IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I'm getting the new camera itchy bug again...
We're vacationing in Colorado this summer and I'm thinking about a newer "super-zoom" for that trip (and later trips).

The king of the hill at the moment is the Sony RX10-IV. But it's $1700. :-/

Amazing camera, but then I read things like this:

Cameranoobie wrote:

Why can't the camera not allow you to adjust the screen brightness to "sunny weather" or at all when shooting video?

I need a fix as this camera is unusable in daylight when shooting video cause I can't adjust the screen brightness.

You're shooting 4K or 100/120p HD video. Check the help guide.


I'd guess this is done for power/thermal management reasons. Maybe you should try a hood for the LCD.

-- hide signature --

The forum moderator then says, "sony's answer is you must buy one of these":


(The original poster says that's not a solution because he uses a gimbal mount.)

I have no interest in HD video, but it makes me wonder about the other limitations on this thing...

Yeah, no camera is perfect - understood. But still...

New Overkill! :)

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Canon M5 with 15-150 lens? M6 with 15-150 lens? Peter?
I just can't pull the trigger on the Sony. It's too much. And though it's relatively small and has great features, and focuses fast, it's heavy. And lots of people complain about the menus.

I'm looking around some more.

Canon M5 mirrorless with 18-150 mm zoom lens is looking more appealing. $1249 until midnight (sigh).

APS-C sensor (much bigger than the "1-inch" Sony). (I do wish the camera manufacturers would drop the "vidicon tube equivalent sensor size" nonsense.)

428 + 301 g for the body and lens (vs 1095 g for the Sony).

The Sony probably has better battery life (Canon is always bad).

29-240 mm f/3.5-6.3 equivalent for the Canon vs 24-600 mm f/2.4-4 for the Sony - the Sony lens is much faster and has a much larger range.

I have an SX40HS that will do 840 mm equivalent, so if I have to have extreme telephoto I can take that along.

I don't care about video.

The Sony is an amazing camera, but it's fundamentally limited by the small sensor. The M5 has a bit more growth potential, and can use other Canon lenses.

Looking around some more, I see the M6 with the 15-150 mm lens is cheaper because it has no viewfinder. But there's a special on Add Ons for it with the EVF for $10?!!!1

The M6 is looking much better (has slightly better low-light sensitivity and dynamic range according to CameraDecision.

Decisions decisions... Heh. :-)


New Zooks. This is turning into a nightmare...
Canon EOS 80D Body (APS-C sensor)
Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens for Canon EF
Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD Lens for Canon EF
72 mm circular polarizer (costs ~ 1.5 stops)
77 mm circular polarizer (costs ~ 1.5 stops)
"Basic Kit" with extra batteries, charger, memory card, bag, etc. (roughly $50).
"Connect Station" with 1TB storage (special) $59


Zooks. :-(

I could save $200 by getting the 77D body instead, and that has the advantage of being slightly smaller and lighter, but it's got a smaller optical viewfinder, uses a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism, uses a much smaller battery, can't tweak lens autofocus settings, etc., etc. And the zoom lenses will swamp any weight savings.

The Canon M (mirrorless) boxes seem to be too compromised at this time (the batteries are tiny, few lenses, etc.), and they're not cheap. $2400 is more than the Sony would cost, but it's much more capable, and I'm used to Canon.

I've got 5:30 to decide, if I want to take advantage of these sale prices at B&H...

"Hey, I finally fixed our 17 year old gas furnace so that we don't have to replace it immediately (it wouldn't reliably cold start - it was cutting off because of the pressure sensors which were upset by the condensate drain being blocked up!?!), so I'm saving money, Honey!" Think she'll buy it? ;-)


New have a semi pro photog at work
good cameras start at 15k and go up from there. you are still in the cheap seats
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Yeah, but Pros get paid! :-) Thanks.
New That's only true for medium format
And basically no-one shoots medium format outside.
New Given the D's are in play and Sony's in the picture too...
What about the Sony a7? Mirrorless leader, same weight class, full frame and less than the 80D kit at B&H, even less at Adorama.

Sorry to make life even more complicated ;-)
New Thanks.
One of the things I read about the Sonys that makes me nervous is all the criticisms of the menus. They've apparently gotten better over time, but the A7 is nearly 4 years old. The A7RII is twice the price, and the A7RIII is even more. :-/

Plus there are lots of complaints about Sony cameras overheating. :-( Yeah, squeaky wheel, etc. But it makes me nervous.

But it's good to look at it again before seriously considering spending so much. So thanks!


