General Photography Chat - Page 60

Okayyou · #**1181** Posted **Oct 21, 2011, 12:30 AM**

Kinda surprised they got this into a product so soon. They are pretty mum about technical details. The info on their site says the images captured are 11 Megarays... 16GB holds 750 images or 21 MB per image. They also state the camera produces HD quality images, probably means 2 MP. So a 2 MP at 21 megabytes, that's a lot of data stored in order to selectively refocus. I would find this useful if I could apply it at 18 mp when goofing the focus is clearly visible. I can shrink an 18 mp image to 2 mp currently on my pc and obtain a better looking image. Given I can't change the depth of field but there are few instances where I can imagine that being handy.

The anti-camera blur soft-ware adobe is developing.. that looks to be revolutionary.

diskojoe · #**1182** Posted **Oct 21, 2011, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okayyou

Kinda surprised they got this into a product so soon. They are pretty mum about technical details. The info on their site says the images captured are 11 Megarays... 16GB holds 750 images or 21 MB per image. They also state the camera produces HD quality images, probably means 2 MP. So a 2 MP at 21 megabytes, that's a lot of data stored in order to selectively refocus. I would find this useful if I could apply it at 18 mp when goofing the focus is clearly visible. I can shrink an 18 mp image to 2 mp currently on my pc and obtain a better looking image. Given I can't change the depth of field but there are few instances where I can imagine that being handy.

The anti-camera blur soft-ware adobe is developing.. that looks to be revolutionary.

This lytro seems more like a really cool toy. All pics are shot at f2. So everything would be shallow depth of field shots. Nothing where you can shoot a picture with a smaller aperture. and you cant really focus on ANY THING and have to do all that in post. plus it is only for mac right now too and i dont have a mac.

Now the adobe developments seem much handier for pro applications. Cant wait to see how that pans out. I might have to get my first legal copy of PS, lol.

Ramsayfarian · #**1183** Posted **Oct 21, 2011, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

This lytro seems more like a really cool toy. All pics are shot at f2. So everything would be shallow depth of field shots. Nothing where you can shoot a picture with a smaller aperture. and you cant really focus on ANY THING and have to do all that in post. plus it is only for mac right now too and i dont have a mac.

Now the adobe developments seem much handier for pro applications. Cant wait to see how that pans out. I might have to get my first legal copy of PS, lol.

Keep in mind this is the first iteration of the product. Just wait, I expect this has the chance of being a huge game changer.

xzmattzx · #**1184** Posted **Nov 24, 2011, 2:24 PM**

Anyone want to offer advice on underwater digital cameras? I'll be snorkelling in Florida in a few weeks and want to take pictures. I'm looking at two cameras. Both take AA batteries, which my current camera does, and both take SD memory cards. Any suggestions on which one would be better?

Vivtar ViviCam 8400
http://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-ViviCa...2071757&sr=8-1

Kodak EasyShare Sport C123
http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-EasyShar...2071241&sr=8-2

photoLith · #**1185** Posted **Nov 24, 2011, 7:47 PM**

I dont know much about underwater cameras, but that Vivitar looks pretty sweet. Dont be expecting to get any National Geographic type photos with an 80 dollar camera though. I dont know how much money you have, but you can spend tons and tons on underwater equipment. What a lot of pros do is buy just a normal DSLR, like a Nikon D700 and buy underwater housing for it, and then strobe lights. But all of that would cost more than 9 grand so yeah. But, if you are just looking to use them on a vacation or something, an 80 dollar point and shoot would be just fine.

xzmattzx · #**1186** Posted **Nov 25, 2011, 1:45 AM**

Yes, just a camera that I can use on occasional vacations. So for you or anyone that know cameras, is the Vivitar the better option?

flar · #**1187** Posted **Nov 25, 2011, 1:51 AM**

Most cameras give pretty good results these days. I'd say it's more a matter of which one feels better in your hands and has the features you want. See if you can try them out in the store.

ue · #**1188** Posted **Nov 25, 2011, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

I dont know much about underwater cameras, but that Vivitar looks pretty sweet. Dont be expecting to get any National Geographic type photos with an 80 dollar camera though. I dont know how much money you have, but you can spend tons and tons on underwater equipment. What a lot of pros do is buy just a normal DSLR, like a Nikon D700 and buy underwater housing for it, and then strobe lights. But all of that would cost more than 9 grand so yeah. But, if you are just looking to use them on a vacation or something, an 80 dollar point and shoot would be just fine.

