Post by thread:[OT]:: New toy

In December I mentioned acquiring a Sony A77 camera. 24 MP APSC (aka digital 35mm halfframe) I still want a D700 (and probably not a D800 that has now shown itself as having a 36 MP!!! FF sensor. The A77 24 MP APSC is not too bad considering. But about 5 - 10 times more noisy than a D700. Give it anything like normal light and it is impressive. Here's a Dandelion flower in my back yard. If looking, viewing the full res version expanded is compulsory. Otherwise it's just a picture of a 'flower head' 'Pretty stunning' resolution. Probably about as good a subject as any for a resolution demo. Except, perhaps, hair. http://bit.ly/Dan-de-Lion full res version via 'arrow in tray'at top right of photo. Russell On 20 December 2011 05:49, RussellMc <spam_OUTapptechnzTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> I just acquired one of these > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/ > > Sony A77 SLTa. > > In many ways it matches or exceeds the capabilities of Olin's D3s. > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/ > > 12 frames per second, 24.4 megapixel, internal GPS, 1080p video, sweep > 2D and 3D panorama, HDR by combining 3 images, low light low(er)noise > by processing 6 imaages, Pelucid semitransparent fixed mirror allowing > phase AF and continuous AF during videoing, > Stunning 2.4 million pixel electronic EVF (eye level viewfinder) so > good that youbrain (mine anyway) refuses to remind you that this > should be an optical and not electronic path. > > But, in the way that counts most for me with cameras, Olin's D3s beats > this one to a pulp. High ISO performance is truly horrible compered to > the D3s - but much better that what was available say a decade ago. > Being half frame (APSC) and 24 MP doesn't help. > > But, should serve as a stopgap until the Nikon D800 comes and gets > cheap enough. > > > > Russell

part 1 548 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" (decoded quoted-printable) > :: Full res version via 'arrow in tray'at top right of photo. > > Hmm, I see no arrow or tray at top right of photo or anywhere. Perhaps I'm > already at full resolution? No :-). If you are uncertain then it's not full res :-) My bad for trying to describe something obscure with few words. See attached low res description with few pixels. Worth 127.5 words. At top edge of photo on right side. I have a > 1080p monitor and it is 9 screenfuls 3x3 :-) (6000 x 4000) �Russell part 2 13518 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name="DownloadOriginalFile_400_70.jpg" (decode) part 3 181 bytes content-type:text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt" (decoded base64) -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:54 AM, RussellMc <.....apptechnzKILLspam.....gmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> In December I mentioned acquiring a Sony A77 camera. > 24 MP APSC (aka digital 35mm halfframe) > > I still want a D700 (and probably not a D800 that has now shown itself as > having a 36 MP!!! FF sensor. > > The A77 24 MP APSC is not too bad considering. > But about 5 - 10 times more noisy than a D700. > Give it anything like normal light and it is impressive. > > > Here's a Dandelion flower in my back yard. > If looking, viewing the full res version expanded is compulsory. > Otherwise it's just a picture of a 'flower head' > 'Pretty stunning' resolution. > Probably about as good a subject as any for a resolution demo. > Except, perhaps, hair. > > http://bit.ly/Dan-de-Lion > > full res version via 'arrow in tray'at top right of photo. > > > Russell > > > > Wow, very nice indeed. I have recently been learning a bit about photography for some user manual pics I'm trying to do at the moment, I can see I have some way to go yet... :-) So I have a question: Is there a cheapish half decent "general purpose" camera you (or anyone else) can recommend? It will be almost entirely for product photos (bar the odd picture of the cat doing something stupid...) so I'm particularly interested in macro capabilities for PCBs, and ease of use for taking quick quality pics (I must have taken about 200 pictures the other day just to get ~10 images I was satisfied with) Also, anyone know of some good sources of info on general setup, lighting and suchlike

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Oli Glaser <EraseMEoli.glaserspam_OUTTakeThisOuTtalktalk.net> wrote: > So I have a question: > Is there a cheapish half decent "general purpose" camera you (or anyone > else) can recommend? It will be almost entirely for product photos (bar the > odd picture of the cat doing something stupid...) so I'm particularly > interested in macro capabilities for PCBs, and ease of use for taking quick > quality pics (I must have taken about 200 pictures the other day just to > get ~10 images I was satisfied with) I've been quite happy with my Canon G-series cameras. I have a G10 and a G12 (which is a huge improvement). I'm considering the brand new G1x, but with the new image sensor it has, there have been a few tradeoffs (namely it's physically larger and has worse battery life). In any case, I've used the two I currently have to take pictures of every project I do. That way, when I need to instruct someone on a repair over the phone, I can intelligently look at the wiring colours. They both work great! Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 05:25 AM, Oli Glaser wrote: > So I have a question: > Is there a cheapish half decent "general purpose" camera you (or anyone > else) can recommend? It will be almost entirely for product photos (bar > the > odd picture of the cat doing something stupid...) so I'm particularly > interested in macro capabilities for PCBs, and ease of use for taking > quick > quality pics (I must have taken about 200 pictures the other day just to > get ~10 images I was satisfied with) > Also, anyone know of some good sources of info on general setup, lighting > and suchlike? I tend to like Canon. Any good point and shoot camera will work fine for what you want. Seriously. Get a tripod. For product photos, get a "light shed". And get two 500 watt incandescent lights with reflectors. You might also consider getting a couple of umbrellas. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/402604-REG/Impact_DLS_XLK_Two_Light_Digital_Light_Shed.html Or a couple of these and then the light shed separately: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/308804-REG/Impact_401471_One_Floodlight_Umbrella_Kit.html Get spare bulbs because they only last a few hours even if you're gentle. Learn how to set the white balance. Bracket your shots at different exposures (using +1 -1 etc) and pick the best ones later. Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html