[edit:] I see I'm mixing up cameras. The Rs are 40+MP, the non-Rs are 24 MP. There's an A7RIII but the A7III isn't out yet - rumors were indicating it would be $1999 body only and out this April. The A7II is 3+ years old.


Expand Edited by Another Scott April 28, 2018, 10:29:14 PM EDT
New Things in that class age well
20MP is sufficient for A2 prints. Noise was a non-issue even 2 years ago, unless you plan on a lot of work at high ISO settings. The quality of the lenses is going to have a much bigger impact than a more recent body.

(I [finally] got my hands on a Canon 5D2 when my semi-pro neighbor went mirrorless. Even at 9 years, I haven't found anything to want for yet and the thing will probably [well, hopefully... ;-)] outlast me.)
New Yup. Good points.
It wouldn't be as much of an issue if I knew I would be using it regularly and thus would get the muscle memory for the menus, reprogramming the buttons, etc. But that's not going to be the case (for a few years at least). And the overheating...

Don't get me wrong - Sony's been making some compelling cameras. And "full frame" has lots of advantages (if you don't need/want large zoom ranges, and can afford it).

But they're just not compelling enough to make me jump just yet. :-) But nothing else is either at the moment.

Thanks again.

New Sony cameras are technical marvels
and ergonomic nightmares.

I keep wondering about chucking my Canon gear and getting Sony, and then I try out an A7III or something, and realise that I can operate everything that matters on my 6D without removing my eye from the finder.
New Can't do it tonight. We'll see if it makes sense in the future.
The body and lenses are roughly the same price on Amazon. The 1TB storage thing is very limited and might not be worth $59. So there's no rush in getting it tonight.

New You only need two lenses for travel toggery.
A fast 35mm-ish prime for night and people shots (and just general "shoot what you see" walking around stuff), and a moderate zoom with some flexibility - my choice would be the canon 24-105mm.

In EF-S mount, this'd be something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Tamron 18-200. Or just get the Canon 24-105mm, bearing in mind it'll actually be about 40-160mm. It's an incredible lens, in any event.

a 10-24 is too wide for casual use. An 18-400 is too long, too big and at max zoom you need a tripod (the inbuilt stabilisation just won't cut it) and you'll get a shitload of aberration and distortion anyway.

You can shoot all day on a single battery. You don't need the polarisers.

Plan B: buy used. 6D body (full frame, don't have to do sums on lens lengths :)) with a Canon 35mm or 50mm (the f/1.2 versions are both better and spendier than the f/1.8 versions) and the aforemention 24-105mm.

Used 6D = $600ish, 24-105 = $400ish, 35mm f/1.2 = $600ish. Spend the difference on a better hotel or something :)

But whatever you buy, do yourself a favour. Chuck the strap that comes with the camera into a drawer and forget it exists. Get a BlackRapid L7 instead. Your neck will thank you for it.
New Thanks for all the info.
I'm still looking around.

I want to be able to take wide angle pictures like this:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/6Frm1p6GMWEipMb26 (Exif says < 10 mm)

and this:


And telephoto pictures like this:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/5pViUMLtDaMNFeg2A (the Exif says that's 150.5 mm, but the camera says it's much longer - maybe it's a the crop scaling issue).

and this:


I've had too many pictures turn out badly because of a washed out sky, so I need some sort of polarizer. A gradient might be better, but too often the subject doesn't have a good flat horizon, so that probably isn't the best for me. Maybe? I don't have time to learn Photoshop and the like - it needs to look decent out of the camera or with "I'm feeling lucky" tweaking in Picasa or similar.

The Canon 6D2 looks pretty good in many respects, but too many complain about the low dynamic range below ISO 800 or so. The Nikon D750 has much better dynamic range, but is about 50% more for the body, and Tamron doesn't the magical all-in-one make lenses for it. And I haven't actually checked whether Tamron has FF lenses comparable to the all-in-one APS-C lenses. (sigh)

Decisions decisions...

New A polariser will not fix your exposure issues
Correctly exposing the scene will fix your exposure issues.

I use a simplified version of Ansel Adams' zone system.

Basically, I look at the scene and I guesstimate something that should be +0 exposure on the camera's light meter. Or I look at the sky and go "bright blue? That should be +2" and then I adjust the exposure to suit.

You can shoot wide-angle scenes like you want by stitching, and the results will be better - more pixels, less distortion. Just remember to shoot a sentinel image at each end of the pano (I take pictures of my feet) to help you find the pano images in Lightroom (or whatev).

