Im thinking of going DSLR...

[Veng]

Pretty sure, that's the same photo, or I'm blind

 

There are two types of photo editing software, stuff like photoshop which is about changing pixels (removing wrinkles, etc) and stuff like lightroom. Lightroom gives you control over exposure (like +/- 5 stops), white balance (color temperture), highlight/shadow/white/black saturations, etc. For example, the photos you see where a flower is on a black back ground are (generally) not photoshopped, they are lightroomed to drop the shadows/blacks which nukes that into the background.

 

IIRC this is the same photo, developed in lightroom twice, with drastically different end goals. One is a developed to a black background, the other is just a bokeh nuked background. That's the real power of lightroom. There was (not sure if still is) a beta of lightroom 5 avaliable. There is a 30 day trial of all of adobe's products (photoshop and lightroom). Give them a whirl and see how useful you find them. I find the lens correction (corrects both pin cushion and vinegetting) for the lens you used (especially nice when using kit or other "lower end/non-L" lens as it's much more pronounced on these) very useful.

http://imgur.com/PDvMU8N'>

 

http://imgur.com/chZoJfz'>

[Veng]

edit: Now it looks like different pictures

[--chris--]

Yep i need lightroom. My diopters wont be here until Monday/Tuesday

 

Ill do some shooting with the preset WB's that the G5 has and my custom WB. I cant get anything other than straight 10K or washed out blue. The G5 really doesn't have a way to adjust WB, its either use a preset or hit the evaluate button and it sets a new WB for you on the custom 1 or 2 setting.

 

The only way ive been able to get pics to match what my eye see is to 1) Set custom WB, 2) adjust the BLUE led knob on my light and take a few test photos along the way. Upload test photos, see which blue knob setting got me where i wanted to be and then take pics.

 

Time consuming, hard to reproduce and a little un-fun.

[--chris--]

I want to confirm, this is what im looking for in LR4 right? I know it seems obvious, but i see their are "upgrade" versions that require a previous copy and i want to make sure this isnt that.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Student-Teacher/dp/B007BG9Y44/ref=sr_1_3_title_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1371226638&sr=1-3&keywords=lightroom+4

 

If so ill be buying that.

[Christopher Marks]

That one would work for you, although they did just release Lightroom 5 last week, here's that version: http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Student-Teacher/dp/B00CH6AXPW/

 

As long as you're not using a really old operating system, you should go with version 5. Not a whole lot has changed, but it does have a few new editing features added, and is of course designed to receive software updates for compatibility with new camera's RAW files, while version 4 will eventually get left behind.

[--chris--]

Whoever suggested using the Daylight setting for WB, thanks!

 

 

That looks much better than my custom WB and its pretty dang close to what i see.

 

And thanks Chris for pointing me to that version!

[Jay Wee]

White balance is going to give things a natural color when shot in unnatural lighting. If I want to maintain the colors in photo that my eye sees, I set my WB for natural sunlight. There are also times where I need a blast of light from speedlights so I drag the WB slider over to bring back more of the actinic blue.

 

Just to show the drastic differences with some white balance slide and over saturation in some spots in lightroom...

 

IMG_3030 by bishop171980, on Flickr

 

IMG_3030-2 by bishop171980, on Flickr

Beautiful photo. What lens did you shoot with?

[Bishop]

canon 100mm macro

[Withers]

whoa i didn't realize they released LR5 already

[--chris--]

Since i already have this thread going, ill ask here.

 

Ive been reading up on mirrorless/ILC's and they seem very promising. The downsides that i can see are lack of lens selection and compatibility and "unproven" technology. I have not looked into how they handle macro stuff, but i thought id see if anyone else had thoughts on these. They seem like the logical next step in camera technology.

[Christopher Marks]

I shoot with a Fujifilm X-E1, a mirrorless camera, and I absolutely love it. Not having the bulk of a DSLR is fantastic, I'm far more inclined to take my camera with me since it's not a burden. Best of all, people are not intimidated by it like they are with DSLR's, so they respond differently to it. Many people think it's a film camera based upon its looks, and let their guard down even more. Great photos happen when people are relaxed.

