The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[Fong$tarr]

How is the A7 with a Canon L lens? Is it pretty identical to having it on a Canon body?





I am just posting this to post it. Been in a pretty bad photo funk still but was around City Hall and just took the same usual for the heck of it.

And this is really just a test photo today. I am so damn bad at shooting people, it's not funny. I guess I just don't have the balls or something. But I am still testing the 50mm. I shot city hall with it and all shots came out horrible cause all the lights would just blow out with weird halos. So it's really true that this lens is super specific and really should only be shot at f/1.2. Still debating on the lens but I really need to shoot some candid people. Bokeh is really nice though. The shot above I left as is but normally I do a noise reduction on bokehed background and it even comes out creamier after that.

 

[tokes99]

[COLOR=#red]Haha yeah you are so correct...can't go jumping at every new "innovation" out there.

I was telling a friend that for professional photographers and serious enthusiasts who have clients, the DSLR and accompanying equipment comes off as more professional. It may not look as good to a client using a smaller more or less no matter how capable it is...sometimes it's all about perception.[/COLOR]

Yeah, I've seen that actually. It's pretty stupid, but some customers really care about gear even when they know nothing about it. Just what they think "looks" good. It's dumb, really.

it's good to remember that mirrorless is still relatively new to the scene & that the big camera makers have pretty much conditioned us all to think that the traditional dslr is for 'serious' photographers...so if you're a newbie just starting out & people see you essentially shooting with what looks like a slightly bigger point & shoot, I could totally see that being problematic...but if you're established & people know the quality of work you do prolly easier for people to trust whatever your method(s) are...

How is the A7 with a Canon L lens? Is it pretty identical to having it on a Canon body?

And this is really just a test photo today. I am so damn bad at shooting people, it's not funny. I guess I just don't have the balls or something. But I am still testing the 50mm. I shot city hall with it and all shots came out horrible cause all the lights would just blow out with weird halos. So it's really true that this lens is super specific and really should only be shot at f/1.2. Still debating on the lens but I really need to shoot some candid people. Bokeh is really nice though. The shot above I left as is but normally I do a noise reduction on bokehed background and it even comes out creamier after that.

I'd think that an L lens would be just as good if not better on an a7 series body than on any canon body by the numbers (just about every sony sensor washes the comparable canon sensor) other than losing the autofocus (there are adapters that enable af but are said to be crazy slow), but I hear that many people just don't like how sony 'cooks' their image (both jpegs & raw) files...

yea, walking around shooting people out and about still strikes me as being creepy...though I've found if I post up at a spot where I think I can get something interesting it makes it easier to go unnoticed, which is, arguably, creepier but it does make me less anxious and gives me a longer time to frame an image (especially being pretty much exclusively manual focus) because I can see people coming into the frame...

 

[mjbetch]

it's good to remember that mirrorless is still relatively new to the scene & that the big camera makers have pretty much conditioned us all to think that the traditional dslr is for 'serious' photographers...so if you're a newbie just starting out & people see you essentially shooting with what looks like a slightly bigger point & shoot, I could totally see that being problematic...but if you're established & people know the quality of work you do prolly easier for people to trust whatever your method(s) are...

But see, that's what I think is stupid. People basing your skills off of the gear you own. It shouldn't be that. People choose you as a photographer because of the work that they've seent. Your portfolio. I'm sure most clients couldn't care less about what cameras you use as long as the end result is what they're looking for. However, there are some of those ignorant customers who think that you must have the best gear to create the best photos. If you're a good enough photographer, you can show them that having the most fancy looking equipment isn't needed to take great photos. I'm sure most people choose a photographer off of their work than the gear they have regardless.

