Photo's in general? Can't find the thread, so I'm posting it here....

[tac]

I was sitting in my backyard this morning, watching my trains go round, when at around 35000 feet this baby flapped overhead - the sky was just SOOOOOOOOOOOO darn blue that I couldn't resist it! It's a 747 freighter belonging to Atlas Air freight, heading due East...



Any aviation fans out there who want a larger version to hang in the bathroom - PM me for the file.

Read More

 

[RicInOR]

See any "arrows" nearby?
Saw this yesterday on a site i read regularly



I like this hearing about this as I think the F-117 is about the coolest jet ever produced. Looks like a flying arrowhead.

The 117 have been retired, which buggered the questions.

I share as it is similar to TAC's photo.



Scroll up after clicking - different behaviour on his site

F-117's flying missions of some kind again over SoCal.

I like this hearing about this as I think the F-117 is about the coolest jet ever produced. Looks like a flying arrowhead . The miss...

dailytimewaster.blogspot.com

 

[tac]

Four years ago, I had just bought my little Canon pocket camera at Shutterbugs in Eugene, and the next day Mrs tac and I took the train up to Portland for a few days. While we were waiting for our friends to collect us, I took this photo of a tower crane on a construction site. Then a zoom shot of the operator cab...



Then enlarged the head of the operator...

Now THAT is just crazy for a $350 camera...

 

[therealhitman]

Is that Eddie Van Halen or Guy Fieri? Or both? Weird.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Four years ago, I had just bought my little Canon pocket camera at Shutterbugs in Eugene, and the next day Mrs tac and I took the train up to Portland for a few days. While we were waiting for our friends to collect us, I took this photo of a tower crane on a construction site. Then a zoom shot of the operator cab...

View attachment 705066
View attachment 705067
Then enlarged the head of the operator...
View attachment 705068View attachment 705075
Now THAT is just crazy for a $350 camera...

Was that the sx720? I've been blown away by the sx730 (same camera really). A few pics taken with sx730: zoomed in on same tower
Jupiter and 4 of it's moons
Saturn

 

[Diamondback]

Damn, that's creepy that readily available "consumer grade" gear can do that...

Apropos of nothing other than a really cool pic (one of the three remaining Saturn V's):

 

[RicInOR]

For consumer long focal length, search on "Bridge Camera"
or Travel.

starting place:

Camera feature search: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Usual trade off is a small sensor. Which means less good low light performance
and slower response times. (not poor)
I had one which did great on stationary targets - think Zoo. But was poor on moving objects, think Grand Kids.
So I gave it away.

We still have one for travel - I can fit it in my shirt pocket and will goto 700mm equivalent.

The Best Bridge Cameras for 2024

Bridge cameras look like SLRs, but feature fixed, long zoom lenses. They're a worthy choice for photographers who want a zoom range that would otherwise require carrying several lenses along with an SLR. These are the best bridge cameras we've reviewed.

www.pcmag.com

 

[tac]

Was that the sx720? I've been blown away by the sx730 (same camera really). A few pics taken with sx730:View attachment 705269View attachment 705270View attachment 705271zoomed in on same tower
View attachment 705272Jupiter and 4 of it's moons
View attachment 705273Saturn
View attachment 705274View attachment 705278

Nope, remember mine is OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLD - it's the SX620 HS. RFight now it suits me, and I have nobody to hand it down to. Being a retired imagery analyst means that I', crazy about images, and I might just stump up for a bridge-style camera with a humungous zoom - can't remember the brand, though - maybe you know?

 

[arakboss]

I was sitting in my backyard this morning, watching my trains go round, when at around 35000 feet this baby flapped overhead - the sky was just SOOOOOOOOOOOO darn blue that I couldn't resist it! It's a 747 freighter belonging to Atlas Air freight, heading due East...

View attachment 704965

Any aviation fans out there who want a larger version to hang in the bathroom - PM me for the file.

When you have your eyes to the sky, watch out for dirty ice.

