OT - Flash Photography

[dennis]

There was a time pros wouldn't use digital, most of them are dinosaurs.

The lenses available are usually the same, most people don't need the really expensive ones. PS my 500 mm "lens" has better optical performance than most pro 500mm lenses as its diffraction limited and optically correct (its a telescope). I have access to an 1800 mm one too but I don't need to see the pores in a footballers face at the other end of the field.

But you complain about EVFs lagging so live view is no good.

Don't be silly, do you really think the EVF is going to lag the amount of time it takes to whip the mirror up? Why do you think you can only do 10fps even on an expensive pro camera, it takes about 100ms to move the mirror. A mirror-less camera could be taking jpegs at 30 fps (no not movies, stills)! Some might even do RAW at that speed but you need one hell of a fast card to keep up. The wife's superzoom will do 10 fps in RAW but its only 16 Megapixel.

At 10 fps the mirror is bouncing up and down at 10 fps, not much good if you are trying to keep something steady.

In a mirror-less camera there is no optical viewfinder so if its not a good one it can be difficult to use.

Having said that a good mirror-less camera will allow you to see and frame stuff that's just too dark to see through an optical viewfinder. A year or two ago the opposite was true and optical ones were better than electronic.

Just because you pay £6k for a d3x doesn't mean it takes better pictures than a Sony a7. You can probably get more system parts for it but that doesn't mean you can't take the same photos in different ways, you just have to be creative.

[whisky-dave]

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

LRs were 20 years ago.

ust inst't as good as a FF DSLR.

up to the job.

They aren't the same. But pros do that's the point isn;t it.

So. Would you be prepared to say which lenses your're talking about ? You won;t see p[ores on a footballers face with a 1800mm lens. unless you can prove it of course.

No you use the optical viewfinder as that's what it for.

want to capture, which is one of the main reasons mirroless isnb;t used fo r sport.

Not relivent as it's teh time it takes the person to react to what they see n on teh screen.

you can do much more than 10FPS on a pro if yuo buy one for that purpose

but it can't due to the processing power of the current chips.

Same would go for mirrorless. the same card specs.

which one is that then ?

You won't use it for steady shots that's what IS or VR are for.

yep one of the disadvantages or mirrorless.

depends on how the optical finder works doesn't it. If it's too dark it'll have probl;ems focussing too.

they still are.

for video cameras now they make good sensors but that's about it.

Doesn;t mean the sony A7 is better either.

there's far less glasss for the sony A7 than the canon or nikon range.

[dennis]

Most pros don't. When does a wedding photographer need a f2 500mm lens?

It will resolve about 2/3 arc second so you can work out at what distance if you want.

You can't with live view as the mirror is up and there is no optical view unless you fit one to the hot shoe which sort of defeats the idea of an SLR.

Its that plus the lag in the system, its important that its consistant as a good photographer will be able to predict when the best moment is going to occur and will press the shutter just before it happens.

But they can!

We are talking about mirror-less did you mean something else?

tz40 It will go faster but at reduced resolution.

IS doesn't work for high frequency shocks, however to be doing 10 fps the SLR will probably have a shutter speed of about 1/1000, you won't be able to see the shake unless there are straight lines which will become slightly bent as the slit crosses the frame.

Didn't you say you needed to use live view on the lcd screen on the back, much worse than the evf for most things.

That is exactly the same for any camera, they just use an IR illuminator or a light if the lens design doesn't cope well with IR as it will focus at a different place to visible light on many.

Not for all uses.

I never said it was, they are all better at some things than at others.

But you can fit both nikon and cannon glass to the A7. You can even fit it to a cheap micro 4/3 camera if you want. There are advantages in having a smaller body, you can fit adapters between the glass and the body.

[whisky-dave]

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

SLRs were 20 years ago.

just inst't as good as a FF DSLR.

t up to the job.

He doesn't so he won't buy one even if one was availble. Can you shown me such a lens ?

Doesn't matter.