 

[eddstarrr]

Can't wait to start shooting with the nikon 50mm/1.8G lens. Bought em off CL for 170$,

 

[tokes99]

But see, that's what I think is stupid. People basing your skills off of the gear you own. It shouldn't be that. People choose you as a photographer because of the work that they've seent. Your portfolio. I'm sure most clients couldn't care less about what cameras you use as long as the end result is what they're looking for. However, there are some of those ignorant customers who think that you must have the best gear to create the best photos. If you're a good enough photographer, you can show them that having the most fancy looking equipment isn't needed to take great photos. I'm sure most people choose a photographer off of their work than the gear they have regardless.

no doubt, someone who knows what their doing and/or has a 'good eye' can get great images from almost anything, but with the proliferation of devices that can get pretty good pictures that are all around us (#sidebar: i wish i could recall the specific number, but there are something like millions of images being made & uploaded every minute), it be easy to feel a way about the person your paying a good amount of coin to, showing up with a dinky little camera, especially when at one of these events someone's friend or relative will undoubtedly be there taking awesome pics with their hulking dslr...

put it like this, most people are rarely exposed to working with a "professional" photographer/photography, and these few occasions are usually REALLY important to them, so they're may be predisposed to be critical, so whether they actually seek out the best they can afford, hit up a family friend that takes great pictures, or seek out the known pro, any thing that might introduce ADDITIONAL doubt would be a cause to second guess that individual...why even take the risk on something different, so it is totally understandable why more pros maybe don't shoot mirrorless (i don't actually know how true that is though?) the cost of switching or learning a new system (that may very well take great images but maybe is slightly down on capabilities/features) on top of the perception thing just may not be worth it, hence clients might feel a photographer who isn't using what the pros use, isn't pro...

maybe it really is an insular, 'people who are into photography" perception concern & that clients really don't care at all as long as you are good...that said, in reading stuff online it seems to be something of an issue that some have had be raised, to the point that they just bring the big dslr along as a kinda prove they are legit...fact is, you could do pro-level photography with an entry level camera, the question then is why don't more pros exclusively use entry level gear? (it'd certainly be more cost effective) the gear does matter to an extent, pick the right tool for the job...

 

[Nawzlew]

[COLOR=#red]Sony stays innovating...the new A7S Full Frame Mirrorless camera with 4k video, an ULTRA sensitive 12MP sensor that goes all the way up to 400,000+ ISO for ultra low light shooting. Vid guys are going nuts over this cam.[/COLOR]

:x

 

[ddh1122]

 

[mjbetch]

no doubt, someone who knows what their doing and/or has a 'good eye' can get great images from almost anything, but with the proliferation of devices that can get pretty good pictures that are all around us (#sidebar: i wish i could recall the specific number, but there are something like millions of images being made & uploaded every minute), it be easy to feel a way about the person your paying a good amount of coin to, showing up with a dinky little camera, especially when at one of these events someone's friend or relative will undoubtedly be there taking awesome pics with their hulking dslr...

put it like this, most people are rarely exposed to working with a "professional" photographer/photography, and these few occasions are usually REALLY important to them, so they're may be predisposed to be critical, so whether they actually seek out the best they can afford, hit up a family friend that takes great pictures, or seek out the known pro, any thing that might introduce ADDITIONAL doubt would be a cause to second guess that individual...why even take the risk on something different, so it is totally understandable why more pros maybe don't shoot mirrorless (i don't actually know how true that is though?) the cost of switching or learning a new system (that may very well take great images but maybe is slightly down on capabilities/features) on top of the perception thing just may not be worth it, hence clients might feel a photographer who isn't using what the pros use, isn't pro...

maybe it really is an insular, 'people who are into photography" perception concern & that clients really don't care at all as long as you are good...that said, in reading stuff online it seems to be something of an issue that some have had be raised, to the point that they just bring the big dslr along as a kinda prove they are legit...fact is, you could do pro-level photography with an entry level camera, the question then is why don't more pros exclusively use entry level gear? (it'd certainly be more cost effective) the gear does matter to an extent, pick the right tool for the job...

I definitely feel you on all points - I agree. My guess, and also based on what I've read, the biggest reason pros (not including sports or wildlife) stick with DSLRs are because the option of full-frame. I don't really know of anyone that shoots professionally with a crop body DSLR as their primary body. Backup body, yes. Primary, no.

I do, however, see a lot more professionals switching to the Fuji X series lineup. They definitely are on the come-up. I've read that a lot of pros have been contemplating ditching their Canons and Nikons for Fuji/Sony just for the form factor. I'm sure within the next decade, mirrorless cameras will be "accepted" professionally in photography by the average consumer. All a photographer really has to say is "Oh you know, this is new technology. Everything is getting smaller. Including cameras. This takes just as good images blah blah blah."