Indian village hit by frozen human excrement from aeroplane

AN icy ball weighing more than 12kg that fell on an Indian village is believed to be frozen human waste leaked from an aeroplane.

www.news.com.au

 

[tac]

Your post above reminded me of a true story from a few years ago concerning a gentleman and his residence along one of the approach paths to London Heathrow airport. His endless bombardment of vituperous correspondence to the airport administration about the ever-increasing incursion of bigger and bigger aircraft over his VERY expensive house in the millionaire belt of Sunngindale, not far from the famous golf course, made him very unpopular in certain offices. Add to that that he had, himself, had a short career as a pilot during WW2 operating out of an airfield in occupied France, mostly at night, in a Heinkel medium bomber of the Luftwaffe - the target being London. It was whilst returning from one of these 'adventures' that he met his come-uppance at the guns of a famous Polish Hurricane pilot whose name currently escapes me. He was the sole survivor of the crew, and spent the final four years of the war helping to run a market garden. Carrying on in this occupation after the war, he gained British citizenship as well as the odd million pounds, and was a frequent and popular Rotary Club speaker, not only about his wartime escapades, but also the noise and clamour of the ever-increasing amount of air traffic overhead.

Cutting a longer story short, he and his wife were sat in their large and imposing summer room one fine afternoon when it was subjected to a shower of frozen lumps, some of which weighed as much as five pounds...

He had been 'bombed' by 'c*ap from an airplane 'cleaning up' prior to landing.

Needless to say, the outrage was great, and rightly so from ALL directions of the community.

For a while...

An investigation was carried out, of course, for the purposes of settling the insurance claim which was, needless to say, exacerbated by the very real fact that they could well have been seriously injured, or even killed.

The protests, however, died down somewhat, particularly from HIS address, when it became apparent that the culprit on this occasion was, in fact, an aircraft flown by the German national airline, Lufthansa.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Nope, remember mine is OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLD - it's the SX620 HS. RFight now it suits me, and I have nobody to hand it down to. Being a retired imagery analyst means that I', crazy about images, and I might just stump up for a bridge-style camera with a humungous zoom - can't remember the brand, though - maybe you know?

Camera marketing folks often use the term "zoom" to deceive so it's helpful to talk about "maximum focal length". "Zoom" = max focal length/min. Fe a camera that has max 600mm focal length and 36mm min = 16x zoom while a camera with 600mm max and 18mm min has a 32x zoom. But how far they "reach" is exactly the same (same max focal length) and only the wide angle is different.

We are blessed right now in having huge array of cameras out there. Some basic questions can quickly whittle things down to ones that may be a good fit:

- What will u be shooting? and importantly is it stationary or fast moving
- What light conditions? Fe full sun primarily, night and/or indoors (ie low light), night/indoors and sun
- What level of image quality is acceptable for you? this largely determines what sensor size & lens quality minimums u can live with
- What budget?
- What is the general maximum size/weight u can live with? Fe truly pocketable, bridge, dslr/mirrorless plus big lens

 

[tac]

"Zoom" is

Camera marketing folks often use the term "zoom" to deceive so it's helpful to talk about "maximum focal length". "Zoom" = max focal length/min. Fe a camera that has max 600mm focal length and 36mm min = 16x zoom while a camera with 600mm max and 18mm min has a 32x zoom. But how far they "reach" is exactly the same (same max focal length) and only the wide angle is different.

We are blessed right now in having huge array of cameras out there. Some basic questions can quickly whittle things down to ones that may be a good fit:

- What will u be shooting? and importantly is it stationary or fast moving
- What light conditions? Fe full sun primarily, night and/or indoors (ie low light), night/indoors and sun
- What level of image quality is acceptable for you? this largely determines what sensor size & lens quality minimums u can live with
- What budget?
- What is the general maximum size/weight u can live with? Fe truly pocketable, bridge, dslr/mirrorless plus big lens

Interesting post, Sir. Makes me think - do I need something that will capture a fast moving object? Well, not close-up, I don't. In fact, most things I photograph hardly move at all, unless you count tectonic plate motion as lively, that is. I would like something that reaches out a bit more, just for the sheer fun of it, I guess.

Money doesn't figure much in the equation, although I'd like to stay under a couple of thousand bucks. After all, the last high-res cameras I used cost about $8.5M each...