That's because you're not meant to use them at the same time there's no poi nt each has a use. The're no point in using a hot shoe viewfinder on a SLR . Those that buy such things use them because teh EVF on cameras is so crap a nd unusable.

ou want to capture, which is one of the main reasons mirroless isnb;t used for sport.

seen on teh screen.

The lag in DLSR is quite low and not really significant for most pros. Cabn you explain what sort of delay such a system has and how that will ser iousl hod, back a pro wedding photographer who'll likely take 5mins framing the subject. I've done wedding photography before, you don;t need the worl dss fastest camera and lenses. You certainly don't need a 500mm F2.

yes and with burst firing to make sure. Pre-triggering is mopre useful anyw ay.

prove it.

Every camera has to record to something. That's what pros and everyuone el se wants.

So, it's not exactly a pro camera is it. and it's a superzoom camera can't even change the lens so you can't put a 500mm F2 on it. only goes up to 6400 ISO and relatively tiny sensor. and I can;t even find any refernece to it being able to do RAW.

and a fastest shutetr speed of 1/1200 most pro camera go to 1/4000 if not 1/8000. Even my old 1970s mechanical camera can do 1/1000, and it'll work without a battery.

Pros manage it, when pros shoot fast they want a speed higher than 1/1000.

You don't have to in fact most pros don't that's the point.

which is why pros like manual focus too which your tz40 doesn't have.

for the uses most put them to. Another problem with EVF is that they use a lot of battery power cutting down the amount of shots you can take.

od for video cameras now they make good sensors but that's about it.

and that's why pros tend to still choose DLSRs over mirror-less, or superzo oms. Because for teh majority of things they do they need a DLSR.

and thre asre lots of disadvantages too. If the sony camera is so good you' d think that they'd make lenses for it rather than relying on Nikon and can on for a decent lens range.

things that pros won;t like about the A7 Noisy high ISO images compared to full-frame competitors, Control dials are small, and too recessed. Subject tracking in continuous AF can be unreliab le There is no silent shooting mode and the shutter is quite loud, especially for a mirrorless camera.

[dennis]

8<

They don't need d3x cameras either and frequently don't use them.

Yes. Put a telecompressor on one of these

Less than £1k too.

8<

Of course it matters, do you not understand basic optics? Why do you think lenses perform worse at small apertures?

Just because you don't need one doesn't mean others don't have a use for them, what doyou think they use when under water and you can't see anything through the pentaprism?

The lag in SLRs is slower than in good compact and mirror-less cameras. It has to be due to the mechanics need to move stuff about that doesn't move on mirror-less cameras.

A good photographer doesn't rely on doing a burst and hoping for a good picture, he may as well video it and select a frame if that's what he is doing. You decide when the picture will be best and predict when it will happen and press the release allowing for the system lag.

Even the £150 zr800 will do 40 fps in still mode and several hundered in various movie modes.

That's because I misstyped tz60.

But its a focal plane shutter so any movement will create distortion in the image, this is because the shutter exposes different bits of the sensor in sequence and the subject can have moved.

Yes I have seen the distortion you get, some pros use it artistically, if you don't like it you can buy lenses with shutters built in but there is an increase in lag as you have to fully open the focal plane shutter and then expose the image and then close the focal plane shutter. There is a corresponding drop in frame rate and more time spent with a black image in the viewfinder.

I see a lot of pros holding the camera above their heads, how do you think they are framing if not by using live view?

So does all the extra electronics in pro cameras which is why they tend to be bigger so they can have more batteries.

There are very few uses they could just use a compact system camera for, they just haven't been around long enough for the majority of pros to get rid of their DSLRs yet.

You have the wrong a7. have a look at the a7s.

Which pro DSLR has a quite shooting mode? Is it silent like some of the compact system cameras or just quiet?

[whisky-dave]

Pros use the cameras they want to for the task in hand.

So, pro photographers wouldn't buy them, astronomers might.

Doesn;t matter to the normal pro as they won't use such a long lens stopped right down. Thre's just not that muvh light to be able to do 1/2000 at f16 and wiuth a long lens like that you will get camera shake.

an underwater housing, typically uses a wire frame.

