The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[mylesp]

So I was at a show/concertlast night and seen a few people using the sony a7's. I want to save up and get one. Which model. Is good? I haven't researched, but maybe you guys can give some advice.

 

[djyoung08]

few safe for NT shots from yesterday.

First time shooting this type of shoot and we legit had a great time. I showed her what the back of the camera was capturing every few poses and she was just going nuts.

Not something i'd advertise doing but it was really fun.

No watermark, word to ksteez

Exposure, contrast, and color edits were done. no skin retouches at this point.

 

[romcadoo]

djyoung08 when you edit your portraits do you work on the skin 1st or exposure, contrast, and color

 

[dragicon]

suggestion DJ, when taking pictures of women, try to make sure they don't have their arms pressed against their bodies, as it makes their arms look huge.  even if you are going for that type of pose, make sure there is a little bit of space between their body and the arms so they don't fatten up.

 

[djyoung08]

djyoung08 when you edit your portraits do you work on the skin 1st or exposure, contrast, and color

I dont post edits with skin retouches (excluding cloning out blemishes), yet.

im not comfortable with skin retouching yet tbh...

therefore i do exposure / contrast / tones first.

 

[djyoung08]

suggestion DJ, when taking pictures of women, try to make sure they don't have their arms pressed against their bodies, as it makes their arms look huge.  even if you are going for that type of pose, make sure there is a little bit of space between their body and the arms so they don't fatten up.

ty and holy crap u right :x

looking thru the set and now thats all i can see is shots where her arm is pressing against her body vs not

ty for the input man, srs.

trying to grow. not get pats on the back.

 

[bjamez20]

Good stuff up above 

Cool gif showing how focal length affects portraits

via GIPHY

 

[romcadoo]

I dont post edits with skin retouches (excluding cloning out blemishes), yet.

im not comfortable with skin retouching yet tbh...

therefore i do exposure / contrast / tones first.

I'm not that experienced with it just yet but it does take a lot of practice.
I'm trying to learn dodge and burn and it's killing me.
When you get a chance check this video out.

 

[djyoung08]

I dont post edits with skin retouches (excluding cloning out blemishes), yet.

im not comfortable with skin retouching yet tbh...

therefore i do exposure / contrast / tones first.

I'm not that experienced with it just yet but it does take a lot of practice.
I'm trying to learn dodge and burn and it's killing me.
When you get a chance check this video out.

ah, yes. im subscribed to him

i also have an account w/ kelbyone training and they talk about this exact technique.

i've just yet to get real comfortable w/ it.

 

[tokes99]

So I was at a show/concertlast night and seen a few people using the sony a7's. I want to save up and get one. Which model. Is good? I haven't researched, but maybe you guys can give some advice.

the og a7s is a great low light camera, the a7sii is basically the same camera but adds in body stabilization and can record 4k video to the internal memory both are 12 megapixels, harder to crop into. the og a7r has a high resolution 36 megapixel sensor, the a7rii has an even higher resolution 42 megapixel sensor with in body stabilization, the best autofocus performance of the a7 series and also does 4k to the internal memory. the og a7 is the standard all around model with 24 megapixels, the a7ii also adds in body stabilization.

as has been mentioned many times in the thread, depending on how & what you shoot each of those models may make more or less sense for you, going to be shooting in low light a lot? do you need/want image stabilization or 4k? do you do much cropping of your photos? does price matter? depending on the answer to those questions you could spend anywhere from $900 to around $3000...they are all good cameras, none of which may even be a proper fit for how you shoot, some really don't like the electronic viewfinder and the general handling of the sony cameras...they seem to be an acquired taste, because while they do have great image quality along with the benefits of mirrorless they are far from perfect cameras

 

[airnikesnhats]

So I was at a show/concertlast night and seen a few people using the sony a7's. I want to save up and get one. Which model. Is good? I haven't researched, but maybe you guys can give some advice.

All are great cameras, also keep in mind what glass will cost. I seriously considered making the switch from Canon to Sony, and could have done it.....but after seeing what Sony glass costs, I decided to just stick with Canon.

If you go with the A7 series, they are great cameras (Ive gotten to play a7 & a7r bodies owned by friends) but you also need to consider the cost of glass and accessories if you are on a budget.