Anyone whining about the 6D2's dynamic range below ISO800 is basically a pixel-peeping lunatic. Any modern camera has dynamic range that will more than suffice for a keen amateur. The Nikon has "much better" range - as in "much more stuff that you can't spot the difference in anyway". The whole dynamic range conversation only really applies to astrotogs and other long-exp specialists, and they're all nutters. For holiday pictures? 100% completely irrelevant, because every camera body you can buy is far more than good enough for you.

And it only really matters for side-by-side shooting anyway - you shoot what's in front of you with the camera you've got.

Spend less time fretting about gear and more time reading "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. Take whatever gear you've got right now to its limits, understand what those limits are and why you need to go beyond them, and then go shopping. Because otherwise, you're just going to keep spending money and you're just going to keep blowing out your skies.

For example: I'm about to dump £500+ into a non-stabilised 200mm zoom for shooting landscape. No, I'm not crazy (or Crazy :D) - I have a specific thing I want to do (shoot foreshortened landscape scenes - panoramas can be stitched if required).
New We've talked about some of this before.
Mountains are problematic (for me) if the sky isn't just right.

E.g. a polarizer would have certainly helped with this:


and this:


Yeah, I know a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera - even a pinhole camera. ;-) And Google probably has better photos for places we're going than I'll be able to take. But I like taking pictures, and I want something that will work well for a while and not be an annoyance. And not cost a (relative) fortune.

Yeah, the 6D2 is a great camera and the dynamic range issues aren't really an issue 99% of the time. This example from DPReview has extreme push of the shadows (look at the dog's face and the man's hand when zoomed) when better exposure at the beginning (probably) would have made all the difference. Or taking the picture a few minutes earlier. But at normal sizes, it still looks like a very nice photo.

Real world impact

If you shoot JPEG, you'll never notice any of this, since the differences occur beyond the ~8.3EV or so that tend to be incorporated into a typical image. Similarly, at higher ISO settings, amplification overcomes the electronic noise, so you see the camera begin to out-perform the 80D and then close the gap with the D750, just as Bill's chart suggests.

However, it means if you're processing from Raw at low ISOs, you have much less flexibility in terms of what you can do with the file than we'd expect from a modern camera. Almost as soon as you start to push the image or pull detail out of the shadows, you risk hitting the camera's electronic noise floor and hence you won't see the advantage over the smaller sensor 80D that you might reasonably expect.

Adding to the problem is Canon's metering system, which tends to underexpose images when there's strong back-light. If the metering sensor were high resolution or advanced enough to detect faces, one might expect proper exposures for human subjects even in backlit shots; however, we've found the low resolution metering sensor in the 6D Mark II to be often incapable of detecting - and properly exposing for - faces. That means that backlit shots will be underexposed (unless you intervene), and you'll have limited ability to recover these underexposed shots because of the sensor's poor performance.

(Emphasis added.)

If one knows how it behaves, one can compensate.


New Re: We've talked about some of this before.
There's nothing wrong with that first shot. It's exposed well, composed nicely; a very pleasing natural shot.

Why do you think a polariser would have helped the second one? You'd still have a featureless sky, but it'd be grey rather than white, and the foreground would be underexposed. It needs a soft graduated ND filter. Or shoot the whole thing 1 or 2 stops under, and push it back up in post. And the biggest problem is not the exposure, it's that the picture isn't even remotely straight.

And that DPReview picture is ridiculous. F/9 at 1/200th at ISO 100? You'd literally never shoot like that in real life - at the very least you'd have a speedlite to provide fill flash. Are you currently struggling with a lack of DR?

If you just want to buy more gear, buy more gear. But the thing that's going to improve your photographs isn't more gear, it's more knowledge and more practice about the fundamentals of tekkin' pickchars.
New Still can't do it.
$2000 - $2500 for a APS-C system.
$3500+ for a Full Frame system.
$1700+ for the Sony

It's just too much, especially with the rumors that Canon and Nikon are going to have full-frame mirrorless systems coming out next year. And the APS-C cameras may get updated next year as well.

I've got a G1X that I like except that it only has a 4x zoom. So, at the moment I'm leaning towards a G3X bundled with the EVF for $950. Smaller sensor than the G1X, but faster, higher resolution, and much larger reach. And actually almost affordable for me.

"Real world" sample images (shows jpegs and massaged RAW).

G3X Gallery (jpegs and RAW from 8.8 to 220 mm (not 35 mm equivalent?).

