Lights, camera, action

Re: Lights, camera, action

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:54:17 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]That is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time![/quote]

I thought so too!

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]I haven't dared check the price[/quote]

Well, the entry level multicopter is one that you can control with an iphone: the Parrot AR drone. About £200 (but don't buy one now, the AR drone 2 comes out in a month or two which will be that much more sophisticated). The AR drone is not really powerful and stable enough for outside aerial photography. More of a toy, really.

Then you move up to the more sophisticated stuff. About £800 gets you a basic system with a basic 'brain'. £1500 gets you a basic system with a top of the range 'brain' (ie. gps and altitude hold, as shown in the video above). If you are going to do aerial photography, you need a camera mount (on a radio controlled gimbal, ideally) and probably a camera (the bigger versions of these things will carry a DSLR, but a GoPro is probably better to start with). £10,000 buys you a ready made system from which you can shoot professional video footage.

But I am told that despite the technology, they are not complete child's play to fly. They are also subject to the Air Navigation Order. The rule is that if they have a camera attached, they cannot be flown within 150m of a congested area (i.e. village), or within 50m of a building, structure or person not under the operator's control. If flown without a camera, there are less restrictions, the main one being: do not fly in such a way as to endanger anyone. That probably means giving them a 50m wide berth anyway.

I think the Parrot AR Drone is within anyone's flying capability. For the more professional stuff, it's probably worth learning to fly a traditional RC helicopter manually first.

Re: Lights, camera, action

Lorna McHardy — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:17:40 GMT

I haven't dared check the price

Re: Lights, camera, action

Rob Davis — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:38:06 GMT

That is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time!

Re: Lights, camera, action

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:31:34 GMT

[quote user="Alex Allen"]Spying on the neighbours again?? [/quote]

Can't help myself. Professional curtain-twitcher, me.

[quote user="Alex Allen"]Having played with a few RC flying machines this one looks particularly flimsey and prone to bending. I can imagine the handling will become impossible if one of the rotors gets bent out of alignment in relation to others![/quote]

I think you'd be surprised how strong these things are. But the really incredible thing about them is the amount of computing power, accelerometers, gyroscopes, barometers, ultrasound & GPS receivers etc. they now contain. With a good system they can hold themselves level, at a fixed height and position, without any user input. More to the point, you can hang a weight off one of the arms, and it'll still fly level, so I think bending it a little won't be a big problem.

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: Lights, camera, action

Alex Allen — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:54:43 GMT

Spying on the neighbours again??

Having played with a few RC flying machines this one looks particularly flimsey and prone to bending. I can imagine the handling will become impossible if one of the rotors gets bent out of alignment in relation to others!

Might be fine spying on the neighbours until it flies uncontrollably through their patio doors and gives their poodle a new hair cut......

Re: Lights, camera, action

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:18:19 GMT

Here's something a bit different that I'm planning to get in to ...

Anyone else doing this as a hobby?

In case you don't know what it is, it's called a multicopter, and they are apparently much easier to fly than the traditional radio-controlled helicopters that are sometimes used for aerial photography.

Slightly restricted in terms of where you can fly them, but would be very interested to hear if anyone else has one of these gadgets!

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:55:11 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]

Don't know if you have the time for it, but canon experience seminars do a one or half day course (think you can now buy manuals and dvd's instead too) where they walk you through all the basic functions of the camera. I thought I knew a bit, but found it super useful when I first got my Canon 40D.

Link here: http://www.experience-seminars.co.uk/

Well worth the trip if like me you can't be bothered reading instruction manuals...

James[/quote]

Thanks, that looks brilliant after a quick skim of the home page - I'll look into it. The instruction manual is pretty meaty - I thought it would be in the usual dozen or so languages when I first saw how thick it was - but it was all in English!

I'm planning to get the Cannon 500D for Dummies book too which should give a more reader-friendly version.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

James Laidlaw — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:43:19 GMT

Niall,

Link here:

http://www.experience-seminars.co.uk/

Well worth the trip if like me you can't be bothered reading instruction manuals...

James

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:55:16 GMT

... sorry, clicked 'post' too soon.

