Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 19, 2012 20:27:01 GMT -5
Hahaha ... that is always a good chance  As already posted somewhere else, the same thing also happened to me. The seller named the camera as "Lover Six" instead of "Clover Six". Got the camera for the start price ;D |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 19, 2012 7:58:21 GMT -5
Exchangeable lenses ? Wow ... did they use an Aires specific or more common mount. Never saw single Aires lenses ...
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 18, 2012 10:23:52 GMT -5
Live long and prosper, MIK  I once had a cup, whith a transporter on it. If you fill coffee in it, Kirk, Spock and Bones "beamed up" ... I mean, they slowly appeared at the transporter. Pretty fancy effect  And ... I once had the chance to meet Mr. Shatner in real, when he visited Germany ... actually only once in his life, I think. That has been a while ago, but he is still pretty active and looking good ... for a man, who will become 80 this year. I guess, he found the "fountain of youth" somewhere on his journeys "where no man has ever been before" ... and just does not tell us |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 16, 2012 19:53:45 GMT -5
The question is always, what you want to do with it. If you really want to take pictures with it, you should ask the seller at least, if the shutter is still working. If the lens is dirty, it's usually no problem, because they are mostly easy to clean on those folders. If cameras are not ultra rare items, the price mostly depends on the fact, if the camera is still working or not ... and how much the camera is desired by somebody. The question, you have to ask yourself before going into the final gamble at an auction is: How much do you desire it ? I often saw auction going pretty high, just because one guy wants it at all costs. Then, it is getting dangerous and you might either loose the game or pay too much in the end. The Mc Keown's camera price guide might work for cameras, which can be often seen at auctions, but if a camera appears there just once in a blue moon, it is not really reliable, I think. You always need to make your mind up for a price, YOU want or would pay for it. Others may correct me, but what I noticed from watching auctions, there are always certain rules. Camera dealers are watching auctions permanently and detecting every item ... but they do have their limits ( because they want to sell the camera for an estimated higher price later ). You can check that by looking, how many items your competitors are buying and selling. It they are leaving the game, mostly real collectors are left and going higher. Therefore, you have to set up your price in your mind. The real bargains are made by just luck. If not being a professional dealer, not all camera collectors are watching all auctions regularly. So some treasure stay undetected, which is our chance Or ... what often happened to me, the camera is declared wrong ... as "unkown plate camera" or the Clover Six, I got very cheap. The seller declared it as "Lover Six" Good luck !!! The camera looks beautiful on the picture and if it is still working, I wouldn't be surprised, if it would reach the 100$ mark as well. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 16, 2012 9:06:26 GMT -5
Thanks a lot Dustin ... and looking forward to seeing your work then !!!
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 16, 2012 7:57:24 GMT -5
At least, I can finally say something good about Canon EF lenses ... they are obviously water- ... eehm coffee proofed ... hahaha ... okay just kidding. I better say, it is a good idea to recycle them for another purpose, because they are usually expensive |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 14, 2012 23:42:02 GMT -5
Dustin,
if you don't like the kit lens ( what I can understand ), you might not be satisfied with a wideangle adapter as well.
Basically, I would say, that you can already go pretty wide with the kit ... and the distortion is already pretty big then. It's a matter of liking of course and I don't know exactly, what you want to achieve in your shot, but I would say, that the ordinary 28 mm ( on Full Frame ) are already not looking really good anymore for a shortfilm. I would try to work around it with panning, close ups, cuts and editing.
As for an example, I had to use the 14 mm of my kit ( but on a MFT camera, which means 28 mm on Full Frame ) for a small promo video, we made for a friend, shooting in a really tiny japanese apartment. Just a spontaneous gig, so no big efforts, but you can already see, what I mean. Going too much "fisheyish" usually doesn't look good anymore, except you need it just as a special artistic effect. If so, the adapter might be fine though.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 14, 2012 21:58:47 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 14, 2012 3:15:08 GMT -5
The first one is the original and the second one the retouched picture ? If so, the first one looks much better, I think. Most visable at the pants of the boy. The second one is quite "noisy" or grainy, many details got lost, especially regarding the tonality. The first picture is a brilliant photograph though. 1910 ? Wow !!! Fantastic tonality, details, sharpness and if I imagine, that it has been taken indoors and obviously not in a studio.