I'll probably change my mind again tomorrow. Stay tuned!! ;-)

New Or $20-odd for the thing you actually need
Which is a copy of Understanding Exposure.
New I got a copy on your recommendation a few years ago.

I have, believe it or not, tried to manually bracket difficult exposure shots (by, e.g. having the sensor set itself on one region then shifting the frame before clicking). E.g.




Probably spending more time understanding the various features and controls on the camera would be time well spent. And getting an appropriate polarizer/gradient filter. ;-)

As I've said, I don't have the time to mess around with learning Photoshop or Lightroom right now. I'm willing to run things through Picasa or Google Photos something similar to do quick (1 button Auto) adjustment of colors and contrast, and maybe do some quick cropping of a few images, but that's about it. I'm already paying for storage with Google, so I don't see the advantage of having photos on Flickr or Amazon's or Adobe's cloud ecosystem.

I want the camera to do most of the work for me when it comes to exposure and focus. I won't have the luxury of picking the time when I visit a particular place (J packs our days when we're traveling), so "pool time" doesn't apply. ;-)

Exposure won't give me more reach or more pixels.

Sorry that I'm being annoying about this stuff. I do very much appreciate your comments.

New The camera is not what limits you
And I know you don't want to learn PS or LR. That's fine; but you're pushing effort back into the camera, so you need to understand the basics. Take the next step - read the book you bought :)

Honestly, if you want a wide lens that will automate most of the processing, your phone will suffice. For ultrawide stuff, phones are already on par with affordable compacts.

Cameras can only do so much in auto mode, and you will never, ever shoot this:

in auto mode. It's a pano, I had to manually (see the zone thing above) set the exposure to balance the sky and the ground (note that the vegetation is very dark in places), and I pushed the aperture very hard to get basically front-to-back depth of field.

OTOH, I shot this on my phone:

tl;dr: you've already got a camera that far exceeds your capability and limits as a photographer. But new gear is nice.

Final thought: pixel-peeping is the ultimate way to destroy the enjoyment of a photo. Ultimately, if a bit of noise in the shadows is the difference between a good photo and not, then it's not a very good photo to begin with.

Look at this marvellous photograph:

It's the ultimate triumph of composition over technical correctness.

Because photography is 90% composition and 10% everything else.
New Thanks..
for many of your elucidations here and past, esp. with such added al punte images..

(Wish you could have been a fly-on-wall re that Ansel Adams photo shoot; luck of the draw that I vas dere, Charlie.)
Seeing the steps in his/their set-up, thence seeing his work after lugging that massive view-camera up odd stairs for a perspective on "the Machine"--
quite different preliminaries -vs- what had been a portrait sitting, but in odd surroundings--earned moi a better comprehension of

just Why.. moi lacked the er, "perception chops" to be a real Photographer (even if I might have had the "10%" grokked to a sufficiency, Nikon F2-wise)
+ the small-angle photometric dances of his Method. A cliche now, but still Truthiness that: Seeing a situation/in the instant needs quite more than "viewing".

{{sigh}} Mastery?! ..moi might have a Minory in this art, then only occasionally.

PS: noted on a "NK"/Japan news show: that Film Cameras (like vinyl "records" ... Heh) seem to be blossoming--at High prices--in the Land of the Rising Sun.
Guess my pristine F2 would have financed moi Seeing that rising sun in situ, had I the foresight to keep also the bitchin ƒ2 105mm portrait lens and other paraphernalia

..or my Black Shadow! in a Nitrogen-filled big sack:-/


(From ITER.org.)

New You do know tha Ansel Adams used dodging and burning?
So, it wasn't the camera and the taking of the picture, it was the film print process afterwards to get the effect he wanted.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Knew dat, but tmi is upon us all :-)
..and I recall some video of him doing such; the obvious thing (which, inferentially he knew and acted upon) was the er, dV/dt effects of
How (along with the how-Long?) he had: to pick the right trajectory to insert, remove that sucker!

Talk aboucher muscle memory, eh?
New He had to
His cameras and film were basically shit, so a lot of effort had to be expended in the darkroom.

"Examples" is an illuminating read.
New Thanks.
I pulled the trigger. From B&H.

- Watson NB-10L Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.4V, 1000mAh) x 2

- SanDisk 64GB Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-I Memory Card

- Lowepro Inverse 100 AW Beltpack (Black) (Holds the camera with the EVF installed)

- Canon Lens Hood & Filter Adapter Kit for PowerShot G3 X

- Canon PowerShot G3 X Digital Camera with EVF-DC1 Electronic Viewfinder (special bundle)

- Hoya 67mm HD3 Circular Polarizer Filter ($159.90 - ouch!)

