Taking Decent Pictures of gear

[Jean Clochet]

Its got its own place. But the biggest advantage is that you can generate thousands of watts without melting your object as it would be the case with film/tv lighting.

That's true.  I'm just not good enough to get exposure right without taking a zillion spotmeter measurements with all lights blazing though 
Besides, I've never been that efficient -  I run my power amps hot and in class A too if I can   

Funny you mentioned Russian stuff. I took this with my old Hasselblad copy Kiev. 

That's cool  ;D  Looks nice.    I don't have a Kiev Hasselblad copy (Kiev-88?) but I do have an early Kiev-2 on its way from the Ukraine and I've had a Kiev-4 for a good while.  I also have more Zorki's and Feds than I dare to admit to!  :-[ 

Your shots are nice, good job!  I especially like the football, thanks for posting. 
I don't have anything on hand on this drive except family stuff and I generally only have time these days for quick shots using sunny-16... More like sunny-11 here in the UK though!

Marik's link for the cheap DIY light tent is the right ticket for us DIYers.  For a slightly more robust (and slightly more expensive) version, and maybe a bit bigger for bigger subjects?, there's something similar using PVC piping on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNxBGXTbdXE&feature=related

I've built a few stands and 2 soft boxes using the same stuff for not much £ -  I ended up filling the bottom pipes with sand for a bit of ballast though.

Cheers.

 

[sahib]

Kiev 88 indeed  ;D. I sold it but I still have my snake skin Kiev 60 which is a present from a friend. I have not really used it properly as it was meant to be a joke. But 88 was a good machine for its money and I used it on a lot of stuff.

On power amps I suppose it is just natural. I am the same. The older you get the more incline to class A. You know, the bones got to be heated.

 

[Marik]

Kiev 88 indeed  ;D.

I had this camera with whole pack of accessories (view finder prizm, additional body magazines, wide angle and tele lenses, etc.) for quite awhile. It is quite a remarkable camera for the price. I never could make such quality pictures with any digital SLRs.

At some points I also had Kiev 20 and  60, Lubitel 166 (another 6x6, but quite cheaper than its "bigger" brothers) all kinds of Smena, Zenit, Zorki, FED... I spent quite a bit of money on the cameras at that time. The Kiev 88 in Russia was worth half a year salaries of most of the working people there. Now most of those cameras can be had for peanuts...

Best, M

 

[Jean Clochet]

At some points I also had Kiev 20 and  60, Lubitel 166 (another 6x6, but quite cheaper than its "bigger" brothers) all kinds of Smena, Zenit, Zorki, FED... I spent quite a bit of money on the cameras at that time. The Kiev 88 in Russia was worth half a year salaries of most of the working people there. Now most of those cameras can be had for peanuts...

I bought quite a few Feds and Zorki's when they were very inexpensive but good ones are now getting harder to find and also more expensive.  It's the same with the Industar and Jupiter lenses...  I suppose this is to be expected really. 
In Leica aficionado circles, the Russian camera stuff sometimes gets a bad rap for build quality or consistency.  Maybe I've just been lucky, but I think they're great myself.  IMO, a couple of the ones I've bought are quite a bit ahead of similar vintage screw-mount Leicas.  A Fed-2 (for its compactness) and a Zorki-3M come to mind and are my favourite screw-mount rangefinders.  Using the Zeiss Contax lens designs in the form of the Jupiter-3 and 8 in a Leica thread mount also gave the Russian cameras the edge in the post-war period over the Leica with its  Elmar lenses IMHO. 

Thanks to Cemal's and Marik's posts though, I'm now getting uncontrollable urges to hunt for a nice Kiev-88  :

Sorry for the thread diversion Ian 

 

[Jean Clochet]

On power amps I suppose it is just natural. I am the same. The older you get the more incline to class A. You know, the bones got to be heated.

;D  Yep.  Especially in Winter.  You're further North than I am but it still gets cold enough here in Lancashire!

 

[sahib]

In Leica aficionado circles, the Russian camera stuff sometimes gets a bad rap for build quality or consistency.....

Indeed but unfairly. I could not fault Kiev for the money I paid for it, and it was indeed peanuts. Another thing though. I also had a Russian 35mm shift lens. Now that lens kicked ass and gave good run to Nikon (which much of my 35mm gear consists of) for its money. I did tons of architectural stuff with it, close up and the lot and never let me down.

