User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Third-Party Products »

Digital Camera Chat


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Digital Camera Chat
Page 42 of 114 First Previous 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46  Next Last Thread Tools
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-28, 14:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Nikon and Canon do have to worry somewhat about the encroachment of compact system cameras.
This. If Nikon and Canon do not make there brands stand out (lower cost full frame) they will slowly get eaten alive by the compact system cameras from Sony and m4/3s. Of course that will only be an advantage till someone other than Leica makes a full frame mirrorless camera (Fuji?).

This is a big deal, maybe more so than Nikon or Canon thinks, because even I keep looking at cameras like the EM-5 and NEX-7. Not so much for the styling, cool as they may be, but because they ofter a lighter weight system. Not to mention that in a generation from now the image quality will likely match the D700 (the ISO range of this camera is more than good enough for me!). An entry level FX (D600) that is in a similar body to the D7000 and some high quality, but variable aperture zooms could go a long way to reducing that desire. I primarily shoot landscapes with a zoom lens, which means the lens is stopped down to F8 anyway, so having a fixed fast aperture lens is not a must. I picked the 24-70mm F2.8 over the 24-120mm F4 for the water resistance more than the aperture.

Basically what that means is, I could shoot with a EM-5 and 12-50mm lens without hesitation for my landscape work. In fact it would almost be a bonus to have the added depth of field that m4/3s offers. The only areas m4/3s would let me down would be for birding, and the EVFs still have a long way to go before they match an optical viewfinder for action shooting (they need 0 lag!).
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-04-28, 15:14

The D600 rumour is intriguing, to say the least. However, would Nikon do a $1500 feature-light FX camera after spending so much effort building a premium brand? That seems a bit odd to me, but I'm not a marketing expert.

If it had a small metal body, weighed 800 g "wet" (the D800 is 1000 g, the D700 is 1100 g), and was really priced at $1500 I'd be interested. But more likely it will be plastic, kind of big, 900 g, and $2000, if it materialises at all. That's the Nikon way in the 21st century!

The 10 mm and 17 mm PC-E Nikkor patents are interesting too. These lenses would have a similar angle of view and similar design challenges. A curious property of optics means you can take a 10 mm f/4 lens and simply increase its linear dimensions by 70% to get a 17 mm f/4 with a 70% larger image circle and 70% greater back focus. Of course, this hypothetical 17 mm lens would be much more expensive to make than the 10 mm, since the lens elements would each be 70% larger.

A real PC-E lens for F-mount wouldn't quite need 70% greater back focus, so the rear end could be simplified to reduce costs a little, though that would be offset by user expectations for high sharpness even from a PC-E lens. Because the image would be magnified by 70% compared to the 10 mm lens, so too would aberrations including lateral chromatic aberration, possibly necessitating accordingly-better correction.

Nikon and I are diverging on what we think a good camera should be, but the company still fascinates me – and it's obviously reading the wider market much better than the other camera companies today.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-28, 16:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
If it had a small metal body, weighed 800 g "wet" (the D800 is 1000 g, the D700 is 1100 g), and was really priced at $1500 I'd be interested. But more likely it will be plastic, kind of big, 900 g, and $2000, if it materialises at all. That's the Nikon way in the 21st century!
Those numbers are off. The D700 is only 825g "wet" (900g with EN-EL3e) and the D800 is also only 900g with EN-EL15. What they could do is a partial metal body like the D7000, but strip features as I suggested. It could easily weigh 650-700g with that kind of construction.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-04-28, 20:17

I think Horseman makes a medium format body just for the Canon 17mm T/S - movements locked naturally, but it makes for the widest rectilinear view of any medium format camera in existence.

Curious what you think Nikon is getting wrong? I think a cut down FX camera could work to lock in a lot of enthusiasts, who will then buy FX glass, at first more basic glass, and later more exotic stuff, and then higher-end bodies, and so on and so on. Think of it as a gateway drug.

Just make it small and simple. Whatever it takes to get the cost down. It doesn't even need a radical AF system, just an accurate one, with four points on the power corners, plus five evenly spaced on the centre horizontal axis, that's 9. Easy to cycle through, and on useful parts of the frame. Delete ALL of the following: on board flash, focus motor, extraneous buttons. Leave me two command dials on the right, and a mode dial on the left. No more than four buttons on the back, two under each thumb - kinda like Leica's S2, but leave a dial and steal the quick menu from Fuji.

