| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||
| Is shutter count the limiting factor? - Page 2 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2017 02:28 |
|
11th Post |
jk
|
The Nikon1 system is due for replacement. It is end of line. There are new Nikon mirrorless in R&D but when they deliver is another matter.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2017 03:45 |
|
12th Post |
Robert
|
Eric wrote:The D850 doesnt AUTO stack. It takes the shots but you still need external processing to get the final stacked image. By auto stacking I meant it takes a number of exposures various focus points and provides you with a stack, which to me IS auto stacking. I wouldn't want the camera to do the processing because I doubt very much it would create the image I wanted. Dedicated focus stacking software is very clever. Although I know a man who can, with Photoshop! LOL I haven't looked into it in detail, I was just aware of it and it might have been something you (and others) weren't aware of. How you control it I don't know but it could be a good way of getting very quick grab shots of say, butterflies or bees which are gone in a trice.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2017 08:10 |
|
13th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: We haven't even tried this option on Jan's camera yet! 
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2017 09:26 |
|
14th Post |
Eric
|
Have to say I am sceptical how focus stacking can work in the field. Leaves are rarely still let alone the insects. Unless the cameras do the same as WB bracketing....whereby they only take one image and the software does the +/- versions
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2017 04:08 |
|
15th Post |
highlander
|
What's wrong with having some of the image out of focus, it adds perspective. I think sometimes photographers get hung up on technology and forget its about taking photos. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, but I do try to remind myself that I have not had a single customer (in nearly 30 years) ask me what camera I use... The only time I did get a comment it was at a wedding from the notorious 'uncle' photographer with a D3 who was 'shocked' I only used a D700. Although I see the point of focus stacking, I've never done it. Give me a decent lens, f16 and focus on the hyper focal distance. Job done.
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2017 04:14 |
|
16th Post |
highlander
|
Back to the original question, although no longer relevant, I always look for a camera with a moderate shutter count. I am suspicious of counts which are too low. I mean, if the body looks like its done 50k but the count is only 3k what is going on with it? And why would a camera which is say, five years old, only have 3k images on it. Even as a back up you'd shoot more than 3k in 5 years. I can shoot that in a couple of weeks without really trying. I would avoid very high counts though for the simple reason that there is a good chance that you are going to need to pay to replace it. Although I imagine most manufacturers life time figures are probabaly erring on the side of caution. A camera used for extensive video use is more likely to have sensor issues than shutter ones, although holding the shutter open cannot be good for it, I suppose. I don't like seeing video use on DSLRs because I'm old fashioned, and because it opens up a whole lot of questions on life spans. I think that the condition of the body and the accessories tells you as much about the life the camera has had than anything else though.
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2017 05:08 |
|
17th Post |
jk
|
highlander wrote: Back to the original question, although no longer relevant, I always look for a camera with a moderate shutter count. I am suspicious of counts which are too low. I mean, if the body looks like its done 50k but the count is only 3k what is going on with it? And why would a camera which is say, five years old, only have 3k images on it. Even as a back up you'd shoot more than 3k in 5 years. I can shoot that in a couple of weeks without really trying. Depends on your methods and shooting style. Landscape photographers can have a very low shutter count on the body. I know from experience that my German friend shoots probably 1/4 the number of shots that I take. His pictures are very good. I personally tend to take less shots these days. My XT2 which is my main Fuji has a shutter count of approx. 7000 and it is one year old. The XT1 has only 8600 XPro1 a mere 4900 XE2 only 1600 XE1 only 3000 X100 has 10018 X100T only 5200 X30 only D300 has 14500 D300S has 11340 D3S only 7200 D500 only 2000 D600 only 6200 D700 only 8000 D800 only 3200 D850 just a month or so old, 260 My D3 that I sold to Robert two/three years ago (?) had only 48000 exposures in 7 years. I can bet he has probably added several tens of thousand already!! I always work with two cameras and sometimes three. BTW all these cameras are used as and when and chose for appropriateness for the job. So you can see that while I make a fair number of images, not as many as a working professional and also my picture taking has been somewhat curtailed this last year. My camera are what I call low use.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2017 06:04 |
|
18th Post |
Robert
|
highlander wrote:What's wrong with having some of the image out of focus, it adds perspective. That's the point of focus stacking, perspective in spades. If it's done well, with really good lenses it can be stunning, else your f16 method is fine. highlander wrote: Although I see the point of focus stacking, I've never done it. Give me a decent lens, f16 and focus on the hyper focal distance. Job done.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2017 06:33 |
|
19th Post |
Robert
|
jk wrote:My D3 that I sold to Robert two/three years ago (?) had only 48000 exposures in 7 years. I can bet he has probably added several tens of thousand already!! Mmmm... 20 months actually, first used about 8th April 2016. The recorded EXIF from my first image is 25,089, my last image, yesterday was 36,698, that's 11,609 exposures I have made in 20 months... About 580 per month. When I am on a trip (NO, NOT that sort of trip!  ) I generally make a couple of hundred exposures a day, something like motor racing that can get much higher, time lapse and star trails at least 60 to 180 per hour.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2017 09:14 |
|
20th Post |
Eric
|
highlander wrote:What's wrong with having some of the image out of focus, it adds perspective. I think sometimes photographers get hung up on technology and forget its about taking photos. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, but I do try to remind myself that I have not had a single customer (in nearly 30 years) ask me what camera I use... Whilst depth of field can be restricted to create more drama, there are many instances that demand less arty and more precise close up recording. Stacking is a great help when shooting insects and flowers, where just having an antenna or stamen in focus isn't sufficient. It also finds use in product studio photography. I created a lot of 100+page catalogues when working, which included hundreds of close up shots of footwear, electronic components, telephones, toys, plants, plastic models, educational aids and safety equipment to name but a few. The key requirement for the client was to clearly show all parts of their product to help customers choose. I would have loved focus stacking to help get it perfectly focused back then. Yes I've done my share of shallow depth of field images but mainly in adverts for glossy mags where it's more eye catching than informative. I confess I hate food photographed this way. Never seen the point of one sprout and some gravy in focus while the rest of the plate is out?  I was asked to photograph a range of Chinese meals and table settings for a local restaurant some years back. I exposed at f16 as I thought the punters might like to see what was on both sides of the plate. This was especially necessary when we set the solvent alight for the flamb© meals. "MORE FRAMES" "MORE FRAMES" was Mr Lowes perpetual request....as I nearly set the tablecloth on fire trying to get a good effect. Those were the days!
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1482 Current time is 11:52 | Page: 1 2 3 4 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Is shutter count the limiting factor? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0648 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 89 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0648 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 89 queries executed.