The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[SVNTI]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

^^^^^I saw a D5000 body go for $629 and that lens you want for #319...so for the price you mentioned, you're saving a couple of bucks. I have that kit lens and it is ok for a starter. It gets wide enough and the zoom is the best I have seen on a kit lens but still, isn't the sharpest lens out there.

Originally Posted by RuleOfThirds

Originally Posted by sigmakidownz

RuleOfThirds wrote:

---

Sup NT, just wanted to get some feedback on my very first music video.


I've done promo work for clubs, car shows and personal stuff but never


actually


directed a video. I even did the casting call for the models. Check it


out and let me know what you guys think. Thanks in advanced!

http://wethewest.com/vide...eodirectlink&id=1134






If someone could embed, I'd greatly appreciate the help.

Saw this video on your other thread. Which did you use most, the 7D or the 5D?

The 5D because it handled low light situations way better

Wondering if you can explain why the 5D handles better in low light. Better ISO or is jt just the camera?
Way better ISO

 

[rap sizzle]

Originally Posted by SaNTi0321

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

^^^^^I saw a D5000 body go for $629 and that lens you want for #319...so for the price you mentioned, you're saving a couple of bucks. I have that kit lens and it is ok for a starter. It gets wide enough and the zoom is the best I have seen on a kit lens but still, isn't the sharpest lens out there.

Wondering if you can explain why the 5D handles better in low light. Better ISO or is jt just the camera?

Way better ISO

Full-frame sensor > crop. A larger sensor means less noise in high ISOs. That's why point and shoots are horrible with high ISO. They haveway too many pixels packed into such small sensors.

 

[Fong$tarr]

So Santi and Rap...sell me the 7D for me. You guys know I have a D90 and my switch to going back to Canon is coming more of a reality since I got a tiny bonusthis year. So I know the 7D has a far more superior video technology then that of the D90 (and yes I want to get into shooting more video) but does is shootway better in low lit settings? I know it has a higher iso but overall, is it a lot better then what I have? I don't require a lot with cameras but I dolike shooting in low lit settings more than in sunny ones.

And ballpark, what do you think a used D90+kit lens, 10.5mm fisheye and 35mm1.8G will get me? $1400?

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

So Santi and Rap...sell me the 7D for me. You guys know I have a D90 and my switch to going back to Canon is coming more of a reality since I got a tiny bonus this year. So I know the 7D has a far more superior video technology then that of the D90 (and yes I want to get into shooting more video) but does is shoot way better in low lit settings? I know it has a higher iso but overall, is it a lot better then what I have? I don't require a lot with cameras but I do like shooting in low lit settings more than in sunny ones.

And ballpark, what do you think a used D90+kit lens, 10.5mm fisheye and 35mm1.8G will get me? $1400?

If you're a POTN member, go to the 7D Post Your Pictures Here Thread. That should be about all you need. It's seriously asclose to FF performance as you can get. I would say it's comparable to the 1DsII that I just got except it can expand to some insane ISO, but that'sjust a push/pull thing, not ACTUAL ISO. I think that once you've passed the beginner level (which you clearly did long before I started) the switch toCanon is a good idea simply because of the glass.

Thanks for the input, man. What do you think about starting with a 15-105mm as opposed to the standard 15-55 kit lens? I've been asking for input on the dpreview forums as well, and that's a recommendation I've been getting a lot. I can get the D5000 with the 15-105 as the kit lens for $860 shipped: that sound like a good deal?


I can't say anything about that lens. That lens was released with the D90 I think, which came out after I started shooting. I bought the D40x about a yearafter its release I think so I never even had that option when I started. In my experience though (I could be wrong) bargain price point lenses like the55-200, 18-105, etc. get softer at the longer end of the range when the range is that large. Essentially, your 105mm end will be softer, and in some casesunusable much like the 200mm end of the 55-200mm. But if dpreview members are recommending it then give it a shot. Fong can give you better insight becauseI'm pretty sure he has that lens seeing as it was the kit lens for the D90.

If the 105mm is long enough for you, go for it. I think it will treat you well getting into the DSLR game.






But I still think you should get a 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/1.8G too.

