|
|
Post by geoffr on Oct 1, 2024 21:35:37 GMT
Although my cameras have video capabilities I have configured the button to select the exposure mode so, even if I want to receive a video it would be time consuming to re-enable the function. I don’t think I have ever set any of my cameras, going back to the F5, to continuous shutter release, I’ve never found the need, I can shoot at 3 or 4 FPS in single shot mode, which I consider adequate for my purposes. However I have to agree that a video can sometimes be a better choice than a string of stills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Oct 2, 2024 15:41:21 GMT
Must be a really serious photographer if he takes 1700 shots of something.  Or perhaps exactly the opposite? Just over a minute (at 25 fps) of video, or about 3 minutes at 9/10 stills per second (for example) and then many happy hours selecting the one frame that will make him/her famous. Has anybody noticed that when a 'perfect' sports or wildlife shots is used in AP the caption writer usually praises the photographer's skill and experience that enabled him/her to press the shutter button at exactly the right moment, ignoring all the magazine's reviews of camera bodies that feature what I call 'machine gun mode', very high megapixel sensors that allow severe cropping, and an autofocus system that can track fast moving subjects? Using one of these systems surely the only skill is being in the right place to take the shot and being able to point the lens in roughly the right direction?
If the image really is a 'one off' and not one of a large series of images, I would be impressed. I wish the caption writers would ask the photographer more about how the shot was taken.
Has anybody yet written software that can reliably select the 'best' image from 1,700 shots, thus removing the need to exercise another skill? |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Oct 2, 2024 15:56:23 GMT
Has anybody yet written software that can reliably select the 'best' image from 1,700 shots, thus removing the need to exercise another skill? I think I read, in AP, that Lightroom can sort bursts into "stacks" and the user can choose which member of the stack appears on the top (for viewing) so in principle the effort of finding the "best" image is broken down to "best in a burst" and "best amongst bursts" then follows. It wouldn't surprise me if AI tools couldn't already sort for discard poorly focussed or otherwise blurred images. Focus stacking software does something like that already. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Oct 2, 2024 16:57:35 GMT
Has anybody yet written software that can reliably select the 'best' image from 1,700 shots, thus removing the need to exercise another skill? I think I read, in AP, that Lightroom can sort bursts into "stacks" and the user can choose which member of the stack appears on the top (for viewing) so in principle the effort of finding the "best" image is broken down to "best in a burst" and "best amongst bursts" then follows. It wouldn't surprise me if AI tools couldn't already sort for discard poorly focussed or otherwise blurred images. Focus stacking software does something like that already. A lot of phones these days have a best shot function in the camera app. Mine takes a short video and picks what it thinks was the decisive moment. It's not terrible at it...it's certainly not worse than missing the moment due to shutter lag. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Oct 2, 2024 17:10:09 GMT
Just realised a flaw in the just shoot video idea. A variable ND big enough to fit a supertelephoto lens would not come cheap. 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Oct 2, 2024 18:03:08 GMT
Just realised a flaw in the just shoot video idea. A variable ND big enough to fit a supertelephoto lens would not come cheap. 😂 Filters drop into a slot in the back (camera end) of mine. Dunno what they cost though. I've never looked to see what is available. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Oct 2, 2024 18:58:55 GMT
Just realised a flaw in the just shoot video idea. A variable ND big enough to fit a supertelephoto lens would not come cheap. 😂 Filters drop into a slot in the back (camera end) of mine. Dunno what they cost though. I've never looked to see what is available. Do you think you could appropriately use a VND in a rear slot? |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Oct 2, 2024 19:32:42 GMT
Filters drop into a slot in the back (camera end) of mine. Dunno what they cost though. I've never looked to see what is available. Do you think you could appropriately use a VND in a rear slot? The only rear filter I've heard of is a polariser so why not? I thought a VND is a double polariser. I've got a 77 mm one somewhere. It was a gift but I've never used it. Edit: Out of curiosity I searched for drop-in filters for Canon 500 F4. Wex sell (to special order) a variable density. Costs a fair bit though - I forgot exactly how much - order £370 I think. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Oct 2, 2024 20:10:09 GMT
Do you think you could appropriately use a VND in a rear slot? The only rear filter I've heard of is a polariser so why not? I thought a VND is a double polariser. I've got a 77 mm one somewhere. It was a gift but I've never used it. If the light is consistent it won't need constant adjustment, but there are times you want to keep making small adjustments. I doubt it would be easy to balance the camera and lens and make that adjustment? |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Oct 2, 2024 20:18:20 GMT
The only rear filter I've heard of is a polariser so why not? I thought a VND is a double polariser. I've got a 77 mm one somewhere. It was a gift but I've never used it. If the light is consistent it won't need constant adjustment, but there are times you want to keep making small adjustments. I doubt it would be easy to balance the camera and lens and make that adjustment? See edit above. I think you'd need the lens on a gimbal but the adjustment might be straightforward, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Oct 3, 2024 15:57:12 GMT
The only rear filter I've heard of is a polariser so why not? I thought a VND is a double polariser. I've got a 77 mm one somewhere. It was a gift but I've never used it. If the light is consistent it won't need constant adjustment, but there are times you want to keep making small adjustments. I doubt it would be easy to balance the camera and lens and make that adjustment? My DSLR has an 'auto ISO' function which I have occasionally used with a telephoto lens because I want to fix the lens aperture and shutter speed (the lens is about 25 years old and performs best at F11, without any built-in image stabilisation, and the image stabilisation in the camera body does not work very well at that focal length). It appears to cope reasonably well with lighting variations, and is the only form of automated exposure I use. |
|