Basically, I should want to have this camera in manual all the time (with Auto ISO under one of those buttons )

$1799. Built for photographers, nostalgiac poseurs, and pretentious black and white tea-baggers. Sports shooters need not apply.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-29, 01:29

They could throw in an FX version of the D7000's 39 point AF to separate it from the high end models, and save money.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-04-29, 03:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
Those numbers are off. The D700 is only 825g "wet" (900g with EN-EL3e) and the D800 is also only 900g with EN-EL15. What they could do is a partial metal body like the D7000, but strip features as I suggested. It could easily weigh 650-700g with that kind of construction.
Your numbers are off, not mine!

Nikon's official weight for the D800 "with battery and SD memory card but without body cap" is 1000 g (see last page of the PDF brochure).

Nikon's official weight for the D700 "without battery, memory card, body cap or LCD monitor cover" is 995 g (see first page of the PDF brochure). Since Nikon didn't provide the "wet" weight, I weighed my own D700 and got 1102 g with battery, CompactFlash card, and body cap, but without screen protector.

Even the D7000 (DX) weighs 780 g with battery and memory card, so Nikon has a long way to go before they get an FX camera down to 650–700 g.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Curious what you think Nikon is getting wrong?
Too much feature-creep and not enough attention to quality and real-world usability. But I don't think Nikon's getting it wrong, since that's clearly what many people want. It's just not what I want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I think a cut down FX camera could work to lock in a lot of enthusiasts, who will then buy FX glass, at first more basic glass, and later more exotic stuff, and then higher-end bodies, and so on and so on. Think of it as a gateway drug.
But would that not sit in the range a bit like the old (very cheap) Mac mini in Apple's range, i.e. uncomfortably? (I'm not sure.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Just make it small and simple. Whatever it takes to get the cost down. It doesn't even need a radical AF system, just an accurate one, with four points on the power corners, plus five evenly spaced on the centre horizontal axis, that's 9. Easy to cycle through, and on useful parts of the frame. Delete ALL of the following: on board flash, focus motor, extraneous buttons. Leave me two command dials on the right, and a mode dial on the left. No more than four buttons on the back, two under each thumb - kinda like Leica's S2, but leave a dial and steal the quick menu from Fuji.

Basically, I should want to have this camera in manual all the time (with Auto ISO under one of those buttons )

$1799. Built for photographers, nostalgiac poseurs, and pretentious black and white tea-baggers. Sports shooters need not apply.
Well, exactly! This is the camera I want! But I don't see Nikon making it.

Currently, Nikon offers either a small, light, and simple camera with low-quality build and viewfinder (the latest is the D3200), or a large and heavy camera, with high-quality build and viewfinder, but with a 450-page user manual to explain all the features nobody wants (D800). I'd like to see massive simplification and miniaturisation, and a renewed emphasis on high-quality materials and craftsmanship.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-29, 04:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
Your numbers are off, not mine!
Yeah, I was lazy and grabbed the numbers from Dpreview (so they are way off the mark).

As for the other stuff, honestly if you aren't an action shooter, do you really need a DSLR at all? If I didn't shoot birds I'd dump my DSLR faster than you could say "cheese!" From the sounds of some of your and Matsu posts, I'd say that you don't.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-04-29, 08:23

I don't need the format, but I need the light gathering speed of the larger frame. On the D7000, I'm up at ISO 3200-6400 which is really about 1-2 stops too high for that camera, but between judicious use of the clarity slider (the quick and dirty version of high pass sharpening), and black and white, and good old fashion dodging an burning, I'm getting a nice vintage black and white look. It's great for what I want to do, but I want more color fidelity, more sensitivity, and higher shutter speeds before I dip into my flashes, where despite decent results and the relative simplicity the idea - two exposures in every frame - I feel of barely competent most of the time. That, and they distract people and that annoys the hell out of me. Maybe my feelings will change as I get more comfortable with lighting on the run...

If I had a passable ISO 12800 or 25600, I'd use it. Two problems, I can't really afford a D4/D3s unless I become a very busy, full-time shooter. But the real problem is that the sensitivity I'm looking for isn't available in a package that's really suited to candid work. I know photographers made due with much less capability when they had 35mm film, but really, there's no reason why only the sports shooter should benefit digital's considerable image quality advantages.

