Searching \ for '[OT]:: New toy' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=new+toy
Search entire site for: ': New toy'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: New toy'
2012\03\15@225513 by RussellMc

face picon face
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_OUTapptechnzTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2012\03\15@233040 by cdb

flavicon
face
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:54:32 +1300, RussellMc wrote:
:: 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?

Colin
--
cdb, .....colinKILLspamspam@spam@btech-online.co.uk on 16/03/2012
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named  individual or Personnel Department, and public if addressed to a blog,  forum or news article.
 

2012\03\15@233553 by John Gardner

picon face
Will take awhile to get tired of looking at that..

2012\03\15@235029 by RussellMc

face picon face
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

2012\03\16@002812 by cdb

flavicon
face
Ah I understand now, I thought that icon meant download as in download to PC and store on drive.

Magnificent image, crisp, in focus and the resolution........

As a print on DeviantArt that could make some money.

Colin
--
cdb, colinspamKILLspambtech-online.co.uk on 16/03/2012
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named  individual or Personnel Department, and public if addressed to a blog,  forum or news article.

2012\03\16@012523 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:54 AM, RussellMc <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

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

2012\03\16@014044 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Oli Glaser <EraseMEoli.glaserspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTtalktalk.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

2012\03\16@014822 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

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

2012\03\16@031447 by IVP

face picon face
> 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.

That's right. Consider how the studio pros (stills and film) do it - tripod
and good light. Lots of diffusion to break up shadows for example, but
that can soften edges too (good for portraits, maybe not for technical)

A direct flash might be severe and better ambient light is preferable.
Take note of the white colour. eg normal domestic filament bulbs (60W
- 100W) and fluorescent equivalents are very yellow. Strip lighting not
so bad. A good photographic bulb is bes

2012\03\16@115212 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
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

2012\03\16@121932 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
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}

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

2012\03\16@123234 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 PM, RussellMc <apptechnzspamspam_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

2012\03\17@081523 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
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

2012\03\17@182248 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Lee Jones <@spam@leeKILLspamspamfrumble.claremont.edu>wrote:

> 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.....<snip>
>

That's all very useful info, thanks Lee. I think I will have a go at making
my own light box

2012\03\17@185223 by IVP

face picon face
> That's all very useful info, thanks Lee. I think I will have a go at
> making
> my own light box.

My page

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/joecolquitt/multi-flash.html

shows how to electronically or remotely trigger the camera and slave flashes

2012\03\18@164231 by IVP

face picon face
Just out of interest,

Imaginative and evocative

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116708/Russian-troops-storm-Reichstag-Extraordinary-images-merge-images-European-city-streets-war-peace.html

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012 , 2013 only
- Today
- New search...