|
Forum: Photographic Technique
04-09-2008, 12:41 PM
|
| |
I agree with the others. You're going to need some strobes, stands, umbrellas and either a hot-shoe adapter or a radio kit to trigger them. Get yourself a flash meter and learn how to use it. How many lights you're going to need and where you're going to put them depends on the shape of the room and how you can arrange people within it. You want the light to be even in the front rows and in the back, therefore you must position lights accordingly. Long exposures aren't an option, since 150 people aren't going to hold perfectly still, and opening the aperture any more than around 8 is going to make your depth of field too narrow to get the front and back rows in focus.
I don't mean to be rude, but you might be in over your head if you've never worked with this stuff before. And you really don't want to be fumbling around with gear you've never used before in front of that many people (take it from me, it's embarrassing enough to screw up in front of one person).
The shot you're describing is a tough one to do well. I'd hesitate to attempt it.
But don't despair. You have alternatives. Take charge of the situation. Scout out a location outdoors where you can arrange people and take the shot from a roof or a tall stepladder. Hope for an overcast day, but plan for a sunny one. Make sure you know where the sun is going to be while you're taking the photos, and avoid shadows from trees and buildings. Organize an alternate day incase it rains.
Best of luck.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-12-2008, 10:28 PM
|
| |
In all seriousness, the only major drawback of the Nikon D40, D40x and D60 is that it will only autofocus with DX lenses, which tend to be several times the price of their closest, non-DX counterparts. I remember having one customer who had purchased a D40 because he didn't want to shell out for a D80. When he decided he wanted a 75-300 lens, he ended up paying more than he would have if he had purchased the D80 in the first place and gone with the cheaper lens.
It's not a problem if you're not buying any extra lenses - or if you don't mind sacrificing autofocus to save money.
Apart from that, however, most criticisms of the cheaper Nikon cameras simply boil down to them not being as "nice" as some more expensive cameras, but I prefer to judge each camera on its own merits, and don't really regard that as a drawback.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-11-2008, 10:36 PM
|
| |
Well, console yourself with the fact that she probably got fairly good value for her money, and surprisingly accurate metering in mixed light for a budget camera.
Or, if you're really that heartbroken, you can keep referring to the D60 as "an excellent camera - for a beginner" until she returns it and buys a Pentax K20D (or at least a Nikon D80).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-11-2008, 12:46 AM
|
| |
In that case definately go for the K10D. The K100 and K200 are very much beginners' cameras (Oh, I just went and upset all the experienced K100D owners!). I honestly can't imagine shooting in manual all the time with a single-dial camera such as the K200D, the Nikon D60 or the Canon XTI.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-10-2008, 10:08 PM
|
| |
Photoshop is an amazing tool, but it's no substitute for getting the shot right the first time. Relying on it to fix overexposure will mean losing detail in bright areas. You can burn white areas 'til your heart's content, but if the amount of light hitting your sensor was too much for too long, you lose any subtleties.
Back when I was learning to dodge and burn in the darkroom (anybody remember darkrooms?), it made me appreciate the importance of correct exposure even more.
I'd say get the filters and take great pictures, then you can really put those photoshop skills to work.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-10-2008, 09:56 PM
|
| |
If she's serious about photography, but still learning the ropes, I think she'd be happier with the K10D simply because it dispenses with "Scene Modes" and includes two dials for easier use in manual mode. The weather sealing is a big plus, as is the rechargable, LI battery.
I'd also hunt down an old MX or a K1000. Both are ideal for beginners, since the all-manual style forces you to become a competent photographer without relying on such cruches as autofocus and autoexposure. They're also ideal as back-up bodies (particularly the MX) since they're relatively small, and can still operate once the battery dies (which is a big plus in cold weather). And if you can succesfully estimate correct exposure with the snow glaring back at you, you're on your way to becoming a pro.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-10-2008, 07:46 PM
|
| |
Incidentally, the sensor on the XTI that turns the LCD display off when you hold the camera up to your face is a welcome feature for an entry-level camera, and I occasionally wish the K10D had something similar. Nikon has copied this feature for their D60, and improved upon it by having the screen information rotate when you rotate the camera (an idea apparently lifted from Sony).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-10-2008, 07:43 PM
|
| |
I manage a camera store, and one of the questions I always ask my customers is, "How does this feel in your hands?" I get as many different answers as I do customers. Many (especially those new to DSLRs) prefer the fact that Canon and Nikon entry-level cameras are substantially lighter than the K100D. Most of my staff is crazy about the Canon 40D, which I happen to think has a nice feel too). The Nikon D80 feels very comfy, but the buttons feel somehow spongy to me.
