Photography/cameras and associated gear thread.

[Fenrir]

Have a squizz at Geosetter.

Not the easiest thing to use straight up but does it all and let's you do what you want rather than what it wants.

Uses Exiftool which can do essentially anything you can think of to exif data.

[The_Piper]

Have a squizz at Geosetter.

Not the easiest thing to use straight up but does it all and let's you do what you want rather than what it wants.

Uses Exiftool which can do essentially anything you can think of to exif data.

Thanks, I'm having a look now. It's very useful.

[Macdoc]

Is there a photo storage website that allows up to 2k ( 2560 x 1440 ) at full screen resolution.

Picasa ( google ) allows to storage up to 2k and 4k but limited screen resolution for viewing and slide shows.

thanks

Trying Zenfolio with my high rez screen shots... see how it works out.

http://www.zenfolio.com

Answered on question....images and slide show can go to full screen resolution...and you can change the look.

[Adco]

I need some advice. I have a Nikon D3100 and a Sigma DG 70-300mm lens. A lot of my shots look out of focus even when the red focus dots in the viewfinder says that focus has been achieved. I have used ViewNX 2 which is the software supplied with the camera to view my photos. ViewNX show the focus spots that the camera generated. Even those supposedly in-focus shot look blurred.

Could it be that the lens doesn't locate properly when I attach the lens? It feels as if the lens locates with Swiss precision every time. Is the lens just poor quality? I have taken some really great shots with the lens in the past. It seems as if it is not consistent.

Here is an example of a photo:

dlion out.jpg (260.98 KiB) Viewed 2650 times

Untouched except to shrink it from 4.3Mb down to a manageable size.

dlion in.jpg (127.79 KiB) Viewed 2650 times

Untouched except to crop to show a closeup. I don't think the shot is in focus.

Am I expecting too much? Maybe this camera just can't do better?

[Alan B]

It definitely looks out of focus. Now, I'm not a Nikon 'fan' and I do not know much about Sigma lenses but if your wont is to have close-ups of flowers, I would suggest a lens with a Macro function.
There does seem to be something amiss, though. If you focussed on the Dandelion, the un-cropped image appears to be more in focus at the bottom right-hand corner.

Doesn't seem to be a 'level playing-field'.

[Macdoc]

I found the same thing with MFT long lens when trying with AF.
It got way better when I switched to manual focus and even better with the GX7 with focus peaking.

You should be able to focus right on the middle of that flower sharply with that lens. That said ....your light level is low.

The GX9 has focus assist which allows the AF to get close then when you use the focus ring you can refine the focusing further ( it expands about 30% of the screen to higher magnification so you can get the exact focus depth you want.
Took a few tries to get this accurate on the 100-300 in lowish light.



You can see how little depth of field there is.
I used to rely on AF but now use the focus assist most often....the Peak Focus makes it very easy.

I actually enjoy using the long lens for macro at a distance.

[Adco]

I just realised a mistake. The above picture was shot with an 18-55mm Nikon lens. I started my post talking about the 70-300mm and then show something else. Sorry!

However, the short lens is also out of focus. I guess that means there is something wrong with the camera.

When I look through the viewfinder, I don't see the a focus ring, I only see blocks in the center of the screen that the light up red when focus is found and there is a yellow/green block at the bottom that also comes on. I know the ring you are talking about but I don't have that. Unless there is a setting on the camera that I don't know about.

This problem isn't always present. Some days I have reasonable focus, other days not so good. I do change lenses when I go on safari and perhaps the coupling/mounting is not ideal.

[chairman bill]

AF can sometimes be off by a small amount, and that can vary from lens to lens. You might find these useful -

http://www.bythom.com/autofocus.htm
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart

[hackenslash]

Looks like a combination of reticulation (Sigma lenses are pretty poor and prone to it, especially at the edges, and zoom lenses always suffer from it a bit) and a wide aperture setting, resulting in lack of depth. The dandelion head is pretty well in focus.

[Macdoc]

Check your firmware for an AF upgrade ....

[Macdoc]

I've been following the incredible arms race in the Superzoom category and finally caved. I just noticed it also has focus peaking ...something I love on the Gx7.

The short answer to that question is an emphatic and wholehearted YES! Given what this camera offers for the $600 price tag, we consider it to be a terrific value, offering a feature set that no other camera can currently match while at a price that's quite frankly causing the production lines to virtually buckle. (Nikon just a few months ago officially apologized for not being able to keep up with the overwhelming demand for this camera.)