So, if Nikon builds an entry level DSLR, that's one proposition I guess that's a bit different than the kind of Digital FM3 I'm pontificating about. Maybe the latter costs just as much as D800? I guess when they build the former, I'll have to buy it and convince myself that it's the latter.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-29, 12:24

Why not give the Fuji X-Pro 1 a go? It really sounds like the camera you need/want. It has better high ISO performance (at least as good as the D700), and unless you are shooting commercially that is more than good enough. It has reasonably camera centric controls as well. Yes there are still a lot of buttons on the back, but you could easily ignore anything beyond the physical shooting controls. All the reviews say its a good camera overall.

The only problem right now is lenses, with 60mm DX being the longest. AF is slow, but you don't shoot action, so that shouldn't be a problem.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-04-29, 12:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
As for the other stuff, honestly if you aren't an action shooter, do you really need a DSLR at all?
Good question. However, I do shoot people, which is made easier with an SLR. I also like my SLR lenses, for which I need an FX sensor and the Nikon F mount.

I like simplicity and quality, independently of whether I strictly need those characteristics to take photos. Obviously Nikon's existing SLRs work fine for me, but I'd design my dream camera differently!
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-29, 12:29

I think most of us would design our dream cameras differently than what is available on the market today. For me the EM-5 from Olympus comes very close, but I'd like a larger sensor.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-04-30, 08:53

Fuji X1 might have the best APSC sensor at the moment, just about on par with previous gen FX level in most instances, maybe better in some scenarios, worse in others. But its AF performance is lackluster by most accounts, so we'll have to see how it evolves.

However, note the following:

D7000 vs X-Pro 1 size comparison.

There's really not much in it. Put a 35 on either one, and again, close enough, all things considered.

It took me a while to come to this realization. I wanted the D7000 for the smaller size, but I found the D300 nicer in the hands. What's wrong with the D7000, the same things that's wrong with most DSLR's - too many damned buttons. The D300 has just about as many, but it's a bigger canvass.

The body would be just fine if they simplified it to the essential "manual" controls, rather than system function controls. We need aperture, shutter, ISO, metering, and focus to hand. Everything else can and should hide in a vastly simplified quick menu. Drive mode can live on the mode selection dial as per current.

This would make small DSLRs much better for shooting as opposed to chimping and fiddling, and for that matter it would help purify some of the larger models as well. We can see from the examples above, that at the same sensor size and style of lens, normal range primes from about 35-85, the SLR can offer comparable size.

I want fast low light autofocus, I can do without some of the fancy tracking, just hit the spot I pick when I pick it.

So, if I were building a realistic proposition for a D600, I would say, use the D7000 body. Delete the pop-up flash and give it the biggest viewfinder it will take; delete most of the buttons and switches down to the list I describe - so there isn't much to knock or accidentally switch modes during fast action; now sell to the appreciative photographer - even charge $2K if you want.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-30, 12:12

There is no way Nikon drops the pop up flash, they want to sell you more flashes to run CLS. Drop buttons, not likely.

I don't get what the issue with buttons are? If you don't use some of them, what difference does it make? I'm sorry, but we left film style control layouts like that 20 years ago. The only way you'll get the camera you want is to make it yourself.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-04-30, 13:21

Buttons and switches get hammered during fast action, cameras get knocked, settings get disturbed. The only controls that should be on the outside of the camera are those directly related to taking a picture quickly, everything else gets in the way. I'm not picking on Nikon though: since the advent of digital, just about every camera manufacturer has been struggling to find the plot.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-04-30, 14:08

I get that, although it hasn't been a problem since I switched to a pro camera. Am I strange becuase this doesn't happen to me, even when I drag my gear through the dirt? Maybe the vast majority of enthusiast photographers are strange, but being able to quickly change setting without menu diving is ideal from my viewpoint. Most camera makers build cameras for the vast majority of users, not "photography puritans" (whatever that means) or hipsters.

I am not saying the camera you want is bad, just that I don't see it happening in a world where most users demand more features, not less. Some buttons could be dropped, no doubt about that. sadly cameras are made for tech junkies, not photographers. This likely happens due to the fact that most cameras are made in tech centric Japan, by tech enthusits.

Last edited by PB PM : 2012-05-01 at 01:54.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-06, 11:39

Switching gears for a sec. Does anyone here use a Vari-ND filter? I find daylight fill flash to be a bit problematic. There are exotic solutions involving high speed sync, PW TL hypersync settings, and of course, bigger guns, but these also involve mixing manual settings (I prefer TTL) and/or mixed flash uses. A good ND filter that lets me keep the F-stop in the f/2.8-8 range while dropping the T-stop to the f/11-f/22 range might be just the ticket for taming daylight exposures and not hammering my flashes.