I was looking at the attachment that you can get for a cell-phone that just clips onto the casing - gives you the equivalent of a 1500mm lens....but it just doesn't have the appeal of a hold-in-the-hand camera.....

 

[ilikegunspdx]

$8.5M? Holy Frijoles! re cell phone attachment... "Run away! Run away!" Imo u would never be happy with that unless it's just for gadget factor and don't care about image quality.

- If not fast moving that means the autofocus features of dslr/similar are not critical probably which means u have a huge selection of cameras (that's good!). Some options to think about below.

(image quality 1-10, 10=best , cost , size/weight 1-10, 10 = Lightest/smallest)

A. DSLR/mirrorless plus quality big lens
(IQ in excellent light 9-10, poor light 7-9, $2000-$4000, sz/w 1)
Examples for camera: Nikon d500 ($1000 used, not much more new) d750 ($750 used to $1100 new) or Canon equivalents. Highest end example Nikon d850 ($3000?) or canon equivalent.
Examples for lens: Sigma 60-600S or 150-600S ($1000 used to $2000 new), Nikon 200-500 ($900 used to $1200 new), Nikon 500mm pf (tiny) $3200 new or canon equivalents, highest end examples would be Nikon or cannon 500mm f/4, 600mm f4 $2500 older models used to $8000 new

B. Bridge cameras with 1" sensor
(IQ in excellent light 6, poor light 3, cost $500-$1600, sz/w 7) Sony rx10, Panasonic zs1000 are examples. lens quality is big factor here also. go for lowest aperture (lowest f number) when at maximum focal length, all else such as camera user friendliness etc being equal

C. Bridge cameras with 1/2.3" sensors (most on the market are these)
(IQ in excellent light 4, poor light 1-2, cost $450-$1000ish, sz/w 7)
Examples Nikon P900 ($450ish) Nikon p1000 $900-$100, canon s70 $900-$1000

D. Truly pocketable super zooms. (IQ in excellent light 4, poor light 1-2, cost $200-$450ish, sz/w 10) Very few exist and all are 1/2.3" (canon g3x Is only exception I'm aware of). sx730 shown above is an example.

One note is that if u think u might venture into moving subjects in the future the AF of DSLRs comes into play, fe the below with d750 and sigma 150-600s in poor light. U can't really do that with bridge, especially in less than bright light. Note that image below is an 84k tiny file not the original 25mb image.

 

[RicInOR]

I got a "free" gift of a monocular for my cell phone. Wasn't worth the effort I used to try it one time. I was initially thinking, leave it in the car as the camera I use most is my cell phone.



Personally I like the Lumix brand for consumer cameras.


Nikon is in financial danger, I cannot recommend them as I don't think the company will be around, in current form, for long. Not that they have a bad bridge camera currently.


I "built" this comparison - easy to add/remove cameras

Comparison:

Side by Side Comparison Nikon Coolpix P950 vs. Canon PowerShot SX70 vs. PowerShot SX700 vs. Sony RX10 IV vs. Panasonic FZ80/FZ82: Digital Photography Review

List of similar cameras:

Camera feature search: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Watch for memory type - should not be an issue - SDXC is the current common choice
Watch for resolution - 16meg or more should be good,
I recommend the ability to shoot RAW - slower but helps with post-processing if needed.
I don't see value in this comparison to have an equivalent max length of under 800mm. If 400 will do you, get a different system - APS-C or bigger.

Then plan on having a second camera - that is your cell phone.


Price is about $300 US Lumix, up to $1700 for Sony.

I can't speak to how available these are outside the US market.

Update add Review Link:

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82 Review | Photography Blog

Expert review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ82 / FZ80 camera with sample photos, test shots, videos and more...

www.photographyblog.com

ps
When i see reviews, I often feel they cover "vlogging" too much - does the screen articulate, can I post directly to U-Tuby. This is not a family of cameras for that purpose.


This guy has a number of videos on the topic

 

[tac]

Three-Fingered Jack from our deck - the pinkish thing about dead centre - it is about 90 miles away...

With enlargement -

 

[Member 34319]

Good pictures in here, thanks for sharing.

Sort of off topic, but technology always amazes me.