I would probably not choose this way myself ( and it's also too expensive ), but I saw an interesting documentary on TV recently. One japanese guy, specialized on refurbishing old pictures ... and he does it completely analog with darkroom, chemicals and stuff. The results are impressive. He taught this art to himself by experimenting with this for decades. A truly rare profession.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 14, 2012 2:59:24 GMT -5
That is true. My problem is, I am smoking and collecting ... hahaha ...
One good thing, what is holding me back from buying a whole museum is, that I really like to use the cameras. So, until I haven't repaired or used one model, I am not that hungry for buying the next.
And I also believe, that a little bit of self control is important for still being able to appreciate something. That's about everything. If I would live on a tropical island, I might not be able to appreciate its beauty after a view weeks or if I could eat kaviar and drink champagner every day, I would start disliking it soon, I guess. Everything, what is too much, let it loose its value.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 13, 2012 7:10:02 GMT -5
Or it can protect you of getting out of control ... hahaha ...
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 11, 2012 19:31:24 GMT -5
Mickey ... let me try to bring some enlightment to your circle of confusion, because it's the "theory of everything" ... at least for photography ... regarding the universe, mankind is still working on that Only an equation with one variable is leading to a unique solution. Let's say for example: X + 3 = 10 Only the number 7 whould let that become true. An equation with two variables would already have an infinite number of solutions, for example X + Y = 10 7+3=10 ... but also 5+5 or 8+2 or 9+1 or whatever ... and it is getting even worse if having something like X + Y + Z = 10. Now, talking about photography, F/8 and 1/60 sec would give you the same exposed picture as F/11 and 1/30 sec, wouldn't it. It's nothing else than an equation with two variables and if you add the ISO as it is not fixed in digital cameras, you will get an equation with three variables: f(shutter speed, aperture, ISO) = constant ... the same exposed picture. F/8 and 1/60 sec at ISO 100 will give you the same result as F/11 at 1/60 sec at ISO 200 and there is an infinite number of other combinations as well. The unfortunate thing is, that all those combinations lead to the same exposed picture BUT the result looks different. The aperture is influenting the DOF, a too slow shutter speed can cause motion blurr and a too high ISO let's your picture become noisy. Of course, the camera automatic will not choose completely randomly, the programmer has defined additional rules and conditions, but still ... the outcome is mostly random. What the camera usually does in AUTO mode, is measuring the focus at many points of the picture. The goal is, getting as much in focus as possible ... because the camera can't know WHAT you want to have in focus. The funny thing is, that we actually don't need any sophisticated measuring system or face detection for that, the answer is very simple: A small aperture ( large f-stop ) is needed. Constructing an a little bit more tricky case ... it's a cloudy day and, what mostly happens, something is moving in our picture. So the camera automatic detects some motion ( modern cameras can do that ). A large DOF ... but a short shutter time ... but the picture shouldn't be dark as well ... the camera automatic will go crazy and either choose just something for you or push the ISO to a level, where the noise gets annoying. There is no magic about camera automatic ... just logic. The problem is just, that the camera is not connected to our mind ( yet ). The photographer could have made a much easier ( and better ) decision, because only he knows, how the picture shall look in the end. Maybe the landscape in the background does not need to be in focus at all ... or we don't care, if an unimportant object moving in the picture ( maybe a car passing by ) is scrisp and sharp. The only reason, why a camera automatic is still producing decent results on many smaller digital cameras is the small size of their sensor. The focal length of the lens is just so small, that it basically works like a fixed focal lengh lens. The DOF is huge and everything is sharp from close to far anyway ... even at large apertures. If you look at pictures, taken with a cellphone or P&S, everything is sharp anyway and all those face detection and multi focus measuring stuff is just meaningless  More expensive and sophisticated cameras ( having larger sensors ) always tried to avoid those "auto feature" features ... for a good reason ... because it doesn't really work anymore. If I use my MFT camera ( which is half of full frame ), the results in low light and iAuto mode are just random or if you try to shoot at night with a fast pancake, the focus is just continiously switching to somewhere. Very annoying, especially when trying to shoot video. Traditional camcorders are still working well ... also because of their small sensors. People always claimed, that the autofocus system has been to slow on the first movie capable DSLRs, but that's not the problem at all. Having a fast working autofocus system, the situation is even worse. It is always switching, because the shooting situation differs practically from one frame to the next. I shot a lot of video with my GH1, starting with autofocus and noticing very soon, that it doesn't work ( or only at bright sunshine and wideangle ). Then, I begun to fix the focus, which makes sense ... but even better, using a manual lens directly. However ... I see the problem of a bad eyesight. I can still see very well ( at far distances ), but my eyesight became also very bad, looking at close things. So, I needed to adapt my habbits too. I can't see anything on a small screen of a camera. One reason why I hate to use digital menues and my eyes are too bad to focus using a touch screen as well. EVFs are pretty good now, but still ... I can't get used to operate a sophisticated camera menue through that. A rangefinder is still working fine for me though and a TLR is also possible for me to operate with the inbuilt magnifier. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 11, 2012 10:52:55 GMT -5
