Mirrorless Cameras

[bjphoenix]

Make sure it knows what camera and lens you shot with.
Hit the "CLEARVIEW" button.
At this point, unless it's a weird exposure, you should have already an image better than the SOC JPEG.
Tune from there.

So basically you are saying that DXO software is better than Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji software at doing the raw conversion... it is better at what data it throws away.

 

[manixFan]

"Sharpness" is a subjective term.
I want DETAIL.
When I shoot birds - the pic is worthless unless:
- the focus is nailed - EYE's are the money shot - EYE in focus, plus or minus a nice depth of field.
- The SS was high enough to stop the motion as desired - I say as desired because a little motion is good sometimes.
- There is easily seen feather detail. I want to see the texture. Every detail.

Fuzzy focus - delete
Wrong shutter speed - delete
No feathers, fur or eyelashes - delete.

The last item is the killer.
- Did you hold the lens & camera still?
- Did you pan with the movement correctly?
- Did you get the focus just perfect?

Then you look at the backgrounds, Bokeh, and anything else in frame that might cause you to reject the image.

Only then do I run it through DxO PL for developing.
Using some presets I've created that are tuned to my cameras and certain shooting conditions I can process an image in under a minute, including cropping.

Yes, I'm picky.
And it's not just me - the wife and daughter shoot too and in many ways are tougher judges than I.

I've shot well in excess of a million 35mm photos dating way back to 1000's of rolls of film.
If they are not perfect, they get rejected.
99% of photos I see posted on the web would be rejected in my household.
I've got a 44-inch wide printer - to make a print that size your input has to be a pristine, giant TIFF.
Learning to feed that beast was an eye opening experience.

You exactly prove my point. You are not the average photographer and I think you need to realize that not everyone needs to care about their images to the same level you do, nor do they want to. The vast majority of images are throw-away use-once images that don't require or even deserve a lot of time and attention. They get seen once as viewers scroll past them in their social media feed or as part of a group chat, etc.

My students were business employees who took photos as part of their job, so I would say they were pretty representative of the average photographer. They were literally being paid to take photos. Neither they or their employers could see the benefit of RAW for the vast majority of their images. A poll here on TRF would likely find you are the only one with a 44" wide printer. Mere mortals view their images on phones or computer monitors, or at best, a small inkjet print.

Your view of the world does not mean it needs to be everyone's view of the world.


Tony

 

[manixFan]

Well I posted an example from raw and from jpg where I can't tell any difference. I see these arguments online all the time but without any clear proof that there is a difference. It likely depends on the camera too- some digital cameras used to take all kinds of liberties with the JPG file and you couldn't override that. I think with modern Nikons you can. I've seen arguments online about 12bit RAW vs. 14bit RAW and some people insist that you are killing your photos not using 14bit even when photographers with the technical knowledge and experience to really know the difference say that there are almost no situations where there is any difference. I think it is easier for rocket photos- first you have to catch the rocket in the frame, then the focus has to be good. The difference in bit depth is pretty far down the line. But I've already admitted that I'm not an expert at post processing so there is more for me to learn.

How much processing did you do on the RAW image to try and improve it vs. the JPG? If you are just opening the two files and looking at them, you've missed the point of RAW entirely.

I've seen great photographers take better photos with a cell phone than someone standing right next to them with $1000's of dollars worth of gear. Work on all the other aspects of getting a great image first, then worry about 12 vs. 14 bit, JPG vs. RAW. A lot of that is for folks who are hoping that technology will somehow make them a better photographer, when the real work occurs before you ever press the shutter release.


Tony

 

[FredA]

No replacement for getting the shot.
But once you spent money on a camera and lens - you carried that camera and lens - you got the shot - isn't a keeper worth 1-2 minutes of time to make it better?

Lazy people will always be lazy.
This thread is about how to be more than that - or at least I thought it was.

 

[bjphoenix]

How much processing did you do on the RAW image to try and improve it vs. the JPG? If you are just opening the two files and looking at them, you've missed the point of RAW entirely.

I did a quick version of the processing that I thought it required using ACR- exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, ,whites, blacks, clarity. ("... I thought it required ..." may not be the right approach.) You can open a JPG in ACR so I essentially did the same sliders on the JPG as the RAW.

This thread is about how to be more than that - or at least I thought it was.

From the OP: "I was wondering what experience people had with mirrorless cameras, and any suggestions for how to get better shots."
He was talking about rocket launch photography so post processing is a part of it but just a part of it. He didn't even mention post processing so maybe he isn't wanting to do any of that. On this forum the discussion should be on ways to get better rocket photos. On the internet in photography forums I find that threads involving mirrorless cameras are mostly "I am better than you because I use a new mirrorless and you use an old DSLR". This type of thing was real bad maybe 4 years ago but has died down somewhat now.