 

[ray9421]

Thinking of buying a NIkon D7100 over the D7200. Is it really worth going for the newer one? I know it has a better processor but is the older model really slow to begin with? 

 

[khankussionz]

All are great cameras, also keep in mind what glass will cost. I seriously considered making the switch from Canon to Sony, and could have done it.....but after seeing what Sony glass costs, I decided to just stick with Canon.

If you go with the A7 series, they are great cameras (Ive gotten to play a7 & a7r bodies owned by friends) but you also need to consider the cost of glass and accessories if you are on a budget.

The sony system seems to work pretty nicely with canon glass adapted to it

 

[romcadoo]

Thinking of buying a NIkon D7100 over the D7200. Is it really worth going for the newer one? I know it has a better processor but is the older model really slow to begin with? 

I forgot what exactly it was but there is a pinch of a difference between the D7100 & D7200 it's very very minor

 

[dragicon]

 

suggestion DJ, when taking pictures of women, try to make sure they don't have their arms pressed against their bodies, as it makes their arms look huge.  even if you are going for that type of pose, make sure there is a little bit of space between their body and the arms so they don't fatten up.

ty and

holy crap u right

looking thru the set and now thats all i can see is shots where her arm is pressing against her body vs not

ty for the input man, srs.

trying to grow. not get pats on the back.

No problem man, just trying to help out with some suggestions.  Now if you are shooting guys, maybe you can have them keep their hands squeezed next to their body as then they will looked ripped.  

 

[mylesp]

the og a7s is a great low light camera, the a7sii is basically the same camera but adds in body stabilization and can record 4k video to the internal memory both are 12 megapixels, harder to crop into. the og a7r has a high resolution 36 megapixel sensor, the a7rii has an even higher resolution 42 megapixel sensor with in body stabilization, the best autofocus performance of the a7 series and also does 4k to the internal memory. the og a7 is the standard all around model with 24 megapixels, the a7ii also adds in body stabilization.

as has been mentioned many times in the thread, depending on how & what you shoot each of those models may make more or less sense for you, going to be shooting in low light a lot? do you need/want image stabilization or 4k? do you do much cropping of your photos? does price matter? depending on the answer to those questions you could spend anywhere from $900 to around $3000...they are all good cameras, none of which may even be a proper fit for how you shoot, some really don't like the electronic viewfinder and the general handling of the sony cameras...they seem to be an acquired taste, because while they do have great image quality along with the benefits of mirrorless they are far from perfect cameras

All are great cameras, also keep in mind what glass will cost. I seriously considered making the switch from Canon to Sony, and could have done it.....but after seeing what Sony glass costs, I decided to just stick with Canon.

If you go with the A7 series, they are great cameras (Ive gotten to play a7 & a7r bodies owned by friends) but you also need to consider the cost of glass and accessories if you are on a budget.

The sony system seems to work pretty nicely with canon glass adapted to it

Thanks for the responses. I shoot film more then I shoot digital. Right now I shoot B&W film at concerts because I have a t1i so higher iso Brings grain due to how bad it handles low light. I'd rather have natural film grain. Plus I shoot film for my photography class.

Basically I shoot concerts and music stuff in general for branding and more since I'm a musician and have musician friends that need it. I also do other random photography for fun. So I want the a7 for a everyday photography camera that I can bring to concerts since it's compact and use for serious work when I need to. The 50mm lens has done me Justice so I'd probably get that as a general lens.

Another thing is I'd like to shoot music videos (nothing crazy), beat making videos and any other youtube videos when I want.


Right now I'm thinking of getting a 60d, but the problem is its bulky and I want a everyday camera as well. I also thought of a x100 series rangefinder along with a dslr like a t3i. I think an a7 is a better option though

 

[SVNTI]

Did some street shooting in Toronto this weekend.

Might start looking into a new lens soon. I love the 35L as a walk around but I want to add some length.

Looking at the 135L or a 70-200L but can't decide.



All shot with a 6D x 35L.

 

[Fong$tarr]

^^^I loved the 135mm L when I rented it but I always wondered if that focal length would just be an odd range as a walk around. I don't shoot on the long end so I don't know which is limiting as which isn't. I started with the 24mm and I always thought that was an odd lens at the time. I think if I did it over again, i would have gotten the 35mm instead and did an ultra wide at 15mm range and then got the 85mm as my long lens. I have the 50mm and just never use it for whatever reason.