Yes ... and No ... I am not sure, Dave. It depends much on the workflow, you are used to. I am probably not fast enough with the manual focus for sports photography ( it's indeed one of the fields, where a high tech equipment is superior ), but fast enough for most other purposes. It can be also tricky to fix both on a digital camera ... exposure and focus ... and I often forgot to unlock the exposure later. And ... there are too many variable things, on which you always have to pay attention if trusting on auto features. Just for an example, if the ISO is not fixed, the camera might choose a too slow shutter time or if running it in shutter speed priority mode, the picture might get too noisy ... and there many more imaginable patterns. Everything can be set up of course, but choosing modes and settings also takes time. Here is maybe not the place for that, but I could only explain in properly, using a little bit of math. Talking in this terms, we could imagine the outcoming result of a picture ( just considering the exposure ) as a result R of an equation like f(aperture,shutter speed,ISO)=R It is an equation with three variables and how many solutions does such an equation have ? The number is infinite. That exactly describes the situation of any digital camera, run in iAuto mode. So we need to make choices. Aperture or shutter priority mode would eliminate one variable from the equation. Left are two ... and how many solutions does an equation with two variables have ? Still an infintite number, which means that the decision of the camera in those modes is still randomly. Finally wanting to get out of this problem, we need to fix at least one more parameter, which would most likely be the ISO. Now and finally, we do have an equation with just one variable, which leads to an unique solution. The result becomes predictable. If I imagine all the possible combinations, a digital camera is indeed a tool with great possibilities ... but also complicated and in the end, everything cuts down to making choices, fixing parameters ... which actually leads to nothing else then manual settings ... if I want to have some control. Just an example for a comparison, I would name my ancient Canonet from 1961 as a challenger. The ISO ( or ASA ) is already fixed by the inserted film and the camera is naturally working in shutter priority mode ( as I remember ). Setting the shutter speed on 1/250 sec, you will already have a perfectly working point and shoot camera in most of all daylight situations. The focus is easy to set with the rangefinder ( I would say, I am not slower than any autofocus ) and I can't say, that I missed any picture with that. It has a bright lens and at ISO 400, it really works most of the time. No motion blurr, nothing. So, I seriously ask myself very often, for what do we need all those fancy stuff like "face detection", so many sensor, measuring whatever and all those situation modes. Even autofocus can be very tricky. Many people and the face detection runs amok ... and the actually most useless autofocus feature, I found on a camera yet, has been on the Canon 450D, I once had. In Auto mode, a sophisticated system of sensors is always calculating the focus on the object closest to the camera. Can somebody tell me, for what is that good for ? I took pictures on a party, just as a test for using the autofocus features of this camera ... and there has never ever been the right thing or person in focus. Also the face detection on some cameras can be sweet. The person, we want to take a picture of, is suddenly turning away ... and yeah ... somebody in the background will suddenly be sharp instead ... because modern autofocus systems are fast ;D Well ... I don't know ... but not all improvements on cameras are a blessing and before getting deeper in learning how to master them, I would often say: Just don't |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 11, 2012 4:52:10 GMT -5
That is very true ... same as the other things, you said.
However, I worked ( and still work ) with digital high tech equipment as well. I am always quoting Da Vinci at this point: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
There is also some truth in that. I met many people, trusting too much on RAW, auto features and the chance for getting everything repaired in Photoshop later. It works ... up to a certain level, I think. Creativity requires control and I personally found it often easier to achieve a certain goal just with manual settings and trusting on my experience than on any artificial intelligence.
Plus ... we also get caught in certain workflows soon. Once, you choose the "digital way" and I did it myself for years, you get caught in this world, trying to learn and master all those complicated features , loose youself in the infinite source of Photoshop effects and layers ... and my experience has been, that I forgot, how simple things can be. I see so many "over-Photoshopped" works, even from professionals, because they lost their sense for the limits.