 

It's a newer camera concept, but it's definitely not unproven technology. There are some downsides when compared to DSLR's, mainly it has to do with the auto focus technology not being quite as fast, but this gap is quickly narrowing. When it comes to image quality and lowlight performance, I'd argue that there is no difference at all.

 

One cool benefit to most mirrorless cameras is their short 'flange distance,' basically the distance from the lens mount to the image sensor. This short distance allows for nearly any old 35mm lens to be adapted to these cameras, from SLRs to rangefinders. Just as well, modern Canon and Nikon lenses can be easily adapted too.

[--chris--]

Was the first Gen mirrorless stuff bad news, should it be skipped when shopping for them? When did this technology really start to come into popularity, the last 10 years?

[Christopher Marks]

The earliest were Micro 4/3rds cameras from Panasonic and Olympus, they've made great strides in performance in the past two years. M4/3 uses a sensor smaller than the APS-C size sensors found in many DSLR's, which allows these cameras and their lenses to be particularly compact. The trade-off of the smaller sensor is poorer performance at higher ISOs (more noise, less detail).

 

I believe Sony was the first to introduce an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless camera with their NEX line. Fujifilm, Samsung, and now Canon have APS-C mirrorless options too. Sony has long had great all around performance and versatility, they offer a lot of different body options and price points. Fujifilm is admired for their image quality and lowlight performance, currently there are just two bodies to choose from, the X-Pro1 and the X-E1, but more are on the way. Samsung I'm not very familiar with, and Canon has the EOS-M that they introduced last year to little fanfare, it suffered from slow performance and crippled features, but I'm sure they'll continue to improve their lineup.

 

Nikon has their 1 Series mirrorless cameras with 1" sensors. These cameras have smaller sensors than m4/3rds cameras, but their camera bodies are the same size or larger, and cost as much or more than some m4/3 options, making them a poor value.

[--chris--]

The earliest were Micro 4/3rds cameras from Panasonic and Olympus, they've made great strides in performance in the past two years. M4/3 uses a sensor smaller than the APS-C size sensors found in many DSLR's, which allows these cameras and their lenses to be particularly compact. The trade-off of the smaller sensor is poorer performance at higher ISOs (more noise, less detail).

 

I believe Sony was the first to introduce an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless camera with their NEX line. Fujifilm, Samsung, and now Canon have APS-C mirrorless options too. Sony has long had great all around performance and versatility, they offer a lot of different body options and price points. Fujifilm is admired for their image quality and lowlight performance, currently there are just two bodies to choose from, the X-Pro1 and the X-E1, but more are on the way. Samsung I'm not very familiar with, and Canon has the EOS-M that they introduced last year to little fanfare, it suffered from slow performance and crippled features, but I'm sure they'll continue to improve their lineup.

 

Nikon has their 1 Series mirrorless cameras with 1" sensors. These cameras have smaller sensors than m4/3rds cameras, but their camera bodies are the same size or larger, and cost as much or more than some m4/3 options, making them a poor value.

 

Thanks for that, its exactly what i was wondering. I should have asked for a brief synopsis...it would have been what i wanted!

 

I got my diopters in today. At first, i spent 20 minutes banging my head against the wall getting nothing but unfocused crap. Then i realized i needed to bring the subject MUCH closer to the lens assembly. I brought out my 6" acryllic frag rack, put it 3/4" below the surface of the water and then magic happened!

 

This was with a +1 diopter, frag on the normal rack. No cropping/editing

 

This was on the acrylic rack, ~3/4 below the surface with a +10 and +4 (14 total) diopter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are not as sharp as i would like and DOF is very thin but i knew the DOF issue when i ordered these. Im not sure what to do about the sharpness, the G5's LCD is tiny and grainy by modern standards. I can only tell is "focused" when i see the green box light up instead of the yellow or red box. Any ideas on the sharpness?