 

[SVNTI]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

So Santi and Rap...sell me the 7D for me. You guys know I have a D90 and my switch to going back to Canon is coming more of a reality since I got a tiny bonus this year. So I know the 7D has a far more superior video technology then that of the D90 (and yes I want to get into shooting more video) but does is shoot way better in low lit settings? I know it has a higher iso but overall, is it a lot better then what I have? I don't require a lot with cameras but I do like shooting in low lit settings more than in sunny ones.

And ballpark, what do you think a used D90+kit lens, 10.5mm fisheye and 35mm1.8G will get me? $1400?

Just read this. http://www.dpr...w.com/r...ws/canoneos7d/page30.asp Also, the7D is another league than the D90. The 7D competes with the D300s.

Here's a quote from the article above. they had trouble finding negative things to say about the 7D.

If you are looking at the pros and cons list above you could be forgiven for getting the impression that we somehow struggled to populate the cons list with a number of bullet points that comes at least close to what you can see in the pros department. You are not mistaken. The EOS 7D is an excellent addition to Canon's range of APS-C DSLRs that is, in terms of build quality, speed of operation, ergonomics and image quality, a cut above Canon's previous APS-C flagship, the EOS 50D.
This review has High ISO comparisons with the 7D, 50D, D300s, and a couple others. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/

As for how much you can get for your current gear... Id say about $1400-$1600.

 

[i just got lucky]

I've been looking around online for a quality zoom lens and came across the 17-50 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Why can't lens manufacturers make a lensto combine both in to one?
An 18-200 F/2.8 would be a beast of a lens to have.

I currently have the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF HSM, I like this lens and crispness can compare to the Nikon version of the 18-200. 200mm end is mainproblem and it wont be as sharp as 18mm end until around f/12 or f/14 so its pretty much useless in low light.

Sigma or Tokina need a 18-200mm F/2.8 hell even an F/4 all the way through will be a beast.

/end rant.

 

[Fong$tarr]

^^^Thanks yo.


And thanks Crisp for that link. People sure love shooting animals in that thread. This is crazy......I think after looking at a lot of those pictures in there,it kind of convinced me that I should shoot full frame instead. Argh.

This shot is dope though.



And as far as the 18-105, yeah AirCrisp is right. I don't even stretch that thing to 105 cause it is almost pointless due to its softness. I am not a zoomguy though but I have never needed to zoom into anything cause I would just walk up to my subject matter if need be. It would really suggest a prime lens aswell cause of the sharpness and bokeh. Don't think you are restricted because of it and if any, it should just teach you to shoot more creatively.

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

I've been looking around online for a quality zoom lens and came across the 17-50 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Why can't lens manufacturers make a lens to combine both in to one?
An 18-200 F/2.8 would be a beast of a lens to have.

I currently have the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF HSM, I like this lens and crispness can compare to the Nikon version of the 18-200. 200mm end is main problem and it wont be as sharp as 18mm end until around f/12 or f/14 so its pretty much useless in low light.

Sigma or Tokina need a 18-200mm F/2.8 hell even an F/4 all the way through will be a beast.

/end rant.

Do you even want to think about the size, much less PRICE, of such a lens? The 70-200Ls are huge and that's only a 130mm range. Have you seenthe Canon 100-400mm lens? Or the Bigma?

I present to you, the "Bigma": Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3

That'll be $1000, and no fixed aperture. Plus, the number of glass elements required to make sure it's sharp on both ends would be ridiculous. As idealas an 18-200 f/2.8 would be, I don't want to think about the price or size. That would NOT be a walkaround lens. Hahaha.

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

This is crazy......I think after looking at a lot of those pictures in there, it kind of convinced me that I should shoot full frame instead. Argh.

POTN is definitely worth joining. Much less child-play than NT and great resources and a Buy/Sell section, too.

Also, I just jumped to FF with the Canon 1Ds Mark II. A used one is about $200 more than the 7D, but not SIGNIFICANTLY better. I justified it this way:

• Slightly better ISO performance (especially at ISO50 and in low light at ISO1600)
• Cost of 7D+Grip > Canon 1Ds Mark II
• Faster controls, no dial with 1,000 settings I'll never use
• Insanely fast AF-- like, "I fear for my 50mm f/1.8 because I'm afraid it's not built well enough to be spun around that fast" kind of fast.

