 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Though these days for action photos I tend to use a Lumix compact. While I love SLR it's not optimal for skiing. Unless your a pro a camera which can fit in breast pocket much better option! Means you will actually whip it out to grab a snap of your mate skiing / biking past. |
Likewise.
I changed from Canon 7D to Panasonic Lumix GX80 and haven't looked back.
No waiting around for my customers / friends.
Wear it around my neck and under my jacket the whole time I'm skiing. Simple pull down of the jacket zip and I'm ready to go.
Also keeps the batteries warmer than being in the backpack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
A circular polariser allows you to engage and disengage the polarising effect very easily. So if you move from sunny to shade it's not a problem. You just rotate the filter.
|
For sure : adjusting polarising filter not complicated. However usually I shoot in manual mode (Av priority). Therefore I see having to adjust polariser for every shot is an unnecessary extra variable. Better in my humble opinion to keep the polariser for circumstances where it can work it's magic - generally landscapes, water or photos where sky dominates.
As ever with photography, which is artistic process, there is no right or wrong. Rules made to be broken!
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Wed 18-08-21 9:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@Mike Pow, Haggis_Trap I'd never take a big camera and lens skiing, as they are a pain to lug around and get out. Sadly, at 4pm on miserable, wet winter afternoon, under crap floodlights, there is little other option to snap rugby. You NEED that 2.8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| @Mike Pow, Haggis_Trap I'd never take a big camera and lens skiing, as they are a pain to lug around and get out. Sadly, at 4pm on miserable, wet winter afternoon, under crap floodlights, there is little other option to snap rugby. You NEED that 2.8. |
True. Physically small compact camera lens will never go to low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
Thankfully with modern digital cameras you can usually compensate with higher ISO / processing etc. In some scenario SLR always better but good compact perfectly adequate for most people. iPhones etc attempt to compensate for this by using multiple small lens with digital processing of multiple exposures.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 18-08-21 10:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
Error no .. not that you bothered to provide explanation in rude reply.
The smaller physical size of a compact camera lens means it's performance will never be quite as good as SLR. Modern cameras attempt to compensate for the undesirable effects of smaller lens with inbuilt digital signal processing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
Error no .. not you bothered to provide explanation.
The smaller physical size of a compact camera lens means it's performance will never be quite as good as SLR. Modern cameras attempt to compensate for the undesirable effects of smaller lens with inbuilt digital signal processing. |
Do you classify a m43 camera as a 'small compact camera' or are you talking about point & shoots and phones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
Error no .. not you bothered to provide explanation.
The smaller physical size of a compact camera lens means it's performance will never be quite as good as SLR. Modern cameras attempt to compensate for the undesirable effects of smaller lens with inbuilt digital signal processing. |
Do you classify a m43 camera as a 'small compact camera' or are you talking about point & shoots and phones? |
I am not familiar with M43 specifically.
It is a general comment that physically smaller lens introduce undesirable effects (such as vingetting / distortion at edge of photo) particularly at wider angles or smaller f number. Modern cameras limitations in lens by using signal processing to compensate digitally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
not if you need 2-300mm zoom and a shutter speed above 640
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
Error no .. not you bothered to provide explanation.
The smaller physical size of a compact camera lens means it's performance will never be quite as good as SLR. Modern cameras attempt to compensate for the undesirable effects of smaller lens with inbuilt digital signal processing. |
Do you classify a m43 camera as a 'small compact camera' or are you talking about point & shoots and phones? |
I am not familiar with M43 specifically.
It is a general comment that physically smaller lens introduce undesirable effects (such as vingetting / distortion) particularly at wider angles or smaller f number. Modern cameras solve this problem by using signal processing to compensate digitally. |
Take a look.
