The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

222
50
Joined Aug 26, 2012
what's good everyone, I wanted to get a camera but not a DSLR, looking at Canon Gx7, G16, S120 & Sony Rx100 cuz I'm on the go alot and I want somethin more convenient but still takes quality shots... any suggestions/recommendations?
 
12,277
6,295
Joined Oct 8, 2007
How's the quality of these other "off brand" lense anyways?
I heard they are exactly like Canon's, which isn't saying much cause the Canon one's are total crap as well but that is why the price is so cheap. Yongnuo just makes it cheaper taking the Canon badge off it.

what's good everyone, I wanted to get a camera but not a DSLR, looking at Canon Gx7, G16, S120 & Sony Rx100 cuz I'm on the go alot and I want somethin more convenient but still takes quality shots... any suggestions/recommendations?
Without even hesitating, the Sony RX100 or if you can afford it, the new RX100 with the viewfinder. That camera has literally crushed all of Canon's pro level point and shoots. I think it's a tad bit more expensive but worth the extra cost if you ask me.
 
514
49
Joined Apr 19, 2008
How do you guys get such spot-on focus? I feel like I'm way off sometimes, especially when trying to focus on the eyes. Is it a matter of just setting the AF point and waiting until it gives you the red-dot? If so, could it be the setup I have isn't as accurate? (t4i & 50mm 1.4) When I set my images true to size sometimes I feel like they could be sharper.
 
12,277
6,295
Joined Oct 8, 2007
How do you guys get such spot-on focus? I feel like I'm way off sometimes, especially when trying to focus on the eyes. Is it a matter of just setting the AF point and waiting until it gives you the red-dot? If so, could it be the setup I have isn't as accurate? (t4i & 50mm 1.4) When I set my images true to size sometimes I feel like they could be sharper.
Well, one shooting at 1.4 isn't necessary always the best choice when shooting faces. That is where you get some odd focus issues with one part of the face being in focus the rest being blurred. I tend to shoot f/2 or even f/2.8 to get a clear face. F/1.4 can definitely produce nice results and even better bokeh but it's a give and take at times. Like when I shoot concert stuff, I am forced to shoot as open as I can but I get so many bad shots that it's not even funny but seeing how there is no light in the venues, that is the only thing I can do to get some focused shots with no blur.

Check out this guys concert photos. Notice almost all shots he shows are around f/2.8 with high ISO to compensate.

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/17/camera-settings-concert-photography/
 
10,576
7,851
Joined Jun 9, 2014
yea, at 1.4 your depth of feild is shallow and whatever is a few inches or more ahead or behind your focus point is
 
916
278
Joined Oct 14, 2012
Well without the sample shots, to add to what was said above; you should consider distance to your subject as well. If you are shooting at f/1.4 with that 50mm on a crop sensor camera (making it closer to a 85ish mm), your depth of field is going to be extremely shallow. If even their face is turned at an angle slightly...you're almost guaranteed to get one one blurry eye, and one in focus eye. You can  shoot at f/1.4 if you increase the distance to your subject because it increases your field for which can be in focus. Just something else to consider instead of just aperture when trying to get sharp shots. 

As far as the overall unhappiness of the sharpness of your pictures, most lenses arent sharpest wide open. If you shoot stopped down at 2.8 or f/4, you'll probably see an increase in sharpness overall.
 
Last edited:
4,028
876
Joined Dec 1, 2004
How do you guys get such spot-on focus? I feel like I'm way off sometimes, especially when trying to focus on the eyes. Is it a matter of just setting the AF point and waiting until it gives you the red-dot? If so, could it be the setup I have isn't as accurate? (t4i & 50mm 1.4) When I set my images true to size sometimes I feel like they could be sharper.
Manual focus, zone focus, not shooting wide open. It's a lot of trial and error and seeing what works best with your gear. I guarantee you if you stop down to f/4 on your 50, you'll get some pretty clear shots.
 
479
297
Joined Aug 1, 2011
How do you guys get such spot-on focus? I feel like I'm way off sometimes, especially when trying to focus on the eyes. Is it a matter of just setting the AF point and waiting until it gives you the red-dot? If so, could it be the setup I have isn't as accurate? (t4i & 50mm 1.4) When I set my images true to size sometimes I feel like they could be sharper.
I use live view and zoom in on the eyes of the subject and manual focus if I am shooting wide open f/1.2 - f/2.8. It works great but not if you are focusing on a quick moving subject. Since I have used this technique I have had way more keepers (non blurry images) than using autofocus.
 
1,791
1,692
Joined Apr 27, 2002
How do you guys get such spot-on focus? I feel like I'm way off sometimes, especially when trying to focus on the eyes. Is it a matter of just setting the AF point and waiting until it gives you the red-dot? If so, could it be the setup I have isn't as accurate? (t4i & 50mm 1.4) When I set my images true to size sometimes I feel like they could be sharper.
also in addition to what has already been mentioned is changing your AF mode to center, if it isn't already set to that, rather than flexible or multi, etc. (the names may vary depending on your camera), this mode just tells the camera what you want to focus on is in the middle of the frame, then you can half button press to get your focus point, holding the shutter to reframe, then take the picture; because otherwise the camera is deciding what to focus on. obviously not the best technique for action/moving pics though...

got another old manual lens today #gearacquisitionsyndrome...