Mirroless camera still have shutters.

They do, that ios why thery are used.

so what my fuji HS10 can do that. But it not a pro camera.

Not a lot of differnce it's not a pro camera.

so what.

Guess work, I've done it myself. Pros have been doing this for 50 years or more.

because that's what pros want.

which is why they tend not to have them.

they don't want to get rid of their DLSR until compacts come up to that sta ndard. It's the sensor size that matters to them. Go ask in a photograhy group NOT a DIY group.

[dennis]

Its the mirror that they don't have, its the mirror that causes the majority of the shake and the delay. Its what causes the viewfinder to blackout for about a tenth of a second every time you take a picture.

Not a good one then. Why don't they just use 4k video?

So what if its not a pro camera, it does something a pro camera can't so a pro that needs it will buy one, then it must be a pro camera. Just what do you think makes a pro camera?

I never said it was, what have you got against non pro cameras that do the job just as well as the pro cameras?

Movement distorts the image even on pro cameras.

8<

So have I, but they use live view now.

Funny I thought a pro wanted any camera that takes the image that gets him paid. There aren't many big DSLRs used by pro newspaper men these days, they are too big.

orry the speil checker got that one, it should read couldn't use.

But I know all about sensor sizes and stuff. The majority of pros don't need 24 Mpixel full frame cameras for the pictures they produce. Some do but then some need more. But you are trading different qualities depending on the sensor size and the number of pixels. Did you look at the r7s, it trades pixels for sensitivity, it will produce far better low light results than a d3x.

>

[whisky-dave]

pped right down. Thre's just not that muvh light to be able to do 1/2000 at f16

No that is mostly caused by the person holding the camera.

So, Pros can handle this maybe gross amateurs can't but pros can and have done for the past 50+ years.

Because very few cameras have 4K video and even then it's not anywhere near as good as a FF camera. 4k isn't that great for stills anyway.

In the early 70s we has a 20,000 FPS camera here that used film and was use d to film lightning stickes on aircraft and other high voltage discharges. That WAS a pro camera.

It's one a professional photographer will buy so he can make money from usi ng it. he may well buy a P&S for holiday snaps, but it's not a pro camera.

A professional photographer is highly unlikely to use a five quid camera f or pro shoots unless thrers a very good reason.

Nothing if they do the job just as well but few if any do.

What's wrong with a driver choosing an unmodified citroen 2CV in a drag race, nothing is there ? A driver can get into a 2CV far quicker than he can get into a drag car and do up all the safety straps...

and on virtually all cameras.

because it's there and then only if they have a rotaing LCD.

Yes.

There are plenty, there are very few that aren't DLSRs. Just watch any important news event. Look at sports events, you'll notice the high end grey camera lenses canon makes. They are not attachet to P&S's or compacts or superzoom. You'll see the genmeral public with superzooms as you see the flashes go of

200 metres away when the range of them is under 20ft. You won't find pros doing that.

But the fact is a pro might use them but rarely for pro work if they aren't up to the job.

standard. It's the sensor size that matters to them.

They don't it's who they are selling to that insist they get the best quali ty, or you want a better image than the next pro if your freelance.

so what if that's what the pro wants he'll buy it, if he only needs 12MP the dx3 has twice that as it's FF. and it's a 6 year old camera. I don't think it's fair usign a 6 year old camera with the sony latest.

[dennis]

You can eliminate that, you can't eliminate the mechanical disturbances.

That's very unlikely, which slr cameras would do 10 fps 50 years ago?

Its 4k resolution, about as good as 200 ASA film was.

But you couldn't fit all those pro lenses on it so hows it pro camera as that's what you think one is.

So all these cheap cannon dslrs they use on microscopes and stuff like that aren't amature cameras buy pro ones.

So does that make it a pro camera?

I thought you didn't think any of them would do the job (whatever that is). After all one of the best cameras you can get for low light shots (the a7s) isn't a pro camera.