 

[Marik]

In Leica aficionado circles, the Russian camera stuff sometimes gets a bad rap for build quality or consistency.....

Indeed but unfairly. I could not fault Kiev for the money I paid for it, and it was indeed peanuts. Another thing though. I also had a Russian 35mm shift lens. Now that lens kicked ass and gave good run to Nikon (which much of my 35mm gear consists of) for its money. I did tons of architectural stuff with it, close up and the lot and never let me down.

Out of at least dozen Russian cameras I used to have (after all I spent in Russia first 27 years of my life) I had only one problem--one of my Zenits was scratching film. Simple polishing the surfaces took care of it.

Best, M

 

[Jean Clochet]

the Russian camera stuff sometimes gets a bad rap...

Indeed but unfairly...

Out of at least dozen Russian cameras I used to have (after all I spent in Russia first 27 years of my life) I had only one problem...

I have maybe 18 FED's, Zorki's, Leningrad, Kiev etc., most of them made between 1943 and 1955.  Other than cleaning out the dried lubrications and a re-lube and calibration, they all work.  A Leica II that the first Zorki's and FED's were based on is no better in this regard.

It's funny that Leica folks have no problem spending £200 to have their precious early camera cleaned & calibrated etc. but will complain if they buy a FED-1 from 1950 for £50 on Ebay and it needs the same! ?  I also have no problem taking apart a FED myself to clean it (plenty of info online to guide you) but would be scared to death of undoing a Leica for fear of knocking £300 off its value to a collector just because a few screws had been undone!
 
I don't own any Leica camera's so it's obvious where my loyalties are 

 

[sahib]

Jean, seems you are a serious collector. Make sure you address is as confidential as your real name.  8)

 

[mOBiTh]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattavent/6959874390/in/photostream/lightbox/

you'll need a half decent lens if you want nice dof/fades. this was an f1.4 50mm

 

[Jean Clochet]

Jean, seems you are a serious collector. Make sure you address is as confidential as your real name.  8)

;D
Actually, I'd say I'm not a serious collector but I am seriously suffering from the sickness of collecting stuff! 
I've done the same thing with audio gear in the past but sold a lot of it off about 20 years ago to buy a house when I acquired a wife. 
Unfortunately, the wife then acquired the house when she became an Ex-wife! 

P.S.  what makes you think this isn't my real name 


Matt, you have some nice shots on your Flicker. 
What was the camera on the shot with the F1.4/50mm?  If it was digital, it looks like the crop factor isn't much. 
I'm asking because I'm looking at the Sony NEX7 or, possibly the NEX-5N so I can have a small package but still use my LTM and M lenses...
I'm still up in the air about it though and looking for other suggestions.

 

[mOBiTh]

Matt, you have some nice shots on your Flicker. 
What was the camera on the shot with the F1.4/50mm?  If it was digital, it looks like the crop factor isn't much. 
I'm asking because I'm looking at the Sony NEX7 or, possibly the NEX-5N so I can have a small package but still use my LTM and M lenses...
I'm still up in the air about it though and looking for other suggestions.

Cheers

It's a canon 50D body which has a fullframe/1.6 sensor, thus making this lens essentially 80mm!

 

[Jean Clochet]

It's a canon 50D body which has a fullframe/1.6 sensor, thus making this lens essentially 80mm!

Ah, yes a friend has one and I liked playing with it for the 10 minutes he allowed me to. 
Nice and solid in the hand which I like and am a bit concerned about with the Sony NEX'es

His pics are always great with the Canon and it doesn't seem to take him long to get a great shot with it.

I'm guessing the F1.4 is a Canon too then? 
Anyway, thanks for the info 

 

[mOBiTh]

I'm guessing the F1.4 is a Canon too then? 
Anyway, thanks for the info 

It's pretty quick to use. The AF hunts a bit in low light even with the f1.4 which drives me a bit mad at times - the new 5DIII is the one to get for low light though.

yeh the f1.4 is canon. one of the best value lenses on the market i'd say. fantastic aftersales service with canon too: i dropped and broke my f1.4 and they repaired it free of charge despite it being over a year out of warranty. they also replaced the 50D body when i dropped that (actually i dropped myself on it whilst flipping a quadbike :/ ) and knocked the mirror/sensor out of alignment. it's unlikely i'd buy anything other than canon now because i know where i am with them. we use the mega-expensive canon video lenses exclusively at work too and they're fast at repairing stuff! sony, on the other hand...

