminating all the bells and whistles (which many are for in-camera jpg processing), it seemed automatic that my "dream camera" would be raw-only. :smile:

khalucha 11-27-2011 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 146080)
Funny you mention that. I was going to say "raw only" in my earlier post, but then as I thought about eliminating all the bells and whistles (which many are for in-camera jpg processing), it seemed automatic that my "dream camera" would be raw-only. :smile:

I am sure we can make a completely separate thread about the "dream camera" that would hit 10 pages or so easy.

Ron Flanary 11-27-2011 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalucha (Post 146079)
Jim, on the same note, why do they put JPEG in some of the higher end cameras as well? You would think it would be all RAW. Not to change subject here but a thought to ponder.

Not to drive everyone nuts on this subject....but I only shoot "fine" JPEGs. It takes up far less storage...plus, I don't really have any driving interest in the "archival" aspect. All of my really "good" photography was done years ago, and it's stored away in the closet in Logan metal storage boxes. Anything I shot after 2004 (digital) is mostly for the fun of it, rather than "serious" stuff that might be worthwhile after I'm dead and gone. In my case, it's more a function of my own age. You younger guys would (and should) shoot RAW.

Yes, I do understand the difference between RAW, JPEG, TIF, etc.---and the lossy compression ratios of JPEG shots. I'm just a stubborn old cuss...so that's why I wouldn't want the JPEG feature eliminated on "my" digital camera.

milwman 11-27-2011 03:04 PM

A lot is shot JPEG only, Like NEWS and snap shots

JRMDC 11-27-2011 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg P (Post 146041)
But I took it out Friday in Mannasas VA and I did TV with ISO set to 100 and it did good with the F selection, so maybe I need to do 2 of the 3.

So much good railroading in the Baltimore area and you are going to Manassas, of all places???

Ron Flanary 11-27-2011 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman (Post 146087)
A lot is shot JPEG only, Like NEWS and snap shots

.....and, that's how I view the long term value of my photography these days....

Mr. Pick 11-27-2011 04:36 PM

So Jim, do you use spot metering only?

JimThias 11-27-2011 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pick (Post 146097)
So Jim, do you use spot metering only?

I point the camera at whatever I want to meter off of. On a clear day, it's usually the blue sky. On a cloudy day, typically the ballast or when the the sky is slightly overexposed.

Brian Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" made it really easy for me to "get it" when it came to finding the correct exposure in varying conditions.

JimThias 11-27-2011 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 146084)
Not to drive everyone nuts on this subject....but I only shoot "fine" JPEGs. It takes up far less storage...plus, I don't really have any driving interest in the "archival" aspect. All of my really "good" photography was done years ago, and it's stored away in the closet in Logan metal storage boxes. Anything I shot after 2004 (digital) is mostly for the fun of it, rather than "serious" stuff that might be worthwhile after I'm dead and gone. In my case, it's more a function of my own age. You younger guys would (and should) shoot RAW.

Yes, I do understand the difference between RAW, JPEG, TIF, etc.---and the lossy compression ratios of JPEG shots. I'm just a stubborn old cuss...so that's why I wouldn't want the JPEG feature eliminated on "my" digital camera.

Completely understandable, Ron. But I just want them to design a camera that has eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) all the bells and whistles. Of course, it wouldn't be my only camera, but I would probably end up using it more than others. A completely manual, full frame DSLR body would be awesome, especially since it would probably cost a lot less than its "loaded" counterpart.

Mr. Pick 11-27-2011 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 146105)
I point the camera at whatever I want to meter off of. On a clear day, it's usually the blue sky. On a cloudy day, typically the ballast or when the the sky is slightly overexposed.

Brian Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" made it really easy for me to "get it" when it came to finding the correct exposure in varying conditions.

Good book, I've read it a couple of times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 146106)
Completely understandable, Ron. But I just want them to design a camera that has eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) all the bells and whistles. Of course, it wouldn't be my only camera, but I would probably end up using it more than others. A completely manual, full frame DSLR body would be awesome, especially since it would probably cost a lot less than its "loaded" counterpart.

The problem is you probably wouldn't save any money on a camera like that. They have the technology already developed for all the auto functions and to make an all manual camera they would simply use the processors they already have and just turn off the auto options. Demand would be pretty low in the big scheme of things for that type of camera, and so setting up production for a low run count camera would be expensive. More than likely you'd end up paying more for your manual only camera. Just they way business works.

milwman 11-27-2011 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 146093)
.....and, that's how I view the long term value of my photography these days....

Oh I don't know but your right it's not like it was, A lot more fans have good cameras now so one isn't compelled to save history like it was in the 40-70's.
JEPG's can be saved after uploading to a tiff and discard the junk and all will be fine.

JimThias 11-27-2011 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pick (Post 146108)
The problem is you probably wouldn't save any money on a camera like that. They have the technology already developed for all the auto functions and to make an all manual camera they would simply use the processors they already have and just turn off the auto options. Demand would be pretty low in the big scheme of things for that type of camera, and so setting up production for a low run count camera would be expensive. More than likely you'd end up paying more for your manual only camera. Just they way business works.

Oh, I know, that's why it's just a "dream camera" in a dream world. There just aren't enough kooks like me in this world who would demand something like that. ;)

Hatchetman 11-27-2011 10:21 PM

I would say I nail the exposure 99% of the time with this bad boy...using slide film. can't get much more primitive. the manual focus part is a different story.


http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6230/6...358a4c5f_z.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.