Also, the D7000 has unbelieveable low ISO exposure latitude. I had some indoor shots of small groups against a black backgound. Very improptu, not enough power from flashes for this kind of work. From ISO 200, the files easily took 2 stops of exposure correction to bring in details that were virtually black. And the files are clean.

A friend was shooting a 60D in the same situation, and there were two obvious differences: I had a lot more latitude to manipulate both the file's exposure and clarity settings in ACR. Exposure was expected given what we know about the 16MP APSC, the "clarity latitude was a huge surprise.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-06, 16:18

I have a cameron Vari-ND filter and it slows the shutter from 1-8 stops. I was able to shoot silky water shots on a cloudy afternoon, and the filter was slowing the shutter by around 4 stops at that point (at F8).

Another solution with flash is a polarizing filter, which will cut down the reflections on the subject.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-07, 13:57

Thanks for the tip. I've never heard of Cameron before, I'll do a little digging.

Singh Ray, Heliopan, and B+W are options that keep coming up. The first two are very expensive, but well regarded. Singh Ray varies from 2-8 stops, Heliopan from 1-6. Lots of variable ND users report that the x-shaped banding starts to set in around 4 stops with wide angles. That's not really a problem for me - I want it for shooting portrait focal lengths in daylight, say 50-300mm equivalents, when I need flashes to control the sun. I'm leaning to the Heliopan because I might want just a one stop cut during the golden hour, or forget to the unscrew the thing, and one stop isn't so bad.

I really haven't looked at filters enough to judge the differences that a circular polarizer and ND might have on skin tones.

Singh Ray also has options for stacking ND and warming filters on the Vari-ND, the ND-Duo and ND-Trio.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-07, 15:08

I don't know much about ND filters, but I have a Heliopan UV filter and it's superb. I also have a Hoya Pro1 UV filter, and there is no comparison in quality and usability between the two:
  • the Hoya Pro1 is aluminium alloy and the Heliopan is matte-black anodised brass; therefore the Hoya jams in metal filter threads while the Heliopan glides off every time. The machining on the Heliopan is a cut above, too.
  • the Hoya is effectively multicoated, but the Heliopan has something the company calls SH-PMC coatings. Dust and even grease (fingerprints, etc.) wipe away effortlessly from the Heliopan, while everything seems to stick like glue to the Hoya.
Based on my experience with these, I'll choose only brass filters with the magic dirt-repellant coatings in the future.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-07, 16:41

Apparently the Heliopan also has click-stop detents (though not calibrated to specific stops) to help you quickly line up the same light filtration, and it's the thinnest Variable ND I'm aware of. Obviously, the luxury brand, but likely also the best performing.

I wonder how all the filter brands stack up? There's Heliopan, Tiffen, Hoya, Singh Ray, and B+W. I think the last is also German (Schneider) and I generally appreciate the way Germans build stuff. From time to time Americans give us equally sturdy, though slightly less refined wares.

See, here's one of the things that evolving DSLRs could fit into a vacated mirror assembly - filters! - or that the new ILC mounts could be incorporating.* Or, maybe just give us an ISO 6 setting, or at least an ISO 25?

* I just checked, Fuji does this on their X100, it's a fixed 3-stop ND, but not on the X Pro 1 - which is a missed opportunity - but maybe a consequence of the radically short back-focus of their lenses.

Interesting set of UV filter tests, but I'm not sure that lenstip is the last word on the subject: My eyes tell me that all of these filters are doing virtually the same thing, at least optically, which is nothing. Results may have been different with film, which I don't ever expect to use again.

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_sum mary.html
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-07, 19:10

Cameron makes what I consider affordable (cheap) vari-ND filters (all the local shops here have them). The 77mm one I have cost $89 (the Singh Ray 77mm is $388!). I was considering getting a high end filter set (Lee) but decided I wouldn't use them enough to make it worth while. I haven't noticed any banding on mine, but again I haven't used it a lot. It does not have click stops (you have to bend over your camera and look), and even worse the hood of your lens wont fit over it (they make the filter edge larger than 77mm so it is easier to take off).

