[CauseISaidSo]

Rush? The bromance is on!

Awesome! He was really slappin’ da bass, mon at that show!

Leon’s a bit of a home-town legend, although I’m not a big fan. He’s responsible for what’s called the “Tulsa sound” and had a big influence on Clapton during his early solo years (see e.g. Livin on Tulsa Time). He also guided Petty during his early years.

And yeah, I’d heard about CHDK. I’d be surprised if they’ve got firmware for the SX30 yet since it’s so new. Native RAW support was just a bonus on the G12, though – the big things were the extra ISO and size. The SX30’s larger zoom makes it pretty much unpocketable.

[Edited to add:] The last two shots (of Elton) are at ISO-2000, which would’ve been impossible with the SX30.

[CauseISaidSo]

I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t love this community; Farktographers are good people 🙂

I’m not.

*puts on Klan sheet, clubs baby seal while munching on an ortolan sandwich
between verses of Nazi battlesongs

Typical liberal academicians. 🙄

😆

[CauseISaidSo]

So I thought I’d post a followup here after making my decision. In the end, I couldn’t justify the cost (and possible extra hassle from security) of a micro 4/3rds for what I wanted it for, so I ended up going with a Canon Powershot G12. Why the G12? Well, my dSLR is a Canon so I’m already familiar with Canon software and my first digital was a Powershot G2, which I was really pleased with (even though it’s only 4MP, it still takes great shots).

After a bit of research, I narrowed it down to the SX30 IS and the G12. I really, really liked the 840mm-equivalent zoom of the SX30 and its extra 4MP resolution over the G12, but I went with the G12 because 1) it’s smaller (although still a bit large for a pocket, it fits comfortably); 2) it’ll do RAW; 3) higher ISO up to 3200; and 4) it has a hotshoe so I can use my 430EX external flash on it if I want.

Below are some comparison shots to show how it stacks up against the SD500 I’d been using for my concert memento photography.

First, please don’t mock my taste in music! I’ve already told you I’m a bit long in the tooth (although to my surprise it seems that about half of you are right there with me :)), so you should just be happy that I’m not listening to Lawrence Welk for cryin’ out loud.

Each set is a thumb of the whole image and a 400×300 full-res crop. Click on the thumb to see the full resolution photo if you’re interested.

First, Tom Petty on the SD500:

As you can see, it’s not great. And I got about 2 shots out 45 that are that “clear.”

Next, Rush on the SD500:

Even worse, especially considering how much light there is. Only 3 or 4 “usable” shots out of 80+ on this one.

Now, the only show I’ve used the G12 on yet, Elton John & Leon Russell. Here’s Leon:

I thought that one came out really well considering I’m about 35 rows back and completely on the other side of the stage. I’m about 20 rows back from where I was for the Petty show.

And here’s a couple of Elton:

Overall, I’m really pleased with it. You can see that the shots came out decently even though there was considerably less light. And all 50+ shots are usable.

My only “complaints” about it are: 1) I’d like a little more zoom (I may have to get the 1.4x tele-extender, which will take it to almost 200mm); and 2) it doesn’t support bulb shutter length – 15s is the max, which really isn’t an issue considering what I’m doing with it.

And the video? OMG, there’s no comparison! 720p in stereo with almost none of the distortion that I got from SD500. It’s awesome, really.

As for the shows, Petty was great, Rush was awesome (what’s not to like about playing the whole Moving Pictures album?) and Elton sounded good, but I think I waited about 20 years too long to see him. I was looking for Amoreena, Funeral For A Friend, Madman Across the Water, and hoping for All The Young Girls Love Alice. What I got instead was Tiny Dancer, Levon, Candle in the Wind and Daniel. Although he did play Burn Down the Mission and Take Me To The Pilot, which are from the Amoreena era.

[CauseISaidSo]

to the left and below the comment box at “options” is a link to BBCode samples. i use it regularly 🙂 thanks anyway.

Never noticed that was a link. So now I’ve learned something from this thread, too!

[CauseISaidSo]

CAN NOT UN SEE

The first thing I thought of was the DO NOT WANT dog macro. 🙂

And that guy should be arrested for abusing the English language. Not even a politician could twist the meaning of the word “handsome” to include anything in that picture! (Although that is a fine looking hog, I reckon.)

[CauseISaidSo]

this stands out I’ve sinced switch to RAW only as I’ve found it pretty easy to just do a batch conversion to JPEG. if that is as easy as you make it sound and i could do the conversion to the equivalent of “jpeg fine” that might be a good choice. means an extra step of two rather than just download from the camera but worth it — maybe.

Sorry to get your hopes up on that. 🙁 What makes it easy is the Canon DPP software. You just select the raw files you want to convert and click the batch convert button and voila. It’ll even resize them during conversion if you want.

and on a personal note this sites use of BBCode instead of HTML is driving me nuts.

This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbcode It’s where I go when I have a brainfart and can’t remember the specific bbcode peculiarities.

I’m salivating over the potential of 150+ megapixel and what I might-could do with that.

Aside from printing billboards, what would you do with that many pixels?

[CauseISaidSo]

Curious, the sharpness setting only applies during the conversion from RAW to JPEG, either in the camera (when shooting JPEG or RAW+JPEG) or in the software when converting from RAW to JPEG (which BTW I can’t believe that Nikon doesn’t supply. I’m pretty sure Canon provides that utility for every camera that can shoot in RAW.) RAW files are just that – right as they come out of the sensor, so there’s no sharpness or color correction or anything else applied.

In Canon cameras, you can set the sharpness in the camera and the camera then uses this setting when creating JPEGs. I’m not sure, but it sounds like you may have found the same setting in your Nikon. If so, that’s the alternative of doing it in the post-processing step.

The advantage of shooting in RAW is that you can change all of that at a later time if you decide you want a different look. Also, I’ve been able to pull out from RAW files what would’ve been unsalvagable pics in JPEG only. There’s a wider dynamic range stored in the RAW file (which is why you can theoretically adjust the exposure +/- 2 stops). Up until recently, I shot both RAW and JPEG for exactly the reason you propose – to have the option to edit later but still be able to view immediately. I’ve sinced switch to RAW only as I’ve found it pretty easy to just do a batch conversion to JPEG.

And the unsharp filter is just a seemingly misnamed equivalent to the “sharpness” setting but with finer control over the results. I’m not a PS user, but I’m pretty sure it has this filter, too. I don’t profess to know what exactly it does or what the individual settings for it do, but it’s easy enough to see just by playing with it.

Oh, and watch out for max sharpen – it can be overdone in complex pictures (scenes with a lot of jagged edges or high-contrast areas). It also accentuates graininess in low-light photos. But again, that might be a reason to shoot in RAW – for those few where too much sharpness is bad, you can edit later but for the others, you’re good to go.

[CauseISaidSo]

really should look into the “sharpen” feature in both the camera and photoshop. however it seems that if the detail isn’t there sharpen isn’t gong to help all that much.

I think it likely is there, though, Curious.

Being a Canon guy, I can’t speak to the tool that Nikon supplies to convert raw to jpg, but on the Canon tool (called Digital Photo Professional) there’s a default level of sharpness automatically applied when viewing raw images and that level is set pretty low. I’d guess the reason for that is so that portraits look better (you definitely don’t want a lot of sharpness in most portraits as it brings out skin flaws, as I’m sure you know).

So, here’s an example of what the sharpness control will do for you. This is a full-resolution crop from the same shot. In the middle is the camera’s default level of sharpness (3). On the left is sharpness 0 and on the right is sharpness 10.

Using the unsharp mask can give you even finer control over the level of sharpness.

[CauseISaidSo]

That’s a pretty neat shot of a funky cloud formation, lokisbong.

chup, where abouts (generally) are you?!? I had thought you weren’t too far down the road from me, and we’re nowhere near snow yet (thank goodness). Light rain yesterday turning into heavy rain right now but we’ve still got highs in the 60s.

[CauseISaidSo]

Elsinore, when you wake up in the morning (hopefully feeling much better), could you remove my first non-voting-enabled entry please? I guess there’s a first time for everything and it was bound to happen eventually…

[CauseISaidSo]

Welcome to the forums, Plamadude30k!

Sorry you’re feeling under the weather tonight, Elsinore. There seems to be a bit of that going around. It’s mostly allergy-related for me; dang pollen or whatever is off the charts right now, seems like. We’ve got a chance for rain tomorrow so maybe that’ll clear some of it out.

[CauseISaidSo]

Anything done in camera is kosher.

Anything? The new P&S I just bought for concert photos does HDR and selective color in-camera. I’m guessing those effects would still be frowned on, though.

[CauseISaidSo]

Looks great. Good job scanning them, also.

I’ve never really had much of an interest in developing myself, but I can certainly understand the coolness of producing your own prints and having more artistic control over the final product.

[CauseISaidSo]

One day, they’ll make little economical GPS’s for peoples’ keychains (it’s a grand idea, at least). When they do, you can put one of them on each flight. 😉

PMB-648 GPS SiRF Internal Antenna – $34.99

The problem is that that only lets the camera know where it is, but you still wouldn’t know where the camera is. You’d have to have the payload broadcast its GPS coordinates and that’s where you’re going to start running into a bit of weight.

[CauseISaidSo]

noob question here, so ridicule all you want. wouldn’t shooting a wedding count? first thing i thought of.

The theme originator (olavf in this case) usually makes those kinda clarification calls, but I’d say that as long as your subjects are cool with being posted on the internet that a wedding would have to count – it’s a day in your life and they’re all three from the same outing, right?

Oh, and we (generally) don’t do a lot of ridiculing here – a friendly competitive jibe every now and then is about as “bad” as it gets.

[Author]

Posts