 
514
49
Joined Apr 19, 2008
Thanks for all the advice so far, I guess I do shoot at 1.4 more than I should, but I also think it's pretty difficult to see exactly where my focus point is at when looking through my viewfinder. Here are a few pics. (Pre-edits - Zoomed in at the eye/focus point*)

I shot this one at f/1.4, don't really know why. I can't tell where the focus is here.



I think I got his ears/just behind the eyes in this photo. This was shot at f/2.8, although he was moving a bit, not fast, but I'm still not quick when it comes to focusing manually.



I think I got the eyes in this one though. Shot at f/2.2.

 
Last edited:
4,028
876
Joined Dec 1, 2004
Thanks for all the advice so far, I guess I do shoot at 1.4 more than I should, but I also think it's pretty difficult to see exactly where my focus point is at when looking through my viewfinder. Here are a few pics. (Pre-edits - Zoomed in at the eye/focus point*)

I shot this one at f/1.4, don't really know why. I can't tell where the focus is here.



I think I got his ears/just behind the eyes in this photo. This was shot at f/2.8, although he was moving a bit, not fast, but I'm still not quick when it comes to focusing manually.



I think I got the eyes in this one though. Shot at f/2.2.
What ISO was the first one shot at? It looks overly grainy for a brightly lit subject.

Definitely got the ear/glasses on the second one. I think autofocus at 2.8 in his general eye region would have got it.

Third one looks like you just missed the eyes altogether. It may have focused on the wall behind it, or if you did focus it perfectly, your lens could be suffering from back-focusing. Could definitely be true if you nailed the eyes on the second photo and still got the ear.
 
514
49
Joined Apr 19, 2008
What ISO was the first one shot at? It looks overly grainy for a brightly lit subject.

Definitely got the ear/glasses on the second one. I think autofocus at 2.8 in his general eye region would have got it.

Third one looks like you just missed the eyes altogether. It may have focused on the wall behind it, or if you did focus it perfectly, your lens could be suffering from back-focusing. Could definitely be true if you nailed the eyes on the second photo and still got the ear.
First one was shot at ISO 400. Don't think I needed/should've had it up that high. I should've taken it down and decrease the shutter speed.

I hope it's not that. I'd rather me just needing more practice lol. I can't afford another lens, and don't want to go back to the kit lens. I'm still in the learning process so I'm hoping to get better with time.
 
4,028
876
Joined Dec 1, 2004
First one was shot at ISO 400. Don't think I needed/should've had it up that high. I should've taken it down and decrease the shutter speed.

I hope it's not that. I'd rather me just needing more practice lol. I can't afford another lens, and don't want to go back to the kit lens. I'm still in the learning process so I'm hoping to get better with time.
Forgot to mention in the previous post. You're exactly right! Just keep shooting and you'll find your style and develop your technique. Don't feel discouraged - ever. Just keep doing you and you'll learn if you keep shooting. :D
 
8,400
2,103
Joined May 4, 2011
Straight out of the camera. Need to put in some work later. Haven't shot anything in over 2 months :x...While here I realized having a 70-200 f/2.8 would've been a better choice than my 24-105L. Saving up for one now.

Quality is bad since I exported them in medium quality from iphoto.



 
624
241
Joined Apr 30, 2007
Post! There are enough helpful eyes in here to point you in the right direction!

Straight out of the camera. Need to put in some work later. Haven't shot anything in over 2 months :x...While here I realized having a 70-200 f/2.8 would've been a better choice than my 24-105L. Saving up for one now.

Quality is bad since I exported them in medium quality from iphoto.



Dope. I live in South Beach and always think about renting an exotic to shoot with an "exotic"
 
8,400
2,103
Joined May 4, 2011
Dope. I live in South Beach and always think about renting an exotic to shoot with an "exotic"
That would be epicness in the making, the more the merrier. That's something I've wanted to do also but I need to get flash gear. Been wanting to become a photographer for an exotic dealership so I can do that. That is one of my goals this year.
 
245
698
Joined Nov 18, 2012
Straight out of the camera. Need to put in some work later. Haven't shot anything in over 2 months
...While here I realized having a 70-200 f/2.8 would've been a better choice than my 24-105L. Saving up for one now.

Quality is bad since I exported them in medium quality from iphoto.
Found about this a couple of hours too late about this. Wish I could of made it. Nice shots!
 
8,400
2,103
Joined May 4, 2011
Found about this a couple of hours too late about this. Wish I could of made it. Nice shots!
Thanks! Catch the next one next month. Happens the 1st Sat. of every month and there might be 2 LaFerrari's at the next one along with the other 3 bad boys stealing the show. :tongue:

HMU if you decide to go! I'll send you a reminder on ig.

Just added you on ig, You got all those shots with your kit lens? If so just goes to show having the best equipment doesn't always give you best of shots unless you know what you're doing. Sweet feed!
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now