What camera do you use?

Jan 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM Post #46 of 70
Film only user here!

Leica M6 with 35mm 1.4 lens
Zeiss Ikon with 35mm 1.2 lens
Rolleiflex 2.8F
Mamiya C330F
 
Jan 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM Post #48 of 70
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I've tried Nikon, I've tried Panasonic, I've tried Olympus, I've tried Fuji, I've tried Canon. Seems like no matter what camera I use, I always managed to get crappy looking pictures...


I am sure it is not you. Maybe you should try a Leica
 
Jan 3, 2010 at 7:51 PM Post #50 of 70
How many of y'all shoot RAW (on the cameras that can)?
 
Jan 3, 2010 at 9:39 PM Post #51 of 70
Quote:

Originally Posted by ronnielee54 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am sure it is not you. Maybe you should try a Leica


I think so too. I mean I ooze photographical talent, man. Maybe I go try some Leica goodness.
 
Jan 4, 2010 at 6:14 PM Post #52 of 70
Quote:

Originally Posted by ceekay84 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It still seems out of focus when I place it on a desk, especially when taking pictures of things close-up. When I use the flash, the flash gives off a bright white-lit light overpowering the image.


that is what happens with flash. up close. no matter the equipment. i generally avoid flash except for fill-flash in day shots.

photography is 90% photographer and 10% equipment. your problem is not the camera. (intention not to be demeaning but truth)


as to the question i use canon s90 which is a good mix of decent optics, feature, and sensor AND portability
 
Jan 4, 2010 at 7:22 PM Post #53 of 70
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How many of y'all shoot RAW (on the cameras that can)?


for critical things, I do. for most things these days, though, I use 'poor mans raw' (jpg shooting at 'all settings = low'). low contrast, low sharpening, etc.

then pick up the settings in 'post'.

faster than raw and if your cam's jpg engine is good (oly's is) then I save a few steps doing it this way.

on a well processed image, its very hard to tell if it was from raw or jpg. jpg, today, can be *that* good as a source (but immediately upconvert to 16bpp and do all your PP at that before dithering down to 8bit for final save-as)
 
Jan 4, 2010 at 7:32 PM Post #54 of 70
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How many of y'all shoot RAW (on the cameras that can)?


im a casual snapshooter rather with no made-for-print archival-quality artistic intents... so i shoot JPG (also with minimal processing).

even tho i have enough capacity to store RAW too lazy to do raw-processing
 
Jan 5, 2010 at 1:15 AM Post #58 of 70
iPhone. 1080p quality. Great for Weddings.
 
Jan 5, 2010 at 6:32 AM Post #60 of 70
Nikon D3. I don't see the point of ever shooting jpeg. Unless I know i'll never make a print of it- like for sale item pictures. Same reason I don't see the point in ripping a CD in lossy format.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top