So this pro dragster is good because it can do lots of things using a big system of add ons? More than a CV2?

Only on ones with focal plane shutters. Many compacts don't use focal plane shutters. Makes you wonder why pro cameras do.

If that's your definition of a pro then some cameras are pros as they won't use the flash at that distance either.

the r7s is full frame, it has a sensor designed for low light so it can take better pictures in low light. The d3x isn't six years old and it has cells on its sensor that are half the size of the sony so it has more noise in the image.

[whisky-dave]

So the vatious technoligies used don;t work mis that what your saying.

They didn;t need cameras that did that 50 years ago my canon A1 with the mo tor drive could get to 5 fps and that was in the mid 70s.

so pretty crap then for stills.

A pro camera is one a professional will use to get professional results. We used that camera for research into what happens when lightneing hits the skin of the aircraf. It was a paid research projec twe the uni got money f or doing it, we needed to get the images and data rioght it's wasnt; just t o go into a family album never to be seen again.

I have one myself, but it's just the body the microscope is the important part.

NO, not normally, bt you;re allowed to see it any way you want, but just do n't expect others to agree.

It depends what the job is. A professional is a person who is making money from what he does.

In your opinion and that's it until I hear what others think it's just yuor opinion.

No, because it is cable of winning the drag race that the 2CV can't.

Doesn't make me wonder why. I wonder why compact cameras don't have first c lass interchangble lenses like SLRs. Or why they rarely use compacts in stu dios for modeling and why all those sports photographers whether they are d oing sycnonised swimmig or motor sports tend not to be using compacts but h ave tripods and big lenes. Either they are stupid or you are, I know where I'll put my money.

Pro cameras and their types aren't fixed in stone, it is a loose term that generaly terms a camera that a profesional photographer is likely to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end and FF DL SRs. Where as pink compact camerqa with a hello kitty camera is NOT considered a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his prof essonal role as a photographer.

Better than what, the previous model..... If it's a good low light camera then those that want a low light camera wil l buy it it realy is that simple. If it gets used by professionals who mak e money from the camera it will be considered a professional camera.

No you're' right it's older. Introduced on feb 19th 2009. In case you don't know we are in April 2015, april 2009 was 6 years ago. feb 2009 is older still.

[tabbypurr]

What?? Dammit I've been had!

NT :)

[fred]

to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end and F F DLSRs.

ed a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his professonal role as a photographer.

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try defin ing what a pro is ? Portrait photographer? Landscape photographer ? Wedding photographer? Sports photographer? Fashion photographer ?

This is anything but an exhaustive list but the requirements of all of the above differ so what one requires of a camera will differ from the next.

It is absolute bollix nonsense to say 'Pros' don't use mirrorless cameras. I mentioned one well known blogger who uses nothing else (Kirk Tuck @ The V isual Scinece Lab) but there are many many more. The market for DSLRs is d ropping every year much to the chagrin of both Nikon and Canon. There is a very good reason for this. All this nonsense reminds me of when auto focussing cameras first came into being. Oh the pros will never use this. They can focus so much quicker etc . Right. Same with the introduction of digital cameras. Oh the pros will never use t hem.Quality isn't good enough etc. Right, again. The LX100 will allow still images be extracted from 4k video of a quality s uitable for 90% of all work, be it pro or otherwise. They had an interestin g lecture on the Panasonic stand at the last Photokina where a pro wedding photographer showed images from 4K video he regularly uses in his photo alb ums. Sony are gradually introducing 'E'lens for their 7 range and they are of ex cellent quality. But as has been pointed out 1000s of existing lenses can b e mounted on the 7 body. I bought a few M42 screw thread Pentax lenses for pennies to play with and find the quality more than adequate for what I wan t. Flogging a dead horse setting DSLRS against mirrorless. There will always b e a few die-hards just as there is those who continue to extoll the virtues o f film but really its all over now.

[Adrian]

Very simple. Somebody who is paid for their photos, no matter what they're of or what kit they're taken with. No more, no less.