 

Aside from those issues, i am really impressed for the price! The camera was $50 and the diopter kit was $26, $76 total for images like this aint bad.

 

Im beginning to wonder if A) A newer & higher MP prosummer might be a good fit for me If a higher quality diopter set would take better pics.

 

Then again, a newer prosumer will cost just about as much as a T3i w/kit lens.

[Christopher Marks]

You should consider the Fujifilm X20



It doesn't necessarily have the largest sensor, but it is incredibly versatile with fantastic optics for its size, plus it has a nice optical viewfinder for comfortable shooting outdoors. The lens is a 28-112mm f/2.0-2.8 zoom, meaning it's an f/2.0 lens at the widest and still f/2.8 at the longest 112mm. In addition the lens has image stabilization built in so you won't need a tripod. Even better, the camera has a built in macro focusing mode that gets incredibly close. It's a manual zoom lens so you twist the barrel just like a DSLR lens, nice and smooth, and the optical viewfinder zooms along with it. Fujifilm set some records with its autofocusing speed too, so it will be great for kid photos.

[--chris--]

I am considering it now lol. Ill spend some time looking for macro work done with it and reading up on it in general.

[Christopher Marks]

Check out my Fuji X Series forum if you're curious about it. Full disclosure (as if you couldn't tell), I'm a big fan of Fujifilm's X Series of cameras.

[Cheese-Lover]

I know I'm going to be the only one but...
I love my Sony a55. I <3 Minolta lenses.

For others I generally recommend the NEX series from Sony or the Fuji X series.


On a side note, I'm off to check out the link that Christopher Marks just put up...

[--chris--]

Im still giving the diopter kit an honest go. Ive seen what others have been able to do with close up lenses, so at this point i know its my skill getting in the way. Im uploading some pics to my computer now for PP, ill know after if im making progress.

 

I also figured out that my complain about sharpness was aimed incorrectly. It was the close up lenses causing it...but not the lens itself, the dust on the glass was a problem however. I need to clean them all up and give it another go.

[Christopher Marks]

With Lightroom you'll be able to easily sharpen your images and remove/reduce the chromatic aberrations (the purple fringing you see around the frag plugs) that the lens adaptors introduce.

[ninjamyst]

I went from D40x --> D90 --> D7000. If you are set on a DSLR and budget is tight, you can get a Nikon D5100 for cheap. I also seen deals for Nikon D3200 for $350 or so.

 

However, I think micro 4/3rd is the way to go. I highly recommend an Olympus E-PL5 with the panny 20mm f1.7. I also bought a Nikon J1 recently. Like Chris said, the Nikon 1 series is inferior in many ways to micro 4/3rds. BUT, I got the J1 for $220 so it's a pretty good deal =P. I pair that with the 18.5mm f1.8 lens, and the pictures are ALMOST as good as my D7000.

[--chris--]

Im on the edge of picking up lightroom, just waiting for some frags i sold to arrive in good shape before i send the money to amazon lol.

 

I cleaned both the cameras glass and the single "MACRO" diopter i used (this is just one diopter labled MACRO, id guess its around 15-20X based on thickness). Cranked up the RB LED's and played around. This is what i got. Some minor cropping to eliminate dead space, but nothing else was done.

 

 

 

 

 

Its a big step in the right direction. I think lightroom will probably be the finishing touch I need. These were shot with F/ around 8.0 (that really seem to make things sharper), shutter speed around 150-250 and a custom WB. Iso 200 on everything.

[--chris--]

Anyone know how to make LR5 handle CRW files?

[--chris--]

Here is my first attempt at using LR5.

 

Before

 

After

[Christopher Marks]

Nice improvement, the sharpness is better and the noise seems cleaner and reduced. It looks like you refined the white balance and exposure as well. Try out the Chromatic Aberration removal tool under Develop -> Lens Corrections. It has an eye dropper tool that you use to click on purple fringing in a photo, and it automatically removes it. Try selecting around the edge of the frag plugs and see if you like the result.