Of course, the liking also changed. People become used to the modern look of pictures through magazines and posters ... but well, what can I say ... photography for me is still "trying to catch a raw mood" and I basically like the work with the camera and not at the computer later.
Also regarding "fill in flash" ... I think, it's like the Make Up of a lady. The best is, if you can't see, that there is some Make Up at all. This kind of fine tuning can only be done by humans and not by the automatic of a camera or flash. I can't post a good picture for showing that at the moment, because all of my "pro shots" are showing people, I would need to get the permission from them for doing that first. Sorry for that. I can just message those in case somebody is interested.
However, it is true, that modern digital cameras are doing a very good job on an amateur level. "Average consumers" can get much better results with less effort than in the past. What I just miss, is the variety. Digital pictures are basically looking all the same meanwhile, because every camera just tries to optimize everything in the same way. A different look can just be achieved by special effects or IPhone Apps in post. I found it unsatisfying ... just personally ... and started disliking my own pictures.
For paying customers, I still use digital. Most people can't see the difference between a photoshopped picture and something on real film anymore anyway ... and as I said, they are used to the modern look of digital pictures too ... but honestly, when it comes to photograph people, faces and especially skin, there is nothing like real film ... still ... and if it is not in bright sunlight, I can clearly see a fill in flash on every digital picture, but if it is done well, it can't be seen on film.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 9, 2012 20:22:50 GMT -5
Frankly speaking, I am not such an expert of digital cameras, but what I noticed from a few tries and from talking to friends, who are working as professional photographers, the automatic even using a pretty advanced equipment is not really reliable. Using a bouncing technique, neither the camera nor the flash are capable of anticipating reflected light ... and direct flash ... well, some digital cameras can produce decent results ... I would say, sometimes Considering the original topic, fill in flash, I think, that manual settings are still the way to go. I seriously doubt, that any camera can anticipate properly, WHAT the photographer actually wants to light up a little bit and what should look still natural. Flash photography is difficult in many ways, because the mood of the flashed picture is mostly completely different from the unflashed one. Mixing both can be very tricky, also from the white ballance and colors. Therefore, my favorite ( fill in ) flash is actually a very simple one. I mostly use the lomography "Fritz the Blitz", which can be set on just three power levels ... and I use film. I leave the exposure settings just as if I would want to shoot a natural picture without flash and just add the flash with a mounted diffuser. That works pretty good and I could never get similar results with my digital camera ... which can also mean, that I am too stupid for that of course But also for the "normal flash pictures" ( not only fill in ), I experimented with film recently again. Always used digital but I mostly needed a second try then ( adjusting something ). Digital is so sensitive and has a low latitude. If not working in a studio, the perfect ballance can be very difficult to get with one hit. The faces too bright, the clothes still too dark ... quite tricky. In my analog experiment, I used a Tri-X Pan 400, just an old Aires Viscount rangefinder and a cheap flash with no settings possible ... and the pictures have been the best, I ever took on a wedding party indoors. Simple settings, 1/125 sec and the aperture just switching between 5.6 and 11, depending on the distance. Success rate 100% ... really ... and the fantastic thing was, that I could concentrate more on taking pictures than on my camera settings. Also the mood is different, if you need a second shot. People start to notice you, pose in a different and more unnatural way. Of course, everybody has a different work flow and style of taking pictures. In the end, everybody needs to find his own way, he feels comfortable with. I always have been the "manual guy" because I like to have total control of my camera. Estimating, what the camera and flash is possibly measuring and doing and adjusting has never been the way for me. My oldfashioned attitude is still: I don't need to know, what the camera is doing, it just needs to do, what I want it to do |
|
As already posted somewhere else, the same thing also happened to me. The seller named the camera as "Lover Six" instead of "Clover Six". Got the camera for the start price ;D
I once had a cup, whith a transporter on it. If you fill coffee in it, Kirk, Spock and Bones "beamed up" ... I mean, they slowly appeared at the transporter. Pretty fancy effect 
And ... I once had the chance to meet Mr. Shatner in real, when he visited Germany ... actually only once in his life, I think. That has been a while ago, but he is still pretty active and looking good ... for a man, who will become 80 this year. I guess, he found the "fountain of youth" somewhere on his journeys "where no man has ever been before" ... and just does not tell us 