[fred]

The point I was making was that I thought it nonsense to talk about pros in general terms with regard to what they would or wouldn't use.

[Clive George]

I'd make a slight refinement to that : somebody who takes photos with the intention of being paid for them.

Amateurs can be paid for their photos sometimes :-)

[whisky-dave]

I did that above.

A pro is considered to be someone that makes money from what they do and that money isn a significant part of their income.

Yep and a pro would choose the camera that they see is best for the work they do.

No one said that.

Yep phones.

Corect and the pros didn;t use them until they became good enough for them in their job.

Right.

and it wasn;t so they didn;t the pros waited until the quality was high enough to ditch film.

Maybe 90% is just not good enough.

They say one swallow doesn't make a summer.

But as has been pointed out 1000s of existing lenses can be mounted on the 7 body. I bought a few M42 screw thread Pentax lenses for pennies to play with and find the quality more than adequate for what I want.

Perhaps somne would find using thos eold lenese on old camera are more than a adequate and don't feel the need to spend money on a new body.

Not yet it isn't when all you can do is compare it with a 6 year-old camera. I doubt 4k Pro film makers will be buying the sony mirror-less.

[fred]

:

kely to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end a nd FF DLSRs.

idered a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his professonal role as a photographer.

efining what a pro is ?

that money isn a significant part of their income.

the above differ so what one requires of a camera will differ from the next .

Streuth. Talk about changing horses mid stream. There you are wittering abo ut how pros wouldn't use mirrorless and now you're saying they will use wha t most appropriate for the job. Why are you repeating what I just said. Is this an admission that you were incorrect ? The point is, and you fail to grasp it, that current mirrorless cameras mee t the requirements of many pros which is why many pros use them.

Oh dear. Re read and inwardly digest.

he Visual Scinece Lab) but there are many many more. The market for DSLRs is dropping every year much to the chagrin of both Nikon and Canon. There i s a very good reason for this.

No Not phones you twit. Phones are replacing the point and shoot market, no t the dsalr one. The traditional dslr is rapidly becoming a dinosaur.

into being. Oh the pros will never use this. They can focus so much quicker etc.

m in their job.

Which is exactly what is happening now with mirrorless.

se them.Quality isn't good enough etc. Right, again.

nough to ditch film.

Which is exactly what is happening now with mirrorless.

ty suitable for 90% of all work, be it pro or otherwise.

But if it is being used it obviously is good enough. The right tool for the jobn many cases

okina where a pro wedding photographer showed images from 4K video he regul arly uses in his photo albums.

You point being ? Do you think I should trawl through the interent to turn up myriad examples of this to show you ?

f excellent quality.

he 7 body. I bought a few M42 screw thread Pentax lenses for pennies to pla y with and find the quality more than adequate for what I want.

an a adequate and don't feel the need to spend money on a new body.

Excuse me. I'm using them on a Sony 7. A full frame mirrorless camera of re cent origin

es of film but really its all over now.

^ year old camera. Whta 6 year old camera.

Strikes me you are the owner of a very old dslr and are now just miffed. Yo u've demonstrated your knowledge of the current mirrorless market is very v ery little. Have you even handled one of the latest mirrorless cameras neve r mind used one?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Or that you are in possession of a mirrorless and cant accept its not the whole solution.

Years and years of rollieflex cameras taking superb portraits did not eliminate the SLR for sports use, for example.

[fred]

On the contrary. Up until recently I used a Nikon D300 with a selection of lenses. The current Sony 7 and Panasonic LX 100 beat the Nikon on many coun ts.

In my time I have used and owned a Super Ikonta folding camera, (2 1/4 x 3

1/4 negatives ) Rolleifles and Rolleicord, Yashicamat 124G. Mamiya C330 all mostly used as a professional in wedding and portraiture. Had my own darkr oom. Developed all films and made countless prints.

I've owned and used various Canon and Nikon SLRS as an amateur,so I think I could claim a modest amount of experience in camera usage.