I meant to say what a vast difference it made going to the camera shop to actually try the cameras out. As I went in I was still pretty much looking at getting the Sony but when I held both the Canon and the Sony one after the other suddenly there was no contest. The Canon was comfortable and ergonomic, the Sony felt a bit like trying to handle a house-brick, quite bulky, with the buttons not very well placed and set in indentations in the body which meant it was quite awkward to get at some of them. I'm sure in time I would have got used to it and I'm sure it's an excellent camera but on first impressions the Canon was way out at the front.

I ended up getting it at Jessops which I am hoping is a good thing as the have a strong presence on the hight street and the web.

We'll see!

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:45:55 GMT

Well, I've finally taken the plunge and gone for a Canon 500D which I bought just after Christmas as a bundle with an extra zoom lens. I've been snapping away ever since trying to get the hang of it and most of the stuff looks quite naff! As someone has said previously, there must be a problem behind the camera - I may have to take some lessons!

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

Rob Loxley — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:46:24 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]So what do people use - home printers, dedicated photo-printers, online services, local professionals or what?[/quote]

I upload to one of the online services - usually Bonusprint or Photobox.

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:38:41 GMT

[quote user="Sarah Keir"]My point and shoot has a 'flower' setting which is really the same as macro photography - it shortens the focal distance so you can get really close and gives a shallow depth of field.[/quote]

Oh yeah, so does ours now that I think of it!

So, as I suspected, a lucky guess afterall

I was surprised at how difficult it was to tell which was which though. In the right situation even I can get some good shots from a point and shoot but there are others where it falls down somewhat and where I'm hoping an SLR or something a bit more beefy (like Evelyn's bridge camera) might get around some of the problems.

It's depressingly quiet here today, I'll try and post a couple of our 'bloopers' on the gallery (I say 'our' bloopers, obviously I mean 'my' bloopers).

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

Alex Allen — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:36:10 GMT

I use an old Canon PIXMA ip5000 inkjet printer that was in the sale as a discontinued line when I bought it yrs+ ago and it produces prints as good as any print from Boots or Jessops. As Sarah mentioned above you do have to watch your colours - monitors can be quite variable. Obviously limited to A4 size but suits me fine. Ink is where the costs lie and most come with individual colour refills nowadays.

If you are intending to keep the photo in a frame near sunlight beware as some cheap printer inks fade in UV light. Not the end of the world as you can just reprint another but branded inks seem to last better.

The other more modern version is a digital picture frame which are getting bigger and cheaper all the time and run simple slideshows of hundreds of photos.

Re: Lights, camera, action

Clive Ansell — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:29:59 GMT

Are there any advantages to using film as opposed to digital these days given that modern digital cameras are so good now?

Re: Lights, camera, action

Sarah Keir — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:54:43 GMT

My point and shoot has a 'flower' setting which is really the same as macro photography - it shortens the focal distance so you can get really close and gives a shallow depth of field. But you can't control what depth of field and as it is fixed focus you have to be that specific distance away for it to focus (I think it is 20cm). Unfortunately that orchid has now died otherwise I'd try and take it again with the point and shoot.

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:17:46 GMT

[quote user="Sarah Keir"]Yes Niall, you are correct; the lanterns is on a point and shoot and the orchid is on a SLR. But apart from 'liking' one better how could you tell? The laterns was taken at ISO 1600 so could be hand held, as I can't take my SLR above ISO 400 due to noise.[/quote]

There seemed to be more fine detail in the orchids (but then I guess you'd get that with a close-up from a point and shoot anyway). If anything influenced me it was the depth of field - I guessed you could set a SLR for a large (deep... wide... not sure of the technical term) depth of field as in the laterns but I'm not sure how easy it would be to set a point and shoot to give a narrow depth of field as in the orchids so I went for narrow depth of field = SLR. But it was mainly a lucky guess really!

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:04:58 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Another thing I've been meaning to ask - what about printing?

I know it's possibe to have gazillions of images on the hard drive but sometimes it's good to have a few old fashioned prints to put in albums or frames. So what do people use - home printers, dedicated photo-printers, online services, local professionals or what? Or maybe no one feels the need?

