Any photography Boffins about?

paddyrg

Oblivion wrote: »

I would not agree with that statement. For portrait work, a 30mm will introduce very unflattering distortion ... making the nose appear bigger than it really is. You should never use less than a 50mm for human portraits and IMHO an 85mm is perfect.

That does rather depend on sensor size - 50mm is the rough equivalent of the human eye on 35mm film frame. OK, it's not comparing like with like, but a 1.6 sensor cropping ratio (on a smaller sensor) may make the 30mm broadly equivalent to the 50mm at 35mm...if that's enough mm's in one sentence... ;-)

Geodark

Oblivion wrote: »

I would not agree with that statement. For portrait work, a 30mm will introduce very unflattering distortion ... making the nose appear bigger than it really is. You should never use less than a 50mm for human portraits and IMHO an 85mm is perfect.

I took these using an 85mm prime on a 4 Megapixel Nikon and they are distortion free ...

http://www.pbase.com/davecq/image/38882389

http://www.pbase.com/davecq/image/54190542

Keep in mind though that the canon he is talking about isn't a full frame sensor - there is 1.6x crop - so the 30mm on there equates to around 48mm. for full frame though I have to agree - no less than 50mm.

Geodark

paddyrg wrote: »

That does rather depend on sensor size - 50mm is the rough equivalent of the human eye on 35mm film frame. OK, it's not comparing like with like, but a 1.6 sensor cropping ratio (on a smaller sensor) may make the 30mm broadly equivalent to the 50mm at 35mm...if that's enough mm's in one sentence... ;-)

Should have read this before I posted above - would have saved me some time

[Deleted User]

EssexExile wrote: »

I've just replaced my TZ10 with a TZ60, a viewfinder at last!

That's one of the reasons I bought my SL1000.

As a long term 35mm SLR user, I don't feel comfortable with a monitor screen, instead of a viewfinder.

[Deleted User]

Big_Graeme wrote: »

Ah you mean framing rather than cropping.

Framing is cropping, at the point of taking the photograph.

gjchester

David_Aston wrote: »

Trying to decide which camera to take on our forthcoming visit to our son and his family in Lima. My boy seems to get very irritated if I am waving a camera in the faces of our granddaugthers for too much of the time, despite the fact that we do only see them once in a blue moon, as the youngsters have worked overseas for the last nine years.





I would be grateful for informed opinions please. As things stand it looks like the Panny will be going to Peru!

Its an old adage but the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.


Be realistic if you are most likely to always have a SLR to hand consider that, but realistically would a point and shoot be better as its easier to tote around.


If your likely to have a phone on you more (and you mentioned the Nokia Pureview) use that, it more likely to be in your pocket and ready than left behind due to bulk.

David_Aston

I havent actually got a Nokia pureview, or indeed a smartphone gj, so it does seem that the venerable tz7 will be our best bet. Thank you for your comments.

linuxdriver

Its already been said the Lumix may not cope with low light shots well , a few years using a TZ3 then a TZ8 suggested these tweaks which aren't textbook because I'm no boffin .

iA setting tends to underexpose in night shots and overexpose in the day,it shifts towards blue for indoor shots, especially with no flash . Adjust EV by 1/3 - 2/3 accordingly , remembering to leave Iso at max 400 with iResolution on to brighten shadows while keeping noise manageable . Other settings recommended :

Noise reduction to -2
Saturation +1
Sharpness +1
Contrast: -1
Noise Reduction -2
AF Mode on
AF Tracking on
Face recognition on and trained to your key subjects
Image stabiliser at 2

Hope this helps , Flickr has a very large pool of TZ7 users whose work includes exif data to show how its done

mrsscattercushion

I personally would take the Panny, a Lumix was my first bridge camera, before moving onto a DSLR. I think having that camera leaves you more scope for enjoying time with the family and on capturing the moment, rather than getting tied down in the techy stuff, whether right lens etc.

I've shot with the 24-105L lens and it is a great lens, would definitely give you the potential for the best shots (assuming you've chosen the correct ISO/F stop and shutter speed for the type of shot you're after). However, I'm not a fan of carrying my DSLR and L Lens (most of the time a 1d and 400mm prime lens) in public places as can draw too much attention! (I mainly do wildlife photography).

It's easier to take the Panny out and about and get in the hand luggage too :-)

Strider590

mrsscattercushion wrote: »

I I'm not a fan of carrying my DSLR and L Lens (most of the time a 1d and 400mm prime lens) in public places as can draw too much attention! (I mainly do wildlife photography).

I know what you mean, it's like as soon as you sling a DSLR around your neck you instantly turn into either a pedo or a terrorist.
Well.... In the UK at least, I think the tabloid press has still got far too much influence on the minds of the nation.

I remember a few years ago, some woman posted on Facebook about some guy she'd seen near a carpark taking photos, he claimed he was photographing flowers, but the woman didn't believe him because the lens was so big (obviously never seen a macro lens) and accused him of taking photo's of children, the posts that followed included a few meatheads who said they were heading down there asap to beat the living crap out of him.......