Personally, I love my K10D, but I think it feels better without the battery grip. I much prefer the more rounded battery grip on the XTI/400D.
So to answer the original question: the Canon 40D feels much more substantial than the XTI/400D - but it's still very subjective.
On a sidenote: if you get off on build quality and you're ever looking for a point-and-shoot, wrap your hands around an Olympus SP-550 some time. It's dropped substantially in price in anticipation of newer models, but it's 18x zoom and 15 fps burst make it an ideal back-up camera to supplement your SLR kit, and the overall feel rivals that of some semi-pro cameras.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-03-2008, 07:52 PM
|
| |
I've kept my MX for very cold weather (and I'm from Winnipeg so I'm talking -35 degrees). It's not that I have problems with shooting with digital in cold weather, just that it really taxes the battery. Bringing along my MX as a second body means I can shoot without batteries (although I have to guess at the exposure, bracket, and hope I'm right). Other than that I only shoot film for nostalgia sake.
Now, if I can convince my girlfriend to let me play with her Hasselblad, I'll go back to film.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-03-2008, 07:45 PM
|
| |
How big? I got the magnifying eyecup and I love it. I feel like I'm looking through the viewfinder of my old MX again. Manual focus is much easier. It gives a bit more rubber than the provided eyecup, but I still squish my giant nose against the camera (much like I did with my MX).
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-03-2008, 07:40 PM
|
| |
Coming from a motion picture background, where even 16mm film cameras have output jacks for video monitors, I find myself more open to the idea of a live-view feature on an SLR camera than most people. I've yet to see a valid argument against it, but there's no shortage of benefits.
This morning I dreamed up another one (borrowed from my experience on movie sets), that I've yet to see posted anywhere: assisting in multiple exposures.
If you're a fan of doing in-camera multiple exposures (or many other visual effects including forced perspective), and don't want to spend a lot of time fixing things in Photoshop, live view is the answer - especially if you want elements in the different exposures to appear to interact with one another. Simply buy some of those cheap, stick-on screen protectors and a fine-tip marker. Now you can trace key elements in the composition with a marker before each exposure to better position objects in relation to one another, much like the "Stitch Assist" mode on some compact cameras. If you're using a laptop, you could even tape a large piece of acetate to the screen.
I got this idea on a film set with Guy Maddin, when he and his crew used a similar method to take multiple exposures of Isabella Rossellini's mouth, strategically positioned about the screen. It takes a lot of guesswork out of in-camera visual effects photography.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-13-2008, 09:09 PM
|
| |
At first I thought of live view as a cynical means of attracting people used to digital point and shoots to the DSLR market, but after playing with the Canon 40D it does offer some advantages to serious photographers in specific situations.
As has already been pointed out, live view is useful in astral and macro photography where focussing has been difficult with traditional methods. In addition to being able to bring up a real-time preview on your computer, you can digitally zoom in on a specific part of the image to tweak your focus, ensuring the image is sharp. It's like having an extreamly powerful viewfinder magnifier that you can move about the image.
It's also very useful in collaborative situations. When working with a makeup artist or a lighting assistant, having a live-view image handy for all to see makes it a lot easier to communicate with your teammates, as you can gather 'round the laptop and discuss the image. I'm sure there are experienced photographers out there who shudder at the thought, but this has long been commonplace amoung motion picture directors who need to communicate with their team. In a professional situation, especially when everyone's getting paid by the hour, it can make things run a lot smoother.
Also the live view feature on the 40d makes the camera much quieter, since the mirror isn't flipping up and down as the shutter opens and closes. I could see how this feature might be attractive to nature photographers trying not to spook animals. I imagine the K20 will be similar.
Finally, there's an additional advantage for Pentax, Sony and Olympus users. Since the image stabilization systems are in the bodies and not the lenses, its effect isn't seen through the viewfinder, forcing the photographer to simply take the camera's that it's working. It's a minor problem, but live view solves it.
The arguments against live view that I've seen on this forum are rather trivial. Nobody's forcing you to use it, and nobody's going to take your viewfinder away. The added cost of the camera is almost an abstract, meaningless concept since, as anyone who's studied the advertising field knows, retail price point is usually determined by marketing people, and has little to do with how much a product actually costs to manufacture. Even if that weren't the case, the cost of adding live view would at least be offset by the cheaper CMOS sensor (vs CCD). And besides that, your camera is already loaded with features you paid for but never use, so what's one more?
|