And those are just a few. Definitely worth considering, or even the 5D classic. But by all means, do NOT discount the 7D. I think it's going torevolutionize the DSLR Prosumer category.
Also, don't forget about bodies like the Canon 1D2 & 1D2n. They're a 1.3x crop sensor, but excellent ISO performance and insanely fast.

 

[stepinitup]

Originally Posted by digitalartclub

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

^ thanks.

I was gonna start a new thread for this question...but I might as well keep this here where all I can probably get the best answer I'm looking for.

What are your thoughts on the micro-four-thirds? Like the Lumix GF-1?

Just sold my D90 now looking for something smaller to carry around this

 

[eaglebball1499]

Originally Posted by NikeAirsNCrispyTees

I can't say anything about that lens. That lens was released with the D90 I think, which came out after I started shooting. I bought the D40x about a year after its release I think so I never even had that option when I started. In my experience though (I could be wrong) bargain price point lenses like the 55-200, 18-105, etc. get softer at the longer end of the range when the range is that large. Essentially, your 105mm end will be softer, and in some cases unusable much like the 200mm end of the 55-200mm. But if dpreview members are recommending it then give it a shot. Fong can give you better insight because I'm pretty sure he has that lens seeing as it was the kit lens for the D90.

If the 105mm is long enough for you, go for it. I think it will treat you well getting into the DSLR game.



But I still think you should get a 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/1.8G too.

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

And as far as the 18-105, yeah AirCrisp is right. I don't even stretch that thing to 105 cause it is almost pointless due to its softness. I am not a zoom guy though but I have never needed to zoom into anything cause I would just walk up to my subject matter if need be. It would really suggest a prime lens as well cause of the sharpness and bokeh. Don't think you are restricted because of it and if any, it should just teach you to shoot more creatively.

Thanks to both of you again for your insight and patience - I'm a relative oldtimer on NT, but definitely a newb when it comes to dslr'sand want to make sure I'm jumping in the pool properly, so to speak.

I'm definitely going to grab the 35mm f/1.8G prime before summertime rolls around (my wife and I are going on our 1-yr anniversary trip in August). Itseems like a no-brainer based on performance/value from what I've read and gotten recommendations for. The reason I'm leaning toward a zoom lens tostart is that it'll give us some flexibility to start and make a decent walk-around base lens for the system. After those two I'd probably make a nicewide-angle lens the third addition (something like the Nikkor 10-24mm), and ultimately a nice long-range lens for wildlife shooting.

At the $850 range I can go with get either the D5000 with either the 18-105, or a kit 18-55 + 55-200 combo (all three have VR). Which would you guys suggest Igo with? I'd get more range out of the combo obviously, but are the optics as good as the 18-105? I don't know if the extra 95mm is worth swappinglenses to get that long zoom shot, especially if that long range suffers from softness anyway.

Thanks again for all the insight, and sorry for the multiple questions.

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

At the $850 range I can go with get either the D5000 with either the 18-105, or a kit 18-55 + 55-200 combo (all three have VR). Which would you guys suggest I go with? I'd get more range out of the combo obviously, but are the optics as good as the 18-105? I don't know if the extra 95mm is worth swapping lenses to get that long zoom shot, especially if that long range suffers from softness anyway.

Thanks again for all the insight, and sorry for the multiple questions.



Man, this is probably (sadly) the most mature thread on NT.

You came tothe right place.

My worry with the 55-200 is how poorly built it is. If you so much as fart with that lens mounted, it very well may slide off the body and break. Unlessyou're shooting ducks (

) then you probably won't need thatrange, honestly. I think I only mounted that lens when I couldn't get close enough to a subject, and that only happened a handful of times. I think thatthe 18-105 will fit your needs just fine. I'd say the 55-200 is soft (if it even autofocuses) starting at 150mm, so really you're just getting an extra45mm. Ha.

 

[SVNTI]

I would go for the 18-105. It's a decent all around lens.

 

[airjordanjack]

 

[i just got lucky]

Originally Posted by NikeAirsNCrispyTees

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

I've been looking around online for a quality zoom lens and came across the 17-50 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Why can't lens manufacturers make a lens to combine both in to one?
An 18-200 F/2.8 would be a beast of a lens to have.

I currently have the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF HSM, I like this lens and crispness can compare to the Nikon version of the 18-200. 200mm end is main problem and it wont be as sharp as 18mm end until around f/12 or f/14 so its pretty much useless in low light.