 

[bklyn style baby]

Random by imhigh2often, on Flickr
(missed the feet, smh)


Random by imhigh2often, on Flickr



goste187 nice pics, especially the last one.

 

[bjamez20]

big sur by bjamez20, on Flickr

 

[yancancook90]

from yesterday's hike


Baby Alamere Falls by jyninety, on Flickr


Tree Tunnel by jyninety, on Flickr

 

[yanky]

^Beautiful!

 

[dunksrnice]

An SF City Hall Elopement I photographed just over a month ago for a long time friend.

As always, more on the blog.
http://www.dunksrnice.net/2014/06/san-francisco-city-hall-elopement.html

 

[arsenalgunner1]

 

[Good Ol J.R]

I don't think this came out great at all :\

Any constructive criticism is welcomed.

DSC_0142 by NTKnows 72, on Flickr

 

[benssick]

Some shots from today.
Nature by Benssick.

Life by Benssick.

Tall Grass by Benssick.

 

[PRIME]

Anyone have experience with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens?

Really thinking about getting one. But I was also looking at the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens.

Which one would be a better buy as a replacement for my kit 18-55mm kit lens?

 

[khankussionz]

Anyone have experience with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens?

Really thinking about getting one. But I was also looking at the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens.

Which one would be a better buy as a replacement for my kit 18-55mm kit lens?

I'm not a Canon shooter, but I don't think either of these are really a replacement for the kit lens. 10-20mm is wider than the kit lens for the most part and then the 17-85mm has covers the kit focal length and then some, but the aperture is smaller than the kit lens. It's like taking one step forward and one step back. Not really improving much from the specs side of things. I can't speak on image quality, but when you invest in glass you should be improving something (which you didn't mention why you wanted the new lens). What do you shoot, and what limitations do you have with your current lens? You seem to want zoom lenses over prime lenses. That's fine, but what are you shooting and on what body?

 

[HankHill]

I don't think this came out great at all :\

Any constructive criticism is welcomed.

DSC_0142 by NTKnows 72, on Flickr

Not a fan of the selective coloring. I suggest making it entirely black and white and increasing the contrast and see if you like it better.

 

[PRIME]

Anyone have experience with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens?

Really thinking about getting one. But I was also looking at the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens.

Which one would be a better buy as a replacement for my kit 18-55mm kit lens?

I'm not a Canon shooter, but I don't think either of these are really a replacement for the kit lens. 10-20mm is wider than the kit lens for the most part and then the 17-85mm has covers the kit focal length and then some, but the aperture is smaller than the kit lens. It's like taking one step forward and one step back. Not really improving much from the specs side of things. I can't speak on image quality, but when you invest in glass you should be improving something (which you didn't mention why you wanted the new lens). What do you shoot, and what limitations do you have with your current lens? You seem to want zoom lenses over prime lenses. That's fine, but what are you shooting and on what body?

Repped for the feedback.

I pretty much want a zoom because I want to be able to cover both close ups and far shots, while upgrading to a new lens that has a wider angle shooting range.

I want to get into more landscape/cityscape photography but I also want to take close up shots of my family/random findings when necessary.

I have a 600D so its crop censored.

 

[khankussionz]

Repped for the feedback.

I pretty much want a zoom because I want to be able to cover both close ups and far shots, while upgrading to a new lens that has a wider angle shooting range.

I want to get into more landscape/cityscape photography but I also want to take close up shots of my family/random findings when necessary.

I have a 600D so its crop censored.

If you want wide then the 10-20 is for you but you also have to realize that depending on what you are shooting you may have to be alot closer too. Have you considered maybe shooting panorama?

 

[lifestooshort80]

went deep sea fishing today.

 

[goste187]

anyone interested in that Nikon D810 announcement?

 

[khankussionz]

anyone interested in that Nikon D810 announcement?

I am. I'm saving up for a new camera now and being a Nikon shooter my options are get a D600 from digitalrev.com, get a D610, or a D800. The D810 is $300 more than the D800 which I wouldn't mind. I just don't know if I should get the 610 or the 810.

 

[benssick]

Saw the reviews, I was thinking of upgrading to it by the end of this year. Need to get my full frame and 1080p Video asap! Camera seems pretty well built if you ask me.