OT - Flash Photography

[DerbyBorn]

On a couple of recent holidays to sunny places I have been amused by people with large expensive SLR cameras using flash to take scenic photos in bright sunlight. (I do know about fill-in flash!)

A recent example was someone on a coach tour using a long lens and a large accessory flash gun to take photos through the coach window on the opposite side to where he was sitting!

Of course many will still come out despite the flash, but most cameras will select a particular shutter speed when flash is deployed which may not be the best for the circumstance where flash is not the main illumination.

Personally, I wouldn't even take a decent camera to a beach location for fear of sand damage - I leave it at home as it is one less thing to worry about. My pocket compact is adequate for the usual snaps taken on holiday.

[Broadback]

Similar to people taking flash photos in a theatre, where the light can barely reach the subject.

[charles]

[Snip]

When I was showing off Ceefax at an exhibition some 40 years ago, someone held his light meter against the screen and said "it's a bit dim, I'll need to use flash" - and did. I wonder what the resulting picture looked like.

[charles]

opr even at the Edinburgh Tattoo.

[Davey]

Those are probably just people letting the camera do what it wants, rather than thinking about anything. The same effect is also seen at football games.

[Bob Eager]

Yes, that was bloody annoying.

[Brian Gaff]

Yes, I'd agree. When I could see to take pictures, we were still using film of course, and one did not want to waste exposures with flash illuminating the inside of somewhere when you were actually taking the outside through a window.

Maybe they have not read that part of the manual yet? Brian

[Huge]

Actually, I quite like the "sparkling" effect in the background at large audience events as all the people try to take photos with their PHD (*) cameras. Don't they ever wonder why the photographers at sporting events have about 3ft of glass which cost £10K on the front of their cameras?

(* Push Here, Dummy.)

[dennis]

I've seen them using flash to take photos of fireworks!

[dennis]

That would be because they can't put a remote controlled one in the right place like they do behind the goals at football matches.

The wife's superzoom does a pretty good job as long as its daylight and can certainly match the pictures you get in newspapers without the £10k lens. I just borrow the daughters 3 foot lens and SLR if I want to get really close and good.

[Dave Liquorice]

And normally they don't appear until less than 30 mins before kick off and plonk the damn things right next to the goal FX mic...

So it can give an MCU of a player the other side of a football pitch?

Why not use the wife's superzoom? As you have just said it'll "match the pictures you get in newspapers".

[Tim Streater]

Except of course that it won't, having no tripod, rubbish optics, and a tiny sensor.

[dennis]

If 750mm equivalent optical zoom is enough. Then there is 2x digital too but that drops it to about the same resolution as 35mm film. The lens is reasonable but most leica are.

News paper pictures are cr@p in case you haven't noticed. It can do much better in low light, that's the trouble with compacts, the wells in the sensor are too small.

[DerbyBorn]

and a small aperture leading to a slow shutter speed.

[whisky-dave]

Most probbaly realise it's because they get paid to do so. for most it's no t about capturing a great picture but capturing an event they were actually at. It is there moment in time. I know that a friends picture he took at the ol ympics is worth 100X more than a picture that buzz aldrin took on the moon . It's all about achieving something for yourself rather than be spoon fed by another.

[fred]

Its the planks with their huge white lens permanently mounted on the front of their SLR that get me. To show off, only reason they buy them I suppose.

I switched to mirrorless some years back and the day of carrying a hulking great SLR with its hulking great lenses is gone for me.

And I scream with laughter at those photography sites where the letter writers have their equipment in their sig. Sad, really sad.

[whisky-dave]

I doubt that, those doing such things ffor a job need teh quality and the reach and speed those high end lens supply.

Most have gone to camera phones which are probbaly better than most SLRs were 20 years ago.

as is carrying about 10X8 plate camera, but for pros a mirror-less just inst't as good as a FF DSLR.

It's handty for those that want to learn by example and how to impove.

[dennis]

For a lot of pros a full frame mirror-less one is better..

no bump as the mirror goes up faster response time shorter time between shots

It depends on whether the viewfinder is up to the job.

I want a Sony full frame mirror-less but I am not prepared to buy one ATM.

[fred]

king great SLR with its hulking great lenses is gone for me.

s were 20 years ago.

t inst't as good as a FF DSLR.

The main advantage for me is the fact that I can pre-chimp. Instead of firi ng off a quick shot and then checking on the display on the camera back the eye level viewfinder shows me exactly what I will get. I'd find it very di fficult to go back to a mirror and prism.

If you think pros don't use them check out Kirk Tuck's blog The Visual Scie nce Lab.

and incidentally I have an A7.

[whisky-dave]

No according to the pros otherwise they'd have one wouldn't they. For mopst pros the lenes that are availble for mirroless just aren't up to the job.

that's what mirror lock up is for or live view.

slower respone time as you've waiting for the EVF to show the image you want to capture, which is one of the main reasons mirroless isnb;t used for sport. You really can't beat the speed of light you know.

Not relivent with burst firing of around 10FPS

what do you mean by that ?

Most pros ise nikon and canon for DLSRs higher end pros prefer lieca, Hassblad most would laugh at a sony camera for pro use. Years ago they were good for video cameras now they make good sensors but that's about it.