Here is a tie bit from an article on digital photographs.

How many digital photos will be taken in 2017? It's predicted there will be 7.5 billion people in the world in 2017, and about 5 billion of them will have a mobile phone. Let's say roughly 80% of those phones have a built-in camera: around 4 billion people. And let's say they take 10 photos per day – that's 3,650 photos per year, per person. That adds up to more than 14 trillion photos annually (14,600,000,000,000).

I recall reading and article about the digital age of photography, how before 1980 there were only so many pictures taken worldwide, by 2000, that number grew to unknown quantities in the trillions or whatever is after trillion.

I took this with an old iphone, I want to say 3g. Still a,axes me how well the earlier phones cameras performed. Now we have a newer phone and the cameras on them are extremely nice.

 

[Hueco]

Ain't no school like old school:


Shot with a Canon1V using the Canon 400mm f/5.6L, 135 Ilford FP4+(ISO125) shot at ISO100, and souped in 5mL Rodinal at 1+100 for an hour. Printed on Ilford Multigrade in my bathroom and here's an iPhone snap of the final.

You can pick up a 1V today for about $500 and the 400 f/5.6L used for around $850.
The 1V was made from 2000 through 2018.



This was shot using a Pentax 645N using a Pentax 200mm f/4 lens (which is equivalent to 135mm on a 135 camera), Kodak Portra 400 shot at ISO320, developed standard C41, and scanned with an Epson V850.

The Pentax 645 system is cheap right now, about $~550 for the body and either $90 for a manual focus 200mm lens of ~$200 for autofocus. The 645N came out in 1997.



This was a Canon 60D at ISO160 with a 30second exposure.
The body is worth ~$250. I spent more on the ND filters to make this shot than any other piece of gear used to capture.

The 60D was released in 2010.


And the good ol' Canon 5Dmk2 at ISO200 and a roughly 13min exposure. 5Dmk2's are about ~$500 now.
The 5Dmk2 was released in 2008.



Most modern cellphones are far and away beating pocket cameras. They may have micro sensors but they're starting to make up for it with some really impressive software.

But, if you do find yourself wanting more than a pocket camera, there's no better time to grab a camera. The vast majority of people will not need the features built into a camera made in the last 5 years, maybe even decade. Yes, low light performance and autofocus is getting better all the time...but that's not to say it wasn't already pretty good even a decade ago.

Used film and digital gear is where it's at!

Nikon is in financial danger, I cannot recommend them as I don't think the company will be around, in current form, for long. Not that they have a bad bridge camera currently.

You think so? I think they royally missed the boat by attempting to make everything backwards compatible, leading to a whole slew of gear that consumers find hard to distinguish (which lens works with which body again? Wait, does my body need a focus motor? Oh, only with certain lenses?)

But, they have quality optics and are pushing to regain a hold in the prosumer and pro market with mirrorless designs (of which Canon is real late to the party).

But, my studio shot Fuji S3's and S5's (which was a Fuji sensor in a Nikon body), had a brief stint with Nikon due to one pro's affinity for them...before me pushing Canon finally took hold . I much prefer Canon ergos and autofocus for sports, but Nikon's have been good for portrait and studio work.

But, I think the era of the SLR/DSLR is coming to an end and both Canon and Nikon are not well positioned, having given the mirrorless market to Sony and Fuji, mostly. Guess we'll see?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Ain't no school like old school:


Shot with a Canon1V using the Canon 400mm f/5.6L, 135 Ilford FP4+(ISO125) shot at ISO100, and souped in 5mL Rodinal at 1+100 for an hour. Printed on Ilford Multigrade in my bathroom and here's an iPhone snap of the final.

You can pick up a 1V today for about $500 and the 400 f/5.6L used for around $850.
The 1V was made from 2000 through 2018.
View attachment 705411


This was shot using a Pentax 645N using a Pentax 200mm f/4 lens (which is equivalent to 135mm on a 135 camera), Kodak Portra 400 shot at ISO320, developed standard C41, and scanned with an Epson V850.