Sigma or Tokina need a 18-200mm F/2.8 hell even an F/4 all the way through will be a beast.

/end rant.

Do you even want to think about the size, much less PRICE, of such a lens? The 70-200Ls are huge and that's only a 130mm range. Have you seen the Canon 100-400mm lens? Or the Bigma?

I present to you, the "Bigma": Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3

That'll be $1000, and no fixed aperture. Plus, the number of glass elements required to make sure it's sharp on both ends would be ridiculous. As ideal as an 18-200 f/2.8 would be, I don't want to think about the price or size. That would NOT be a walkaround lens. Hahaha.
I know what you mean. I currently own a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 and ive also played with a 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3. Both lenses are pretty sharp at 18mm but softness begins at about 120mm *anything beyond this becomes some what useless though. I've seen the Nikon version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 and that lens is HUGE. compared to my 18-200mm. So maybe I haven't really thought about my question real well and I absolutely have no idea when it comes to the internals of the lens. So my question now is why would an 18-200mm F/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 be so much bigger than a regular 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3? more glass? Some one school me on this. I tried to google the answer but i fell short and didnt find what I was looking for.

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

I know what you mean. I currently own a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 and ive also played with a 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3. Both lenses are pretty sharp at 18mm but softness begins at about 120mm *anything beyond this becomes some what useless though. I've seen the Nikon version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 and that lens is HUGE. compared to my 18-200mm. So maybe I haven't really thought about my question real well and I absolutely have no idea when it comes to the internals of the lens. So my question now is why would an 18-200mm F/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 be so much bigger than a regular 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3? more glass? Some one school me on this. I tried to google the answer but i fell short and didnt find what I was looking for.

To have that wide of a fixed aperture, your lens at the 200mm end would have to be HUGE. From a business perspective, those that are looking for an 18-200mmf/2.8 lens probably aren't looking to spend that much on glass (literally) and definitely aren't looking to carrying that kind of size; they'relooking for convenience. Just look at lenses that have fixe d apertures at longer ranges. Even the Canon 85mm f/1.2L is 72mm (filter size/across the glass).Imagine what an 18-200 f/2.8 would be.

For reference, I know nikonrumors.com posts new lens diagrams for new lenses and that might give you some insight.


EDIT: This should help your understanding. This is Nikon's new 300 f/2.8 VRII lens. Look at all the glass elements it takes to magnify to 300mm in thatspace: http://nikonrumors.com/2009/12/10/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f2-8-g-ed-vr-ii-is-real.aspx

P.S. All POTN members, don't tell them I still lurk NikonRumors, please.

 

[dj bana]

a few from a recent shoot entitled "diction addiction."

of course there are lots more on my flickr.

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

Originally Posted by DJ bana

1.

2.

3/4

5.

6.

7.

First and foremost, beautiful shoot and model. Your model is always consistent, and that's great. You definitely executed the idea that youhad properly. A little C&C, if I may? (Posted in the spoiler in the case that you don't give a #%#$.)

(Many of these are just "how it could be even better than it already is" ideas from a third person perspective.)

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

1. Love it. The crop and the relative size of your subject touches on a surreal-ness of the shot-- larger than life, so to speak.
2. The cropping off of the head doesn't bother me that much, but the loss of the very tip of the toes does a little bit.

3/4. Nothing specific to say. Solid shots, though.
5. I wish you had used a softbox to expose your subject more and used a smaller aperture to make the sunset's colors pop, but those things can be done in PP. Otherwise, great shot, composure, and model. Consider a beauty dish maybe?
6. Beautiful. I think you could almost ADD grain/noise. With the 5dII you get almost neither of those, but in B&W, it would only seem natural.
7. Almost seems a la Terry Richardson. It bothers me a little bit that the paper is so overexposed. I definitely picture it overexposed in this shot, but the papers are almost glowing...?

 

[eaglebball1499]

Originally Posted by NikeAirsNCrispyTees

Man, this is probably (sadly) the most mature thread on NT.

You came to the right place.

My worry with the 55-200 is how poorly built it is. If you so much as fart with that lens mounted, it very well may slide off the body and break. Unless you're shooting ducks (

) then you probably won't need that range, honestly. I think I only mounted that lens when I couldn't get close enough to a subject, and that only happened a handful of times. I think that the 18-105 will fit your needs just fine. I'd say the 55-200 is soft (if it even autofocuses) starting at 150mm, so really you're just getting an extra 45mm. Ha.