My entry into this discussion was due to what I perceived to be erroneous o ut of hand dismissal of mirrorless cameras as being not fit for professiona l use. Every iteration of mirrorless since its inception, and my first one was a Minolta about 14 years or so ago, has see rapid improvements. The tec hnology is now maturing. Modern evfs are exceptionally good. The lenses are the same as those used by the dslra, via adapters if necessary. The sensor s are the same if not better than the dslr ones. assuming Sony keep the be st for themselves. Someone above claimed that 4k video was the equivalent t o 200ASA which nonsensical statement might indicate the quality of some peo ple in this discussion.

I never claimed that mirrorless was the whole solution only that it offered an excellent alternative to a standard dslr and that it has/is replacing t he dslr in many markets. The market share of dslrs has declined greatly and that has sweet f.a. to do with competition with phone cameras. Extrapolati ng from the figures many are finding mirrorless preferable to the dslr.

I don't quite get your comments re Rolleiflex and SLRs. In the right hands a Rollei could produce excellent results for certain sports. The straight t hrough viewfinder allowed on to observe the action outside the frame and pl an accordingly. Unfortunately it didn't have interchangeable lenses and the Mamiya C330 which did have interchangeable lenses was really too big and c lumsy for such work IMHO.

Horses for courses. The TLR excelled in portraiture thanks to its waist lev el finder and its use of 120 film. But its an interesting point. In its day the TLR boys looked down on the 35mm users claiming their larger film gave better results. The TLR is now more or less dead having been replaced by the DSLR which in turn is now being replaced by mirrorless.

[whisky-dave]

f lenses. The current Sony 7 and Panasonic LX 100 beat the Nikon on many co unts.

So not on all counts , in other words your Nikon beats the Sony 7 and Panas onic LX 100 on some things although you don't give a scale that you're meas uring against so it's pretty meaningless.

3 1/4 negatives ) Rolleifles and Rolleicord, Yashicamat 124G. Mamiya C330 a ll mostly used as a professional in wedding and portraiture. Had my own dar kroom. Developed all films and made countless prints.

I've done a similar things as an amateur.

I could claim a modest amount of experience in camera usage.

Yep, that seems reasonble.

out of hand dismissal of mirrorless cameras as being not fit for professio nal use.

Well every camera is fit for professional whether or not an individual prof essional will chose one depends on what he's intending to photograph or the market.

I couldn't work out how the speed of film could be linked to 4k video in an y way, especailly without mentioning whether it was 35mm or 70mm.

ed an excellent alternative to a standard dslr and that it has/is replacing the dslr in many markets.

Yes that goes for most things fast food places have replaced resturants too .

do with competition with phone cameras.

it has a lot to do with it.

yes there's a pro photographer here. He's walking around with a Nikon D4 at the moment he admits that what he's doing at the moment he coul,d do with a phone but tehy wouldn;t have employed him to take pictures with his phone . A pro going around using a phone doesn't inspire much confidence and his ph one can't do the things he's Nikon can.

s a Rollei could produce excellent results for certain sports. The straight through viewfinder allowed on to observe the action outside the frame and plan accordingly.

I keep both eyes open when doing such things, framing through the viewfinde r but watching with the other eye.

hich did have interchangeable lenses was really too big and clumsy for such work IMHO.

Yep some horseare better than others on some courses.

use of 120 film.

This is where DLSRs and mirrorless don;t replace a TLR as the TLR forces yu o to use a difernt perspective other than eye level fotogrphy which is what most do.

5mm users claiming their larger film gave better results.

Well that was the case wasn;t it, 120 film of teh same type could be enlarg ed far greater than 25mm or half frame or 110

n turn is now being replaced by mirrorless.

Most sports DLSR users aren't replacing them with mirrorless. You just have to observe sporting fixtures to see that. One day they may well do like pones have replaced compacts or P&S's but for most pros are still buying DLSRs.

As for the nmirroless 4k it's still a gimmick of sorts. look at TV studios have you seen a mirrorless being used by the BBC or sky ?