UV filters are a waste of money IMO, don't know why anyone uses them, unless you are shooting film. I have a Hoya (Keno branded) Pro1 CP filter and it works well, but as Dorian notes it does get jammed in the filter threads of my 24-70 and 300mm F4.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-08, 09:43

Ooops, the Heliopan doesn't have click stops, just hard stops at the min and max settings. I guess some don't have this, doesn't seem that big of a deal really. Best thing might be the thickness, only 8.7mm. They claim it works down to 16mm without vignetting - need to see some tests before I believe that.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-08, 12:05

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Best thing might be the thickness, only 8.7mm. They claim it works down to 16mm without vignetting - need to see some tests before I believe that.
Yeah, I'd expect that to depend entirely on how generous the filter thread is on a given lens. For many years Nikon tried to squeeze 52 mm threads onto most of its lenses (back when this kind of standardisation really mattered), which often led to vignetting with thick filters (8.7 mm is still pretty thick, though thin for a variable-ND I'm sure).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-08, 16:40

I wonder if 77 is the new 52? Some previously 77mm designs are now 82mm (all of Sigma, Canon, and now Tamron's new 24-70 designs). Nikon's zooms have tended to be more flute like and less beer can in shape (except for the 14-24...) There don't appear to be consequences to performance. The Canon 24-70 L2 is untested, but it should be excellent. As for the rest, irrespective of the front element size, the Nikon tests sharper, and with less vignetting, than either of the Sigma or Tamron.


Found this review. Maybe he's just inept, but that lens definitely looks soft to me.

http://www.wallyandnay.net/Web/tech-...-70-f28-di-vc/

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-09, 06:04

The new f/2.8 standard zooms you mention use a positive-lead design, which necessitates the use of a larger front element and thus filter thread. Nikon's f/2.8 zoom is still a negative-lead type (like Canon's old – or still-current? – lens), though who knows if the next Nikkor will continue that tradition.

The new Canon will probably be better in many regards than anything we've seen before, but I'd predict high curvilinear distortion due to the positive-lead design. Distortion is less of a problem today than in the past, since distortion can be digitally corrected. (See the lenses of almost all compact cameras and many Micro Four Thirds lenses for the extreme outcome of this new approach.)
  quote
GSpotter
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A small town near Wolfsburg, Germany
 
2012-05-09, 07:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I'm leaning to the Heliopan because I might want just a one stop cut during the golden hour, or forget to the unscrew the thing, and one stop isn't so bad.

I really haven't looked at filters enough to judge the differences that a circular polarizer and ND might have on skin tones.
You know that a Vari-ND is just a combination of two polarizers? If you only need about one stop, a normal polarizer might already be enough...
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-09, 09:45

Here's the scenario. I get a couple outside in harsh mid afternoon sun. The sun is at their backs or directly overhead, or high to the side, or some other equally shitty spot, and I have to flash them at something like f/11 or f/16 @ 1/500s just to tame the light, and I have to deal with a white dress. So now I'm using HSS or some other trickery, and it all gets to be more than I want to deal with.

There's a limit since the ND doesn't change the ratio of fill to ambient, but it does tame the overall exposure to a point where a lesser flash setting works. The one stop setting is probably not sufficient, but it's tame enough that we can move from sun to shade and back without constantly unscrewing filters.

Of course all of this can be overdone as well: couples probably don't want their mid-day sunny afternoon pics to look like they were shot at twighlight, or to blur all the environment in every shot, so that's the other point where 1-6 flexibility comes in.

It's really about convenience. A fixed ND would be cheaper and likely better. The reviews I've found say the best variables are not harmful to overall quality.

I'm not sure about the DIY solutions, I do know that linear and circular polarizers have a different effect on PDAF modules, so you have to pay attention to how you stack them up.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-09, 11:49

Could you use a reflector for fill light?
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-09, 12:07

I'm a bit worried that a lot of the time I'll just be all by my lonesome.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-09, 13:29

Right, which makes using a reflector very difficult. Sounds like you really need to be using a circular polarizer, not an ND or solid polarizer, which wont help at all.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 42 of 114 First Previous 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad's lack of built-in camera, video chat rdlomas Apple Products 47 2010-02-04 09:37
Good Digital Camera for First Time Digital kieran Purchasing Advice 3 2005-11-18 18:20
New Digital Camera! PowermacG5newbie Genius Bar 2 2005-05-17 23:07


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:35.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova