1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Switching from Nikon to Canon?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by dr_eyehead, Dec 11, 2017.

  1. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    What's haloing? Do you mean the edging effect you get in the sky just above hills and trees, and them appearing darker/silhouetted? Sometimes that effect can work towards amore interesting photograph, but mostly I try to avoid it.

    Not sure what you mean, but obviously doing it yourself is going to get better results than letting the camera automatically work it out.

    Can you point to a specific example maybe?
  2. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    Because it's easier to just ask people on a forum who have direct experience with Canon cameras + I'm also looking for other comparitive information.

    Manual's are not always accurate, and I don't know exactly which Canon I might go for or which current model and the information I am looking for might not be detailed in the manual. Knowing that I can set HDR to single shot or continuous doesn't answer the question of whether or not I have to reset it to HDR for each single or continuous shot.

    I checked the Nikon D5200 manual though and it doesn't explain that HDR turns off after every shot.
  3. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    As it turns out anyway I might be sticking with Nikon after all. Still hit and miss but I turned on my camera today after it's had time to dry out and it switched on. But we're not completey "out of the water" just yet as it also started intermittently going blank and flashing up that the battery needed charged. I thought this battery was fully charged... but anyway maybe it wasn't.

    As for the lens, well it's bust. The mechanism isn't turning well because I got mud in it. The front part was at an angle when I arrived home so must have dented it while I was scrambling to get out of the river. I opened up the back to see if I could fix it and as I was taking it apart I ended up snapping the flimsy cable that connects to the camera. These things are really difficult to take apart. I know from trying to fix my Tamron lens earlier this year. I ended up just knocking it on the front to get it back in to shape. Don't think I can even use it manually now as I can't changed the aperture manually and there's no way to open and close the shutters.

    So if it does survive then I still need a new lens. I'm sure I can find a reasonaby priced refurbished one on Ebay. I'd like a good 10mm wide angle lens to be honest but they are kind of expensive and not really worth investing in if the main body only lasts a few more months.
  4. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    If it's a kit lens you are looking for check out CEX, they usually have plenty of used ones, quite likely in a branch near you, unless you live in a remote location.
  5. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    Don't see any on the site that's just the lens on it's own.

    I just put my tamron back together (still stuck on 150mm) and I can still apparently take photos with my camera. But whether or not it's fully operational and doesn't now have an intermittent fault is still in question.
  6. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Yes, although in the case of your images, it's more than just an edge.

    On this image - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPjygMGW4AA6KJr.jpg:large - there's a much lighter halo around the trees, and their reflection in the water. It's distracting to me, and just doesn't look real.

    All art is subjective, but I subjectively dislike landscape shots that don't look real. The point of HDR originally to was make images look more real, because our eyes have better dynamic range than camera sensors, but in the case of low quality software algorithms, the end result looks less real because we can clearly see the process at work.
    dr_eyehead likes this.
  7. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I thought there were two divisions. Exposure blending as a technique to extend the dynamic range of the sensor while retaining a realistic result and HDR as a more "artistic" approach which doesn't necessarily try to be true to the scene.
    dr_eyehead likes this.
  8. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    I appreciate your feedback and any tips to improve my photography is appreciated. I personally thought that one you highlighted turned out rather well, but there is some haloing. Not as bad as I've seen in some other photos I've taken.

    Is there something I'm doing in the settings that is causing this? I tend to use HDR on high mostly, but maybe normal would be better? Is the exposure too high or too low? Can I avoid this by choosing a different ISO setting?
  9. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    It sounds as though you thought I was being grumpy in suggesting downloading manuals, and if so I apologise for a bad choice of words. My intention was just to draw your attention to another source of data that might be used in conjunction with our advice not instead of that advice.
    dr_eyehead likes this.
  10. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    At least you didn't say RTFM!:)
  11. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I think that latter one is actually just a mistake, introduced by camera manufacturers and filter software which introduced an 'HDR like look' but didn't really explain what it was.
  12. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I don't think you have enough control over in-camera HDR to resolve the issue.
  13. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I agree with that.

    I looked at the picture a few times but I couldn't really decide what the camera was doing or how it could be controlled. From the discussion above it seems that the camera starts with two exposures. It looks as it it decided the trees were too dark in the less exposed picture and over-pasted the trees from the more exposed version using some feathering. I can't judge how much the scene has been flattened, although it looks a bit unnatural between the water and the sky, but I'd guess that, shot in raw, a single exposure would have sufficed.
  14. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    What they said...

    As Tony stated earlier:
    Two images is rather limited, three shots is more usually thought the bare minimum while 5 or more should give you a better result particularly where the lighting conditions are extreme.

    None of my cameras have in-camera HDR but my Panasonic G3 offers up to seven frames in autobracket mode and this produces a decent result when HDR'd in Photoshop. Most DSLRs (and CSCs) offer at least a 3 shot option for autobracketing and more recent ones 5 or more.

    This example is from my G3...
    Bosham Village at Sunset
    by Nigel Hayes, on Flickr

    Off hand I think it was 7 frames tough it might have been 5 - all JPG too.
  15. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Well, if that is HDR then it is HDR done very well.
    dr_eyehead likes this.
  16. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    I'm off the take a camera and go out somewhere and see what I can capture variety.

    My photography lends itself as much to the effoert I put in to get out there and be in the right place at the right time as it does expert. I like to try both, but my main passion is in being in the right place.

    I took a 250 megapixel panoramic of a repeat location yesterday with my camera and a 135mm focus and it kind of worked. But it was nothing like the sort of shots I could have achieved with the snow and an 18mm or better 10mm lens.

    Today I went down to the river with my neighbour's dogs and took some photos of them scrambling around on an ice pond while I threw biscuits and I go some nice "movement" results but I don't have the energy to process them all or some just yet.


    What about this for a bit of HDR squished horizontally winter photography?


    Go a few more of that fresh snow. It all fell as I walked up from Sanquhar below. That's the Nith valley there at the start of the year and the hill to the right is called Knockenhair.
  17. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Thank you. It was a rare attempt as my old and antiquated PC laboured badly with HDR and panos. Now I have a modern version you may well see a few more.
  18. dr_eyehead

    dr_eyehead Well-Known Member

    I discovered today that my 70-300mm Tamron lens is adjustable if I push the front lens in and out with my hand. It's a pretty crap lens (as I was warned) but it seems to still be 90% operational as is the back end of my camera so I'll be sticking with Nikon for now.

    The question is should I try to pick up a second hand 18-55mm kit lens for about £50 up or go for a decent 10mm one from about £100 up?

    I seem to do mostly landscape so I think I'd benefit from the wider angle.

    What is a decent 10mm lens?

Share This Page