You may be pleasantly surprised and illuminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
not if you need 2-300mm zoom and a shutter speed above 640 |
I've got a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent lens for the GX80
Goes great in low light at those shutter speeds with an ISO800
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
not if you need 2-300mm zoom and a shutter speed above 640 |
I've got a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent lens for the GX80
Goes great in low light at those shutter speeds with an ISO800 |
I am sure it takes great photos (as your Instagram shows!). I am also almost certain that at that size the camera will digitally compensate for lens edge effects. If end result is that user doesn't notice and can fit 200mm lens in pocket (something which wasn't commonly possible 10 years ago) then happy days.
Physics of light dictate that a larger SLR lens will always be "better". In simple terms able to shoot lower f at higher equivalent zoom for lower ISO (less noise). But portability counts for a lot - hence the reason most users, including myself, switching to compacts these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| True. Physically small compact camera lens will never go to low f-number required for low light or blurring out background. |
One of my compacts starts at f1.8. True, it's not an uber-bokeh f1.2, but it's not too bad. Includes a built-in 3-stop ND filter as well, for extra versatility and is definitely pocketable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Small compact camera lens will never go low f-number required for low light or blurring out background.
|
That's nonesense |
not if you need 2-300mm zoom and a shutter speed above 640 |
I've got a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent lens for the GX80
Goes great in low light at those shutter speeds with an ISO800 |
I am sure it takes great photos (as your Instagram shows!). I am also almost certain that at that size the camera will digitally compensate for lens edge effects. If end result is that user doesn't notice and can fit 200mm lens in pocket (something which wasn't commonly possible 10 years ago) then happy days.
Physics of light dictate that a larger SLR lens will always be "better". In simple terms able to shoot lower f at higher equivalent zoom for lower ISO (less noise). But portability counts for a lot - hence the reason most users, including myself, switching to compacts these days. |
Thanks.
Happy days indeed.
Was under no illusions about the advanced capabilities of a DSLR compared with smaller sensor sized cameras but my set up is more than adequate for prints with fine detail up to A3 and full pages in magazines.
As the old adage goes 'the best camera is the one you have with you'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
As the old adage goes 'the best camera is the one you have with you' |
100%
I feel a little sad / guilty my SLR doesn't get used much these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
... No waiting around for my customers / friends.
Wear it around my neck and under my jacket the whole time I'm skiing. Simple pull down of the jacket zip and I'm ready to go.
Also keeps the batteries warmer than being in the backpack. |
To me any "waiting around" isn't acceptable, although some
people love that ... which is maybe why we get conflicting advice.
I use a chest-mounted bag so I can "set up" so fast no one has to wait. A smaller camera achieves the
same thing another way. Modern top-end Sony bodies are pretty small - less than half the size and weight of the old
Canon 1 series, for example. And the quality is up on the old days, so you could easily trade down to a smaller format
and still produce better images than older digital or film cameras. It's a personal choice, and I'm a weight-weenie, but
I still don't really notice the chest mount.
I stopped lugging an f2.8 general skiing some years back; an f/4 is half the size and weight, with
modern digital I don't need the speed, plus I'm stopped way down if the light's decent.
Batteries... seems to be a solved problem for stills. Back in the day I'd carry spares, but now
I don't even have a second battery and I can't remember how many frames I can get from one charge
but it's way more than I'd ever want to sort through. But yeah, warmer is always better.
Here's a phone snap from a day in June when I should have taken a better camera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
good food for thought on the neck / chest mounts. I tend to use a belt mount for my video camera as it is fairly bulky but my Sony RX100 case is tiny and could go around neck which would be handy for chair lift shots when I can't get at my belt or be worried about dropping.. Have ordered a wee neck strap. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Haggis_Trap, splendid
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Ben Macdui into the Lairig Ghru
|
That'll be a canny hike out
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Haggis_Trap, splendid |
Cheers
FWIW : One thing I have realised about ski photos is you need to get close to action.
All the photos above could be improved by getting a little tighter on the skier.
However taking ski-photos properly is a paff and can get in the way of the actual skiing.
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Ben Macdui into the Lairig Ghru
|
That'll be a canny hike out |
Aye, especially if you do it twice in one day... The picture above we could skin out of.