Or get a Nikonos

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Keep in mind this is the first iteration of the product. Just wait, I expect this has the chance of being a huge game changer.

Yeah, the current iteration is definitely not something I'd buy. The sample photos they have on the website make it seem as though the focusing would be extremely annoying (lots of faces out of focus in lieu of the background). But the concept is interesting and as the technology develops further, it could be a lot more interesting of a product.

xzmattzx · #**1189** Posted **Nov 26, 2011, 2:20 AM**

I'm leaning towards the Kodak right now. It got better reviews on Amazon, and I'm thinking that the massive discount for the Vivitar might be because they are having trouble selling them. I will rarely use the underwater camera: snorkelling in the Florida Keys in a couple weeks, maybe once in a while up at Lake Erie, and that's it. I figured that these $70 cameras would be enough to cover that usage.

mr.John · #**1190** Posted **Nov 29, 2011, 3:47 PM**

inspiried by Okayyou safari series here's a video of going on safari with a $25,000 S2 Leica

( plus lenses worth another 20-30 thousand)

• Video Link

Okayyou · #**1191** Posted **Nov 29, 2011, 7:09 PM**

Safari on horseback, that would be an interesting way to see the animals. I can't imagine it is the easiest way to photograph. I wasn't familiar with the S2 but after reading up on it, it sounds like a beast. I'm pretty sure if a camera company made a $500,000 camera, there would still be some people who would buy it.

diskojoe · #**1192** Posted **Nov 30, 2011, 3:37 PM**

for that kind of cash I would have got a hasselblad instead but im still drooling over the leica.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1193** Posted **Dec 10, 2011, 6:12 AM**

Tomorrow morning, between 3:30 and 6:06 AM PST, there's going to be a total lunar eclipse (next one is in 2014). What makes this one special is that, depending on where you are, you might be able to catch the eclipsed moon setting as the sun's rising. I figured I'd tip off the other photographers I know. I'm gonna try and get out somewhere.

diskojoe · #**1194** Posted **Dec 12, 2011, 4:07 PM**

I couldnt see any eclipse from my house but the moon was still out when I went to work today. Made me feel like ai was in the story East of the Sun and West of the Moon. Thats a fairytale if yall dont know. I dont know how many of yall might be into Andrew Lang.

ue · #**1195** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 1:04 AM**

Who knew Manhattan was a war zone?

• Video Link

toyota74 · #**1196** Posted **Dec 15, 2011, 9:54 PM**

Anyone ever heard of or had a camera converted for infrared photography.
I have an old d70 gathering dust and with a filthy sensor.I stumbled across a site that converts the d70 into a Infrared specific camera.Proteckrepairs in the UK will put an in camera filter(plus clean sensor) for 200pounds plus.
Thinking about it!!

HomeInMyShoes · #**1197** Posted **Dec 15, 2011, 10:08 PM**

^I've heard of it. It would be pretty cool to do some.

Bruce Gilden is doing Red Green impersonations?

bulliver · #**1198** Posted **Dec 15, 2011, 11:28 PM**

A flickr contact of mine had his D200 converted to infrared.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noodlenoodle/

A few sets of his infrared stuff:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noodlen...7626873003234/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noodlen...7626939770268/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noodlen...7626445053115/

EDIT: actually, he's on this forum as well but I've not seen him here in a while. Username is noodle

toyota74 · #**1199** Posted **Dec 18, 2011, 2:22 AM**

^^^Cool pics....Im so tempted to convert but I would have to post the camera to the UK and changing the Euro to Sterling sucks.

nexsus · #**1200** Posted **Dec 23, 2011, 7:34 AM**

The photos taken here are so clear. sometimes with my 1.3 pixel camera pictures come out clear sometimes they don't. should upgrade or something!