Forum Replies Created
I prefer your white balance as you have it. I am shooting some overpasses from below and you are motivating me to do some night work on them. I can appreciate why you would like an S2 with the conditions you live in. Glad you are posting, not many of us get to your part of the world, and I like your eye.
JackNot difficult.
Just make sure you don't scrape the screen on the metal holder. It can scratch easily.
Also make sure you put it in with the right side up, or the holder will not close properly.
If you have to feel like you are forcing it to click closed, you are probably upside down.
Don't drink coffee before the move.Josh says he is going to do a video on the procedure and that would help.
JackThis is a reply for Marc from “Re: Advice need from wedding shooter” copied to this thread on camera straps so it can be found by others reading about straps.
Marc,
Thanks for the advice on the hand strap from http://camdapter.com
and pointing me to the correct plate for RRS.
and mentioning fun colors for the leather. I got the red which is indeed fun.
The S2 is hardly a stealth camera so I don't mind a hand strop that stands out.I use a hand strap for my M but didn't want to add the vertical grip to an S just to get a hand strap. Your solution that you explained on “Re: Advice need from wedding shooter”
was the answer. I also prefer hanging the camera vertically from the main strap rather than horizontal. Total upgrade cost a mere $75.
I can now walk and shoot single handed with security, and keep the shoulder strap out of the way, except when I an “storing” the camera on my shoulder or changing lenses.
JackJackThe WATE indoors is best on a tripod for two reasons, to insure being level and to allow for low light options unless using strobes etc.
I have shot hand held in well lit rooms, but even a small tripod is a huge plus.
This bar shot was half a second in the very low light so the outdoors would not overpower the indoors and require artificial light beyond the lamps.The porch shot could have been hand held, but I wanted max depth of focus and that required f8.
If you click on the porch photo to enlarge it, and examine the edges, you will see how little distortion there is in the lens. Who knows, the ever so slight curvature might be the old porch rather than the new lens.
JackI'm glad Green Bay and Phoenix football has been good to you. I hope your admiration of Aaron helps you get a WATE. I will relay your thanks to him. You really should drop the love of the Bears, as you seem like such a nice intelligent photographer.
Admittedly this photo of Aaron and Clay was not taken with the WATE but I can report that the WATE is a very handy lens. It is not as pocketable as my 28mm, but still a very small lens for a zoom. I like the WATE finder too, with the bubble level in the view. I use it for the level more than as a finder. I often take the shot without the finder and merely check the display to insure the field of view, then adjust as needed as I did with the stadium shot. I would say my 90 2.8, my 35 lux and the WATE would be my favorite three lens M traveling kit. The one lens M traveling kit is the 28mm 2.8 for it's size.
So a WATE would be a great next lens for you.
FYI these two gentlemen are the #1 and #2 sellers of NFL jerseys this year. So they could afford plenty of Leica lenses if they so desired.
JackThe SF-58 on the S2 does a fine job of flash in a difficult situation and has plenty of power for group photos.
JackKipper, I now admit I have the RED in a “partnership” with a movie maker and I would only use it for video as the body is not waterproof and not easy to handhold with your models. But no question about the image quality. From a balcony in Las Vegas I works. Of course I would want the Leica cine lenses but they go for over $100,000.
A comment on rationalizing an S2.
I bought it for the lenses and have not been disappointed. I can't imaging them ever going out of date. The S2 has had enough firmware updates that I can already call it an S2.5. The real question when moving to an S system is do you have any legacy issues from other MF cameras? Can you wait for the system to develop the other lenses you may need. In my case I needed a wide and didn't buy into the S system until the 35mm was available. Now enough lenses are available except for a really long telephoto, assuming you don't need the CS lenses this month.
Regarding the cost. Do your really need this much resolution? I do huge prints. That's way I justified MF. But it still is a lot of money. If you are not shooting for money, but photography is a passion, I would argue that $30,000 to get you into this system is less than a really nice boat or car and some people use their camera more than they would use a car or boat for fun. As Kipper and I will tell you, the crazy part of the S2 world is that once you can rationalize a $7000 lens, you start being able to see your need for $1,200 tripods and $300 filters and $3,000 computers. There is no way to rationalize cutting corners on any other part of your system under the “weakest link” concern. BTW I can rationalize a $7000 lens by saying Leica lenses never seem to depreciate as much as other gear.Happy Thanksgiving David
JackWell after suggesting to myself that I should have shot the former stadium shot with the WATE on 16mm, I went back today and did just that.
In the future which lens should be used? Both are merges, one certainly lets me go wider with the same three shots. But I could have gone wider with the 28 if I had taken five shots. Worthwhile clicking on this shot to see how clear the individual players are.
Packers now 10-0 for season. Challenging game for them.
JackDavid K
You guessed what I would suggest pretty well. However I do quadriptychs too. For Mark's size image my usual triptych would not work as well.
Please forgive me Mark for borrowing the image for an example.You can judge for yourself if the technique is appropriate for this image.
I think each of the individual panels looks great by itself, which is the requirement.
Of course the original pan is terrific. I don't think Mark needed more headroom.The advantage of breaking it up in four parts is two-fold in my mind. First, it is technically easier to have this image produced in four huge sections rather than one super huge. Certainly easier to ship and also to fit in a room. You can turn a corner with this technique.
Secondly, I think people look more carefully at the image when split into three or four panels.Wonderful image Mark, B&W was the way to go.
JackDavid, as usual, has the fix suggestion for when you are taking the photo.
If you want to try and fix this after the fact in Light Room, you can do a local brush that is set to reduce clarity and or sharpness just a bit. Just apply it to the worst areas. It is pretty fast. Not perfect, but I would rather skip the AA filter to get the rest of the scene sharp and let this tiny area go a little soft.
Others may solve it in other ways.
JackYour point on time consuming PS work was driven home to me when a relative asked me to “convert” a 2×3 into a 4×5 ratio by adding information into the ceiling and floor of a church. Just make your second shooters do that exercise once, and they will shoot looser.
While waiting for the 24mm I am continuing to do PS merges.Jack