It was difficult to focus on the task of fully reviewing this camera because the enticement of a 2000mm optical reach is so compelling for those of us who enjoy wildlife photography, and most everyone who was involved in this review does. Our reviewer Jeremy Gray was the obvious candidate to get the nod for reviewing based on his affinity for wildlife shooting and given his picturesque surroundings in Maine, USA. If you've not yet read his in-depth P900 Field Test, make sure and do so if you're interested in a comprehensive overview from the field. Also, for anyone who craves details about image quality and performance testing you'll want to read our Optics, Exposure and Performance pages to get the full scoop.

What we loved about the P900...
Boiled down, if you're shooting in conditions with plenty of ambient light and can keep the zoom reach to roughly 1800mm and shorter, the P900 can really deliver the goods. We found that the onboard Vibration Reduction system works very well and is a great benefit when shooting at longer focal lengths. And while the camera is fairly large and bulky out of necessity, it has a nice balance and a very secure feel in the hands -- both the weight and balance work to the shooter's advantage when trying to remain stable during handheld shooting.

This was shot handheld at 1800mm equivalent - I'll take that.


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/n ... -p900A.HTM

It reaches further and weighs less than my GX7 with the 100-300 lens. When I'm shooting wildlife I'm usually in decent lighting and I do find the 100-300 lens a handful and I'm not sure the internal stabilization of the lens is 100% compatible with the stabilization of the Gx7 ( the 300 was fine with the smaller gx1 ).
Plus it needs servicing as the manual focus is not smooth. I do love the peak focusing on the 100-300 with the Gx7. Let's me know right away I'm in the correct range.

I'll use the P900 for wildlife and the Gx7 with the 45-175 and 20 mm for riding and casual photos.
The 45-175 combo weighs less and is physically smaller and I love the lens.

The 20 mm is just superb and easily pocketable plus I have the macro lens I have yet to experiment with.



At $600 US tho the P900 offers a stunning array of features and reach. Manufacturer cannot keep them in stock.
Looks like it is reasonably ergonomics.

wow



some Canon fanboyz deserting for this.

[Agrippina]

Beautiful shots. I wish I could afford a new camera. Since my 300 lens' autofocus function stopped working, and I have to do the focusing manually, I really battle to get properly-focused pics, probably because my eyesight ain't what it used to be. We've been paying for car repairs this year so I haven't been able to save up money for a new camera, or justify buying one since I already have three others, and the cameras on two iPhones to use. A new Canon, with some extra lenses would be nice though.

[Macdoc]

Yeah kinda excited to have the reach....this blew me away



to this - but that's only half the reach optically !!!



but then

Those are both handheld shots from the same spot and that’s not even the full zoom range. The first is 35mm equivalent and the second is 950mm equivalent (the P900 crop factor is 5.6). This was the view from Navajo Point toward Desert View and The Watchtower. To get an idea of the full zoom range let’s double the distance and go to Lipan Point, 1.8 miles from the Watchtower and slap the P900 on a tripod, set the self-timer to lessen camera shake and take some test shots.

24 mm


260 mm


2000 mm - fully optical



and here's the drop dead shot..



4000 mm!!!!

The shots from 24mm to 2000mm equivalent are with the optical zoom. The shot at 4000mm equivalent is with the camera’s digital zoom enabled. Crazy, huh?

ya think??

[Agrippina]

OMG I just died.

[Alan B]

And to think that the P900 CCD is not much bigger than ones littler finger-nail...

[Macdoc]

The only way they can get that kind of reach in a relatively tiny package.

This is a 1200 mm Canon by comparison at circa 10 lb

[Macdoc]

a few more shots at 2000 mm by a guy that used to digiscope for that range

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p ... tcount=192

gonna get enthusiastic about chasing waterfowl

sample from above

[The_Piper]

Who took the shot of the chipmunk, Mac or the reviewer from Maine?
His feet are blurry from that fog-like appearance.

[Macdoc]

Reviewer from Maine...
That's the depth of field issue that occurs when shooting at extreme ranges. I have the same problem with my 100-300 mm ( 600 mm equivalent ) lens.

This was taken at 40 yards

[Macdoc]

4000mm

•••
this post sums it up

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p ... tcount=379