$1301.06 all up. It should be here early next week. It may be the weekend afterward before I get to play with it. [ edit: The price includes a hockey-puck Chromecast v2, also too. Not the 4k one. No 4k TVs here yet. ]

I'm pretty happy with the choice, so far (even if, say, Canon announces a G3X Mark II next month), but have 30 days to make returns if I change my mind.

I looked around for the BlackRapid strap you mentioned, but couldn't find that particular model. I'll see how it goes.

So no more camera purchase questions from me for a while!! :-)

Expand Edited by Another Scott May 5, 2018, 03:14:49 PM EDT
New Have fun!
New Enjoy it
Not sure what problem you think you're solving, but I totally get the new shiny thing :)

Remember these things for better pictures:

Shoot in manual mode
Use spot metering
Blue sky +2
Dark foreground -2
Sun behind you (you can't pull off arty into-the-sun shots on a compact, soz)
Level water
*** Composition is 90% ***
New I'll do my best.
Much of my thinking was affected by things like this, but I have to say that I didn't see actually it before pulling the trigger.

Note that she uses a polarizer. ;-) I'll have to see how fast the ungodly expensive one I bought really is. I have a monopod, but dunno if that would be stable enough if I need really long exposures with the polarizer...

We'll see how it does with Jpegs. I have shot some RAW stuff (and know the importance of it for PSing), but I haven't seen the benefit with it in my (extremely limited) workflow yet. Such as it is.

Thanks for the exposure cheat sheet. :-) I can't pick where the sun will be on these trips - J's itinerary isn't based on best natural illumination for wherever we're going. :-/ ;-)

New Monopods aren't any good for long exps
They're best used for tracking shots.

You see a lot of monopods at motor racing events, frample.

ETA: pro tog in "takes incredible pictures" shocker!
Expand Edited by pwhysall May 5, 2018, 04:36:29 PM EDT
New For what it's worth, Consumer Reports just "check rated" Canon PowerShot G3X.
Sony's Cyber-shot RX10 (II and III) and Canon's PowerShot G1 X Mark II as well as G7 X Mark II wee ranked higher. But then, their criteria may not match yours.

I just read this in the new CR issue yesterday.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Thanks.
Years ago my recollection is they had some camera ranking where an SLR was ranked much lower than some P&S. They seemed to weigh cost much more heavily than capabilities at the time. It was a mystery to me.

There are many cameras that are better than the G3X in many areas, but I think I'll be happy with it. We'll know pretty soon!


     I'm getting the new camera itchy bug again... - (Another Scott) - (33)
         Overkill! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         Canon M5 with 15-150 lens? M6 with 15-150 lens? Peter? - (Another Scott) - (31)
             Zooks. This is turning into a nightmare... - (Another Scott) - (30)
                 have a semi pro photog at work - (boxley) - (2)
                     Yeah, but Pros get paid! :-) Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     That's only true for medium format - (pwhysall)
                 Given the D's are in play and Sony's in the picture too... - (scoenye) - (4)
                     Thanks. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         Things in that class age well - (scoenye) - (1)
                             Yup. Good points. - (Another Scott)
                     Sony cameras are technical marvels - (pwhysall)
                 Can't do it tonight. We'll see if it makes sense in the future. - (Another Scott)
                 You only need two lenses for travel toggery. - (pwhysall) - (4)
                     Thanks for all the info. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         A polariser will not fix your exposure issues - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             We've talked about some of this before. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Re: We've talked about some of this before. - (pwhysall)
                 Still can't do it. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                     Or $20-odd for the thing you actually need - (pwhysall) - (14)
                         I got a copy on your recommendation a few years ago. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                             The camera is not what limits you - (pwhysall) - (12)
                                 Thanks.. - (Ashton) - (4)
                                     ALICE? - (Another Scott)
                                     You do know tha Ansel Adams used dodging and burning? - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                         Knew dat, but tmi is upon us all :-) - (Ashton)
                                         He had to - (pwhysall)
                                 Thanks. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                     Have fun! -NT - (scoenye)
                                     Enjoy it - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         I'll do my best. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                             Monopods aren't any good for long exps - (pwhysall)
                                     For what it's worth, Consumer Reports just "check rated" Canon PowerShot G3X. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                         Thanks. - (Another Scott)

Powered by fractious cows!
212 ms