Cheers,

Niall

[/quote]

I do print out photos from memorable events or holidays and stick them in an album. I usually use online services that deliver to the local Boots store or have them sent to me. For personal gifts when I only want to print out a couple of photos I get to the local shop and print them out. I don't like the results from home printers, the colours don't seem to last that long.

Re: Lights, camera, action

Sarah Keir — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:12:22 GMT

Yes Niall, you are correct; the lanterns is on a point and shoot and the orchid is on a SLR. But apart from 'liking' one better how could you tell? The laterns was taken at ISO 1600 so could be hand held, as I can't take my SLR above ISO 400 due to noise.

You can get good prints at home, but if you are printing any number then it is cheaper to get them done online with a a company that is used to dealign with 'proper' photos i.e. no just someones holiday snaps. Remember you will need to colour callibrate your home computer monitor so that colours are a true likeness of what you see, and so if printing at home you will need to also colour callibrate the printer. It is up to you how much control you take but if you just send the printing off then the printer will apply all sort of 'optimisations' i.e ramp up saturation and contrast.

Sarah

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:32:34 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"] [quote user="Sarah Keir"]I have now posted 2 photos, a bit randomly chosen I'm afraid, to show the difference, or lack of, between a SLR and a compact camera... Spot which is which![/quote]

Definitely not as easy as I was expecting - the orchids are beautiful - simple and uncluttered, the lanterns are bright and colourful. At a guess I would say the orchids were from the SLR & the lanterns from the point and shoot but I've a feeling that's just because I prefer the orchids!

Cheers,

Niall[/quote]

C'mon Sarah, I've put my neck on the line here, my reputation as a rank amateur is at stake - which was the SLR picture, the orchids or the lanterns?

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:29:46 GMT

Another thing I've been meaning to ask - what about printing?

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:55:37 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Clinical pictures tend to be of red stuff! Surround the area of interest with green cloth.[/quote]

I had always wondered why surgical drapes are green..............

Re: Lights, camera, action

Charlotte Marshall — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:18:37 GMT

I recently bought a digital SLR and did a day course to get some tips. One simple thing the guy said was don't go out and buy an 8GB or 16GB card buy several smaller ones. Then if your card gets corrupted for some reason you haven't lost everything you've taken. I actually found the day course a really good way of learning. There are loads out there. But although I love my new SLR I do think my little point and shoot is great for closeups.

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:35:01 GMT

[quote user="Robert Lowe"]Hi Niall

As far as eye pictures are concerned you have two choices. You need to get the lens and the flash in as close alignment as possible with each other. This means either spending a large amount of money on ringflashes, macro lenses etc OR use a camera phone.

Using a mid range camera with pop-up flash is bizarrely better than using one with a separate flash mounted above the camera but the results are rarely better than a point and shoot camera such as the canon ixus. I have seen plenty of camera phone pictures that have been better than either of these options. [/quote]

Thanks for that Rob - our point and shoot is pretty good for most things but for closeups of shiny things it just gives a load of glare and if we try to light it with theatre lights etc even then it never seems to give a very satisfactory effect - I've got a couple of examples I might upload if I get the chance. I was v. impressed by your eye pic uploaded to the gallery - bet that wasn't on a camera phone

Re: Lights, camera, action

Niall Taylor — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:29:02 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Back to Niall: one small hint or tip. Clinical pictures tend to be of red stuff! Surround the area of interest with green cloth.[/quote]

Thanks Evelyn, that's the sort of tip I'm after!

Niall

Re: Lights, camera, action

Dagmar Steele — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:58:26 GMT

another valid point there! As I said I have the Nikon D3100 which is classified as an amateur model. The advantage is it is small and lightweight compared to the latest professional model from Nikon my husband works with - this weighs a ton and is twice the size, the lenses are bigger and heavier, too. Hence one wouldn't take it everywhere which is a shame. If you own a decent camera and don't take it on a hiking trip or for walks and rather take pics with your phone why buy the DSLR in the first place!