However the previous one was a slightly unpleasant steep bootpack over boulders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
FWIW : One thing I have realised about ski photos is you need to get close to action.
All the photos above could be improved by getting a little tighter on the skier. .. |
Thanks for posting the shots - making those places look good has to be hard.
Good skiers are much safer to shoot because you can get in close without risk.
If, like the OP, you're shooting clients, then longer lenses would be typical for safety.
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
However taking ski-photos properly is a paff and can get in the way of the actual skiing.
... For sure : adjusting polarising filter not complicated. However usually I shoot in manual mode (Av priority). |
I hear that some people say that skinny skis are the only "proper" way to ski 
"paffing" with those things is your choice, it's not necessary for excellent quality images these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Plus the skiers could be smiling at camera rather than focusing on suffer-fest.
|
I scooted up to the top peak from the backstop position, passing everyone to get the shot of my fearless leader in the front, he was puffing and I couldn't speak
On the orange trouser guy shot in the pow on piste what bugged me was the sunshine rays on the right side and wonder if a polariser would have helped with that? I could have cropped and may have done, i think this one was the original image.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 18-08-21 16:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My 2 cents worth
Work backwards.
Are the final images going to be used on your web site and social media channels? Printed up for customers? Both?
The Panasonic range has a function called 4K Photo.
Whereas most cameras will shoot high resolution images between 6-15 frames per second, 4K Photo takes 8MB images at 30 frames per second.
Essentially you're taking a video with the ability to pull out individual frames to be used as 8MB stills.
If you're output is digital only then this is the best way to ensure that 'you get the shot'
Three I would recommend are
Panasonic GX880 (no viewfinder)
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/New/panasonic-lumix-gx880-black-with-12-32_40442.html
Panasonic G100 (viewfinder)
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/New/panasonic-lumix-g100-with-12-32mm-with-dmw-shgr1-tripod-grip_68857.html
Panasonic GX80 (viewfinder)
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/New/panasonic-lumix-gx80-with-12-32mm_11117.html
All are small in size and easily fit in an inside pocket of a ski jacket (the one that's there to carry water bottles)
All are interchangeable lens cameras with a massive selection of prime and zoom lenses from 14mm equivalent to 800mm equivalent
If you then decide to print images you can shoot in full resolution RAW in continuous mode for 6-8 frames per second
All have excellent video capabilities (4K) with in-body stabilisation
I use the GX80 with a selection of lenses and it's done me proud.
If I don't get the shot it's never the equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Mike Pow, They look a great spec those cameras but I bought my RX100 vii and happy with that for the time being. Will defo put the interchangeable lens GX on my future wish list..
I get 20fps in full resolution with autofocus in burst mode which is incredible, it goes even quicker if you forgo AF. I realllllly like the optical viewfinder as well. Pocket size was most important but I do miss a bit of extra zoom capability.
Mainly trying to capture the mood of our various trips and ideally get everyone a cracking still shot of them skiing well at the end of the week. We do post up pics from all our trips and I take a selection of favs for the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@philwig, here is a copy of the original jpeg, I didn't keep the RAW files back then but will start to this season. I had a quick play in FOTOR and I see what you mean just adjusting a few things made it better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
@Mike Pow, They look a great spec those cameras but I bought my RX100 vii and happy with that for the time being. Will defo put the interchangeable lens GX on my future wish list..
I get 20fps in full resolution with autofocus in burst mode which is incredible, it goes even quicker if you forgo AF. I realllllly like the optical viewfinder as well. Pocket size was most important but I do miss a bit of extra zoom capability.
