***SW&D Photography Thread***

Shah what are ya buying?



artishard116 said:

I don't know a lot about the 20mm but the form factor is nice. The sigma is def sharper than the sony 16. Also 2.8 is not gonna feel suuuper fast but it will be a little better than the kit.

Click to expand...

zapatiste said:

2.8 should be fine, even with poor lighting you can take the iso up, the lower pixel count actually performs better in terms of noise than the nex7 at higher iso. If you don't need wider angle Sony has some good primes with image stabilization below f2.0 ...

If you feel like spending a lot, Zeiss 24mm f1.8 or Zeiss Touit Planar T* 1.8/32mm are a good option. There are also other third party options like the SLR Magic HyperPrime 23mm F1.7 which have supposedly unique characteristics though I'm not too familiar with them

Click to expand...

Think I'm just gonna go with Sony's 35mm 1.8. Thanks again for all your input guys.

I shot with the NEX 5N for a year, and use it as a B cam now. I hate the 20mm f/2.8, all the pictures were not clear.

The 35 f/1.8 OSS is much better. Zeiss even more so.

Not saying this is worth getting, as frankly I am not sure (recent firmware updates apparently fixed some of its autofocus woes), but stores are continuously discounting the Canon EOS M camera in case anyone is looking for something fairly cheap. $399. Comes with a 22mm 2.0 lens and external flash.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/996052-REG/canon_eos_m_mirrorless_digital.html

well I did warn you



g transistor said:

Shah what are ya buying?

Click to expand...

(lol eventually ...)

* * *

The Best Space Images Ever Were Taken by Apollo Astronauts With Hasselblad Cameras
BY ADAM MANN0 7.20.136:30 AM



The most iconic photos from the manned exploration of space come from the monumental Apollo project. But if you're not a camera buff or a space-history enthusiast, you may not know that nearly every single famous photo from that program was taken using Hasselblad cameras.

Known among photographers for their larger-than-normal film format and amazing optical qualities, the Swedish-based Hasselblad has also had a more than 50-year partnership with NASA. Astronaut Wally Schira carried the first Hasselblad used by NASA, a 500C camera -- which he had purchased at a Houston photo supply shop -- during his turn around the Earth in a Mercury rocket in in 1962.

Subsequent Mercury and Gemini astronauts also used Hasselblads, and each space shuttle flight took an average of 1,000 and 2,000 pictures with the cameras. Both NASA and the astronauts liked the Hasselblads for many reasons.

“The cameras were relatively simple to use, and film was preloaded into magazines that could easily be interchanged in mid-roll when lighting situations changed,” wrote Gary H. Kitmacher for NASA’s history office.

NASA asked Hasselblad for a modified version of their 500EL models to use during the Apollo moon missions. Known as the Hasselblad Electric Data Camera (EDC), these machines came with specially designed lenses and a glass plate that placed reference crosses on each image to make it possible to figure out the distance and heights of objects in the photos. The EDC's photo plate was also coated with a small conductive layer of silver, preventing the buildup of static electricity that could result in a spark. Finally, the outer camera was painted silver to help maintain the temperature, and all lubricants had to be replaced to allow the machines to work in the vacuum of space.

Starting with Apollo 8, astronauts carried a Hasselblad EDC with them on their lunar journeys. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin each had one during their brief but historic romp on the moon on July 20, 1969. Subsequent men also took Hasselblads, 12 of which are now sitting on the moon’s surface, left behind to save weight on the return trip. Only the film magazines returned to Earth.

Pictures from Apollo allowed people all over the world to participate in the trip. Looking through the Apollo Hasselblad film reels is like perusing someone’s weird vacation slides. Except in this case, the vacation happens to be one taken on the moon. As an additional and somewhat related bonus, the state of film technology in 1969 provides definitive proof that the moon landings could not have been faked.

In honor of the 44th anniversary of Apollo 11’s historic landing, here we present a gallery of some of the best shots that astronauts took from the moon and space with Hasselblad cameras.

Above:

Armstrong on the Moon
Neil Armstrong stands on the moon next to the Apollo 11 lunar lander, showing the American flag nearby. Most of the Apollo 11 images were taken by Armstrong and so feature Buzz Aldrin. This is one of the few with Armstrong actually in it.

Anybody have advice on getting a good black and white conversion? I'm using lightroom and have trouble converting without ruining my photos

I'm only using the kit lens at the moment, plus I'm still trying to figure out how to not suck, but here are some photos I took recently that I kinda like. They're just jpeg files that I futzed with a bit in iPhoto, but eventually I'll get around to using Lightbox or something.

^ looks like you're off to "a good start, some nice composition in those shots.

sploosh said:

Anybody have advice on getting a good black and white conversion? I'm using lightroom and have trouble converting without ruining my photos

Click to expand...

If you're using Lightroom, and like the idea of film emulation, the vsco packages have some great stuff including bw film

Some recent photos I like:

sploosh said:

Anybody have advice on getting a good black and white conversion? I'm using lightroom and have trouble converting without ruining my photos

Click to expand...

What's going wrong exactly?

someday maybe i can visit ... or take a better shot.



Leica 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (made in Canada)
ISO200, 1/1000 , i think f/8


I had once adapted a 200mm Arsat soviet beast onto a panasonic G3 (crop factor so effectively 400mm) but the m4/3 sensor is really not so great.

kinda related rft^
iirc I've read that when the moon looks really big it's actually the brain magnifying it slightly (I'd guess it has to do with contrasts and maybe that you usually see it when "small"), and that's why the moon always looks smaller on photos since well, the camera just captures the scene as it is

Sorry for a few quick posts, but really pleased with how this one turned out too.

Cool dad, even cooler kid