 

[bjphoenix]

I recently purchased a Canon R7 which I plan to use for taking still pictures at High Power launches. I had previously used a Canon 80D DSLR (which I still have), and I was attracted by the size, faster focus, in-body stabilization, and the ability to shoot continuous shots at much faster speeds. The R7 can shoot at 15fps with a mechanical shutter or 30fps with a fully electronic one. I also chose the R7 which is APS-C because it gives me better reach, compared to the full frame options, which I want for pictures on the out pads and in the air. I purchased a RF 100-400 lens to go with it, which I plan to use instead of the EF 70-300 I was using before.

I wasn't thinking about the camera and lens you have. Lately I've been using my APS-C body more than full frame because I don't mind banging it around at launches. We usually set up model pads, mid-power pads and highpower pads at the appropriate safety distances, but I still shoot at relatively short focal lengths. I looked at my photos from our most recent launch and most were in the range of 65mm to 85mm. I'll admit that I don't frame the rocket tightly because that gives me more risk of just capturing a smoke trail. You surely know better than I do what focal lengths work best at your launch field. At several different fields I've visited the distances were similar to my home field with highpower out 100-150'. I attended one LDRS and they put some of the highpower pads way out there.

For my APS-C body, keeping it light and cheap, I have been using a 55-200 lens. This lens is small and light, and relatively sharp. For my full frame body I was using a 70-200 f4 lens, this gives the right focal length range but even for an f4 lens it is fairly large and heavy. This is all to say that depending on your launch field and distances you might still need to use focal lengths shorter than 100mm. I have a 100-400 lens also and at first I carried it to launches but quickly found that it was longer than what I needed even on a full frame sensor.

 

[manixFan]

I did a quick version of the processing that I thought it required using ACR- exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, ,whites, blacks, clarity. ("... I thought it required ..." may not be the right approach.) You can open a JPG in ACR so I essentially did the same sliders on the JPG as the RAW.


From the OP: "I was wondering what experience people had with mirrorless cameras, and any suggestions for how to get better shots."
He was talking about rocket launch photography so post processing is a part of it but just a part of it. He didn't even mention post processing so maybe he isn't wanting to do any of that. On this forum the discussion should be on ways to get better rocket photos. On the internet in photography forums I find that threads involving mirrorless cameras are mostly "I am better than you because I use a new mirrorless and you use an old DSLR". This type of thing was real bad maybe 4 years ago but has died down somewhat now.

Good reminder to get back on track. In reality, the camera really doesn't matter that much, it's more about how to setup the shot. Here are some guidelines that might help:

• manual settings are your best ally when it comes to getting the shot you want, but in order to use them, you have to know your camera, and that requires study and practice
• make a cheat sheet of all the settings that are specific to good launch photos – high shutter speed, manual focus, manual color balance, etc, so you can easily check them at a launch
• practice with manual shutter speeds until you find the setting that consistently gives you motion-free shots, then go from there
• let the camera adjust the ISO to keep the high shutter speed – sharpness is more important than noise
• use manual daylight color balance if it is a nice sunny day – that way all your photos will have the same blue sky, green grass, and white highlights.
• use manual focus if you are far enough away to use the 'infinity' focus setting on your lens, coupled with a mid-range aperture (probably about F8 – F11 for most lenses) – that prevents your camera from 'focus hunting' if the rocket is not large enough in the frame for the autofocus to lock onto
• practice tracking and using manual focus by following large flying birds (I have crows and Mississippi Kites in my neighborhood that are perfect for this) – you can hone your 'real-time' focus skills, and if using a zoom lens, try to zoom in on a moving object
• watch Youtube tutorials on your camera to learn about the more detailed settings and how they might be helpful to you
• if the camera has programmable buttons, program them to what you think are the most useful settings, for example, toggling auto ISO on and off
• for launch photos, especially larger motors, wait until you see smoke before pressing the shutter button instead of when the LCO says 'launch' (or whatever) – that will greatly reduce the number of shots of rockets just sitting on the pad
• keep a notebook in your camera bag and make notes about what worked and what didn't, and refer to it before a launch
• alway have a spare memory card and battery – cheap insurance if one dies or you forget one on the charger or in the computer
• finally – do what is fun for you and don't worry about anyone else – if you aren't having fun, what is the point?

Just my thoughts on it,


Tony