The Pentax 645 system is cheap right now, about $~550 for the body and either $90 for a manual focus 200mm lens of ~$200 for autofocus. The 645N came out in 1997.
View attachment 705410


This was a Canon 60D at ISO160 with a 30second exposure.
The body is worth ~$250. I spent more on the ND filters to make this shot than any other piece of gear used to capture.

The 60D was released in 2010.
View attachment 705413

And the good ol' Canon 5Dmk2 at ISO200 and a roughly 13min exposure. 5Dmk2's are about ~$500 now.
The 5Dmk2 was released in 2008.
View attachment 705412


Most modern cellphones are far and away beating pocket cameras. They may have micro sensors but they're starting to make up for it with some really impressive software.

But, if you do find yourself wanting more than a pocket camera, there's no better time to grab a camera. The vast majority of people will not need the features built into a camera made in the last 5 years, maybe even decade. Yes, low light performance and autofocus is getting better all the time...but that's not to say it wasn't already pretty good even a decade ago.

Used film and digital gear is where it's at!



You think so? I think they royally missed the boat by attempting to make everything backwards compatible, leading to a whole slew of gear that consumers find hard to distinguish (which lens works with which body again? Wait, does my body need a focus motor? Oh, only with certain lenses?)

But, they have quality optics and are pushing to regain a hold in the prosumer and pro market with mirrorless designs (of which Canon is real late to the party).

But, my studio shot Fuji S3's and S5's (which was a Fuji sensor in a Nikon body), had a brief stint with Nikon due to one pro's affinity for them...before me pushing Canon finally took hold . I much prefer Canon ergos and autofocus for sports, but Nikon's have been good for portrait and studio work.

But, I think the era of the SLR/DSLR is coming to an end and both Canon and Nikon are not well positioned, having given the mirrorless market to Sony and Fuji, mostly. Guess we'll see?

Good post but I disagree about backwards compatibility of Nikon. I have used lenses from 70s, 80s, 90s, and newer on today's cameras with zero hiccups. It's one of my favorite things about the system. If using a low end entry-level dslr body then I would agree because they don't have their own focus motors. Love the long exposure bridge photo.

Some poeple like to use "legacy" (meaning old ha ha) lenses that provide a unique look but for me I really like how u can get something like an older 400mmf/2.8 for $2300 and it has almost the same (unbelievably good) image quality as a new $12,000 lens. But they weigh like 11 lbs!

 

[Hueco]

Good post but I disagree about backwards compatibility of Nikon. I have used lenses from 70s, 80s, 90s, and newer with zero hiccups. It's one of my favorite things about the system. If using a low end entry-level dslr body then I would agree because they don't have their own focus motors. Love the long exposure bridge photo.

Indeed, they're backwards compatibility kept a lot of shooters onboard with them. I think they did that for exactly that reason; they absolutely dominated the manual film world and had a lot of consumers to look after, especially pros and prosumers.

Canon had less market share back then and released the EF mount and EOS lineup of autofocus lenses in 1987. From then on, any new lens made needed to match to a new body - no backwards compatibility. Everyone who shot Canon who wanted to use a new lens needed to upgrade bodies as well. Basically, you were forced to replace all of your gear (which is incredibly painful).

But, they got the jump in autofocus tech and started gaining consumer market share, up to the point that they started grabbing pro action shooters. Then they encroached on wildlife and travel shooters. I think now the pro market share is pretty split.

To me, it looks like Nikon sacrificed some younger market share to maintain the older. As the older stops spending money, they need to make up ground. Seems like Nikon did that same thing again and Canon did it for the first time in regard to mirrorless. Maybe it's just too hard to turn the ship when you're that big?

I forgot to pack a cable release for that bridge shot. Couldn't feel my finger for a bit after 13minutes of it holding the release down. Will never make that mistake again.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Re canon pocket cameras I'm totally dependent on them for travel. I use a G7xii (1" sensor) for 90% of shots and sx730 for when I need a crazy long zoom or when u say "what the heck is that way over there" (better than binoculars ha ha). Probably #1 for me is they r just fun to use. All the manual controls are there but in a tiny and user friendly package and IQ is great for what they r imo and in some situations as good as dslr plus expensive lens. A few examples from g7xii below.



Crocus about the size of a dime in diameter Tiny heather