 

[Jean Clochet]

Hey, thanks for the detailed info. 
Yeh I've been told Canon is great about repairs and warranty stuff.  The reasons I primarily thought Sony NEX7 were that it's fairly small for what it does and for still images, I only really do street or candid stuff at the mo' so it would be fairly inconspicuous. An NEX-5N even more so.  I'm also interested in budget but decent HD video 24/25FPS recording although the Panasonic GH2 is arguably better there if you hack the firmware.
Might be better getting a good solid camera just for stills though as things will evolve really quickly I think for low cost HD recording.

I agree that the Canon lenses are fantastic quality versus price.  I'll probably pick one up myself as I only have antiquated rangefinder lenses at the moment which can render really beautiful images but wouldn't be what you'd call accurate - especially as you look towards the image edges.  Though I do think that some have great bokeh.  And a couple of Zeiss I really like for contrast.
I also have a 1940's 50mm Cooke Speed Panchro II which was the lens maker of choice in the Golden Era of Hollywood Cinema ('Citizen Kane' was one of the first shot on the Panchro II's) but I haven't got to use or try it yet as I need to figure out a Leica thread mount or suitable adaptor or maybe just re-mount the glass without spending £££'s.


Anyway, try not to flip off your quad bike too often 

Cheers and thanks again. 

 

[buildafriend]

Sorry to bump an old thread.

When I'm not doing studio work I'm doing freelance assistant camera work for the travel channel. Cinematography and still photography are not the same, but I guess you could say it's like comparing live sound to studio recording. Lot's of the same language and tools to get the job done.

Even distribution of light is important. To take good DIY shots I would buy a piece of white poster board and then arc it against a wall where I would tape it in place. This would make a foundation for what will be a mini seemless background. Aka with the item on the bottom of the bend and the camera pointed at it you have no horizon. It creates the illusion that the item is floating in space and makes the item the sole focus of your shot, because then there are no visual distractions. Next you'll want to find a good cheap light source that does not create any hard shadows. A florescent light bulb should do the trick. There are flicker speeds to learn about and color temperatures to learn about but any light should get your job done right. Okay so after you place your light in a spot you like it's time to set up your camera. Some might need to be white balanced and some might need to have the iso/aperture settings rigged up right. Then without saying you need to focus the lens.. cheap digital cameras usually do all of this manually. You can get a great shot this way.. just use your instincts, you know what looks good. If you really want amazing shots buy a mini seemless setup, a 2x2 kino flow light setup, a Canon 5 mkiii, and a 100mm macro lens.. but I could take some pretty sharp looking gear shots with the camera on my phone.

Hope this helps.. 2 years later.

 

[thermionic]

IMHO, the order of importance is:

1) Lighting + background
2) Lens
3) Camera body

Currently, I use a light cube with some 5500k lamps. I plan to get a couple more of the 5500K lamps with soft boxes. If you have consumer-grade lighting, hot spots are a problem. There's a temptation to put the lights too near the gear to compensate for overall intensity. A better option is to get more lights and mount them further away to get an even distribution.

What bothers me is that my photos look a little 'cold' compared to pro photos.... I'm told this is due to post processing, and that pros typically know the tricks and use colour balance presets. I've recently found the 'warmth' setting useful in my editing package. Although the pro I used to employ is obviously a much better photographer than me, for a static lump of black, silver and white metal, I don't think the difference is so obvious. He scores on the post-processing IMHO - that's where I need to learn.

I have a 50mm / 2.8D Macro lens which I use for everything. The camera is an ancient Nikon D70 (6MP). Aside from the luxury of being able to crop without losing quality, what would moving to a more modern unit as a D700/800 give me? I'm thinking that, aside from cropping, my shots would look much the same. They look the way they do because of my lighting and post-processing, not camera body. Love to know if anyone disagrees?

 

[thermionic]

Here's an example of what a Macro lens can do (note it was taken a few yrs back - I like to think I've learnt a lot since posting the library this comes from). Wouldn't it be great if Alps still made these?