The biggest eureka moment for me regarding photographic lighting was the use of TWO sources of light. That alone will do wonders for your shots. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 03:52 PM, Oli Glaser wrote: {Quote hidden}> Thanks to all for the replies, very helpful.. > > I took a look at the Canon G10 and a few others from the Powershot range. > A > second hand G10 or similar might be an option, I'm sure it would be more > than suitable for my needs. > Bob and Joe mentioned lighting, which I think is possibly the main reason > I'm not getting consistently decent results at the moment. I'm currently > using an Olympus C-60, which is certainly not a great camera compared to > some currently available models, but suitable (for me) results can be had > with if I get everything right, which seems to be more down to luck than > judgement at the moment... > So I think I'll start by grabbing a couple of decent photography bulbs > and > umbrella and maybe either buy or throw together a small light shed and > see > how it goes. -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 PM, RussellMc <apptechnzspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: >The A77 24 MP APSC is not too bad considering. >But about 5 - 10 times more noisy than a D700. >Give it anything like normal light and it is impressive. .... >Here's a Dandelion flower in my back yard. >If looking, viewing the full res version expanded is compulsory. >Otherwise it's just a picture of a 'flower head' >Pretty stunning' resolution. >Probably about as good a subject as any for a resolution demo. >Except, perhaps, hair. By gosh, I believe I can almost see individual cells in the seed head achenes of this Taraxacum officiale! But, I do have a serious question: How did you determine the A77 is " about 5 - 10 times more noisy than a D700". Measurement (how?)?, specifications?, professional reviews? or are you experienced enough to tell with your own eyes? I'm always curious how people determine infinitesimal (to me) differences in parameters I consider subjective. Thanks, Care

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 05:25 AM, Oli Glaser wrote: > >> Is there a cheapish half decent "general purpose" camera you >> (or anyone else) can recommend? The camera is only 1/3 or so of the solution. Most cameras give good results if you have decent lighting & rock solid support. Also a good guide to equipment cost. Spend 1/3 of your budget on camera; spend 2/3 on lighting, grips, reflectors, & tripod. > Get a tripod. Absolutely. Also have the object being photographed on a solid vibration free surface. Or be very carefull not to bump table while taking the photos -- vibrations take time to damp out. Use a cable release; formerly mechanical, now electronic. But it still prevents vibration of camera when tripping the shutter. Use mirror lock up, if possible, if camera is SLR type; this is particularly important if doing close-up macro work. > For product photos, get a "light shed". Or make one. White sheet over wire frame. White cardboard taped at corners so it folds up for storage. Same with white polystyrene sheets or foamcore (available at office supply). If kept far enough away from product, any rough surface texture will be blurred in any case. Source of free translucent plastic is milk (or juice) jugs. You can use it in front of a flash to reduce harshness. Or make a small light tent for macro photos of small objects. It also acts as a nice wind block for keeping flowers from moving while "in the field". Cut the jug into whatever size & shape you need -- if you screw up or loose it, use another. > And get two 500 watt incandescent lights with reflectors. You > might also consider getting a couple of umbrellas. Instead of incandescent bulbs, you can now get flourescents that emit light at (or very near) 5500K. You can use them to fill in dark shadows while using mid-day sunlight (not direct, light is too harsh; use light from open sky area) and color temperature of artificial fill lights will match daylight. Plus you will only use about 200 watts instead of 1000 watts (and be much less likely to burn yourself -- a 500W photoflood is _really_ hot and you _will_ forget and touch it sometime before it is sufficiently cool). B&H Photo has kits of one or multiple flourescent bulbs in a reflector. With multiple bulb heads, you control light output by switching on different numbers of bulbs. If you can use daylight as your primary illuminant (sun has really cheap operating cost), but watch for high contrast. A contrast range suitable for screen viewing can easily exceed range that can be reproduced in -volume printed documentation. You can reduce the contrast by filling in the shadows using one or more reflectors. Use sheets of white foamcore board or white polystyrene or white cardboard or purpose-built reflectors to fill in deep shadows from your single light source. (You will need either stands/holders or assistants to hold reflectors.) > Learn how to set the white balance. Absolutely. Use a gray card. I like the Photovision Digital Calibration Target. Spring-edge cloth that folds up by twisting corners (like car window shades). One side of target has 3 strips; black, neutral gray, & white; use it to set white balance and exposure. Other side is white reflector for adding fill light. One final thought -- the image capture has changed from film to digital sensor but the fundamentals of lighting and contrast in an image have not. Look for books at your local library on how to take product photos, set up photographic lights, etc. You'll probably be one of a small minority that bother to read stuff that doesn't have "digital" in the book title. :-) I have photo books dating back to the 1960's & 1970's. Zone system and photo lighting works just as well now as then. Just map "over-develop film" to the equivalent post-production tools in Photoshop. A good guideline both then and now -- get your exposure, white balance, contrast, etc correct BEFORE you take the photo. Don't try to fix everything in the darkroom (now, in post-production). Best quality and fastest work-flow comes from getting everything right before you press the shutter. Lee Jone