Mainly trying to capture the mood of our various trips and ideally get everyone a cracking still shot of them skiing well at the end of the week. We do post up pics from all our trips and I take a selection of favs for the website. |
Great specs on that RX100 vii fair play
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Great specs on that RX100 vii fair play |
The autofocus system in it is phenomenal, regarded as similar in performance to Sony’s high end A9 by some reviewers. The zoom range (18-200 equivalent) with decent enough image stabilisation is great for a travel compact, although it lost one stop of light (now f/2. and the built-in ND filter compared to earlier models which had a faster lens but a shorter zoom range. The pop-up viewfinder is great for using in bright conditions such as on snow. Battery life sucks, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
All are small in size and easily fit in an inside pocket of a ski jacket (the one that's there to carry water bottles)
|
Water bottle pocket? Where's that? Now I'm really having my eyes opened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I've taken some very good photos with my nifty Panasonic Lumix. I was using it up Mt.Fort in the 4 Vallées today:
But my best shots have always been with the Canon EoS 5D Mk.3 and one of: 16-35mm f2.8 L II, 24-70mm f2.8 L II or the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 L II.
This with the Canon Mk.2 100-400 zoom with stability at 400mm hand-held form about 4 kms away. Oh, and with the polarising filter on. The original is even sharper, but Imgur degrades the resolution when it renders to BBCode forums, for some reason.
Of course, undoubtedly the Panasonic is far easier to handle and carry, and for action shots when you've got other things to do like navigating a group of people around, it's probably the most practical compromise. But if I wanted to do a photo' shoot and that was my sole focus, then I'd take the DSLR and I might even go out on foot in my snowshoes (which is what I did for the above). This because I actually find it easier to handle the positioning and equipment on foot. Of course, it limits you to where you can go, but it's surprising how often the location for a good action shot is quite unprepossessing, and not necessarily at the top of a col with a wide mountain vista in the background. Where I have done people photography, I've generally used the DSLR and 100-400 zoom - which is all very well but it weighs a lot and pretty much means I'm skiing conservatively the rest of the day, given the weight.
I actually think that really good action shots are extremely difficult and challenging to achieve. I've not posted any because I don't think that any of mine are particularly special. Landscapes are obviously simpler, in some ways. Plus I have to say that I can't actually be bothered to spend a half a day trying to get that one great shot - of someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There’s is a lot that can be done with burst and some luck!! This was from 2004 so probably a very early Canon Ixus I reckon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity what processing software do most people use. I use Gimp 2, but what are the other popular packages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
All are small in size and easily fit in an inside pocket of a ski jacket (the one that's there to carry water bottles)
|
Water bottle pocket? Where's that? Now I'm really having my eyes opened. |
I have an external zipped pocket and an internal zipped pocket at chest level on my left side.
Then a deep internal mesh pocket on the right side of the jacket. I place my camera around my neck and then drop the camera barrel down into the pocket.
Chest strap on my backpack keeps everything secure and tight and stops camera swinging about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LaForet wrote: |
But my best shots have always been with the Canon EoS 5D Mk.3 and one of: 16-35mm f2.8 L II, 24-70mm f2.8 L II or the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 L II.
This with the Canon Mk.2 100-400 zoom with stability at 400mm hand-held form about 4 kms away. Oh, and with the polarising filter on. The original is even sharper, but Imgur degrades the resolution when it renders to BBCode forums, for some reason.
Of course, undoubtedly the Panasonic is far easier to handle and carry, and for action shots when you've got other things to do like navigating a group of people around, it's probably the most practical compromise. But if I wanted to do a photo' shoot and that was my sole focus, then I'd take the DSLR and I might even go out on foot in my snowshoes (which is what I did for the above). This because I actually find it easier to handle the positioning and equipment on foot. Of course, it limits you to where you can go, but it's surprising how often the location for a good action shot is quite unprepossessing, and not necessarily at the top of a col with a wide mountain vista in the background. Where I have done people photography, I've generally used the DSLR and 100-400 zoom - which is all very well but it weighs a lot and pretty much means I'm skiing conservatively the rest of the day, given the weight.
I actually think that really good action shots are extremely difficult and challenging to achieve. I've not posted any because I don't think that any of mine are particularly special. Landscapes are obviously simpler, in some ways. Plus I have to say that I can't actually be bothered to spend a half a day trying to get that one great shot - of someone else. |
Tremendous detail in that shot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