Originally Posted by SaNTi0321

I would go for the 18-105. It's a decent all around lens.

Yeah, tell me about it.

I've been here since '01, andI've seen the maturity level dwindle quite a bit - it's nice to see a huge thread with some real substance to it for a change. Based on everything youguys have said, I guess the 18-105 it is, and I'll be looking to add the 35mm 1.8 in the next couple months.

Alright, I'll shut up and go back to enjoying the pics now. Thanks for all the help.

 

[uhnoppe]

A few pics of random stuff

 

[air kamote23]

My contribution for today. C&C are welcome.

 

[fr4nch1s3]

that candle pic is real nice

 

[dj bana]

Originally Posted by NikeAirsNCrispyTees

Originally Posted by DJ bana

1.

2.

3/4

5.

6.

7.

First and foremost, beautiful shoot and model. Your model is always consistent, and that's great. You definitely executed the idea that you had properly. A little C&C, if I may? (Posted in the spoiler in the case that you don't give a #%#$.)

(Many of these are just "how it could be even better than it already is" ideas from a third person perspective.)

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

1. Love it. The crop and the relative size of your subject touches on a surreal-ness of the shot-- larger than life, so to speak.
2. The cropping off of the head doesn't bother me that much, but the loss of the very tip of the toes does a little bit.

3/4. Nothing specific to say. Solid shots, though.
5. I wish you had used a softbox to expose your subject more and used a smaller aperture to make the sunset's colors pop, but those things can be done in PP. Otherwise, great shot, composure, and model. Consider a beauty dish maybe?
6. Beautiful. I think you could almost ADD grain/noise. With the 5dII you get almost neither of those, but in B&W, it would only seem natural.
7. Almost seems a la Terry Richardson. It bothers me a little bit that the paper is so overexposed. I definitely picture it overexposed in this shot, but the papers are almost glowing...?

thanks for the CC, and quality CC at that!!

regarding 2: i totally agree on crops. ever since i started taking photos seriously, i've had a serious issue with cropping hands and feet. i noticed it inthis shot, however i couldnt compose it with her foot in it due to me leaning on a car that was in the way, so i included the small crop of her head tobalance it. and although i've always felt strongly about cutting limbs off, recently i've calmed down about it as i've seen lots of well-knownphotographers do so, but in tasteful and understanding ways. i've been trying to incorporate similar attributes in my recent images.

regarding 5: the OG shot was not nearly as colorful. the set of photos all have this "blue hue" to them, so to keep the consistent theme, i edited itthat way. the subject is her, not the sunset, hence why she is brighter than the background. i have a beauty dish but it doesn't have a battery pack, soits not very portable. maybe ill try using it for my next shoot =D

regarding 6: there are a few more no-flash shots from this shoot that i ADORE and have a gritty look to them. i didnt include them in the set because i alreadyhad so many images.

regarding 7: the title of the shoot is "diction addiction," adding attention to the typewriter. the brightness of that shot is on purpose, to boostthe idea of text/paper.. and i love that you can see the sand in that one! =D

thanks again for the CC, really took some notes there on both the positive and negative things!

 

[Fong$tarr]

^^^^Bana....out of curiosity with your shoot, is that girl a journalist or a writer by chance? Maybe this is just my OCD with attention to detail with stufflike that but I kind of don't get the whole typewriter thing just cause it is one of those objects that doesn't have a wow factor...so I feel like Ihave to dig deeper into the meaning which I don't quite understand. This "diction addiction" would have been cool if she was in odd areas (ieclub, beach, etc) and in the photo it looked like she is constantly trying to type something out when she should be doing something else....hence heraddiction. Photos as always look great but when you add that title, it kind of just confuses me a bit.


And something to share (not my photos) but I saw these portraits on a blog and thought they looked so good. The soft lighting, desaturation in color, thetattoos....it just looks so good. I really need to start practicing stuff like this.

http://www.californiagirls.fr/

 

[stepinitup]

The font on that tat is really nice. anybody know the name?

 

[hueyp in louiev]

Just got a Canon 20D for next to nothing but I have no idea how to use it...