Just don't get the 100mm macro. I hated that lens. 70-200mm is great but just a pain to carry.

 

[SVNTI]

^^^I loved the 135mm L when I rented it but I always wondered if that focal length would just be an odd range as a walk around. I don't shoot on the long end so I don't know which is limiting as which isn't. I started with the 24mm and I always thought that was an odd lens at the time. I think if I did it over again, i would have gotten the 35mm instead and did an ultra wide at 15mm range and then got the 85mm as my long lens. I have the 50mm and just never use it for whatever reason.

Just don't get the 100mm macro. I hated that lens. 70-200mm is great but just a pain to carry.

I'll probably end up with the 135L, unless I get a crazy deal on the 70-200L. I want the flexibility and fast aperture of the 70-200L, but at damn near double the price I don't know if it's worth it.

I rented the 135L a few years ago and loved it on my old T2i so I can only see it being better on the 6D.

 

[Fong$tarr]

It's one of those low key lenses that not only performs well but it good on the pockets. Plus focus speed is fast as hell. I think my only gripe on the lens if any is the bokeh balls render those almond shapes rather than circular balls. Not the biggest deal in the world but just something to note anyways.

Examples:

 

[tokes99]

All are great cameras, also keep in mind what glass will cost. I seriously considered making the switch from Canon to Sony, and could have done it.....but after seeing what Sony glass costs, I decided to just stick with Canon.

If you go with the A7 series, they are great cameras (Ive gotten to play a7 & a7r bodies owned by friends) but you also need to consider the cost of glass and accessories if you are on a budget.

The sony system seems to work pretty nicely with canon glass adapted to it

sony glass for full frame definitely seems more expensive compared to the canon & nikon equivalents, which is why so many adapt lenses onto the sony bodies. depending on the adapter some canon lenses work better than others, but not really as good as native sony lenses...and even the canon lenses that work well can have some issues communicating to the camera body...

Thanks for the responses. I shoot film more then I shoot digital. Right now I shoot B&W film at concerts because I have a t1i so higher iso Brings grain due to how bad it handles low light. I'd rather have natural film grain. Plus I shoot film for my photography class.

Basically I shoot concerts and music stuff in general for branding and more since I'm a musician and have musician friends that need it. I also do other random photography for fun. So I want the a7 for a everyday photography camera that I can bring to concerts since it's compact and use for serious work when I need to. The 50mm lens has done me Justice so I'd probably get that as a general lens.

Another thing is I'd like to shoot music videos (nothing crazy), beat making videos and any other youtube videos when I want.


Right now I'm thinking of getting a 60d, but the problem is its bulky and I want a everyday camera as well. I also thought of a x100 series rangefinder along with a dslr like a t3i. I think an a7 is a better option though

another option you might want to check out, is the a5100 (which has a flip up touch screen)/a6000 or even the new a6300 (which will do 4k video) or the panasonic gh4, none of these will be as good in low light as the a7 series cameras (especially the gh4 because of its small sensor) but they are decent and excellent for video. the older a7s sounds like it might be a good look if you can get it for the low (you could probably scoop one for around $1600) and combine it with some older manual legacy glass (you could use the same lense you use for your film camera) it probably would be great for video maybe a bit tough for concert shooting though. the x100 joints are supposed really awesome cameras but the video quality is not good, there is also the samsung nx500 & nx1 mirrorless cameras which are both great for stills and video but not many lenses on top of not being supported by samsung anymore...

 

[zk1mpls]

Finally picked up an Ultrawide angle lens. Went with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS. Got the f/4 version since it was a fraction of the price of the f/2.8 (even more so with the 11-24mm), and it had the IS, which is pretty handy when hand-holding in low light. Should work well inside museums now... just need to bump up the ISO.

 

[mylesp]

another option you might want to check out, is the a5100 (which has a flip up touch screen)/a6000 or even the new a6300 (which will do 4k video) or the panasonic gh4, none of these will be as good in low light as the a7 series cameras (especially the gh4 because of its small sensor) but they are decent and excellent for video. the older a7s sounds like it might be a good look if you can get it for the low (you could probably scoop one for around $1600) and combine it with some older manual legacy glass (you could use the same lense you use for your film camera) it probably would be great for video maybe a bit tough for concert shooting though. the x100 joints are supposed really awesome cameras but the video quality is not good, there is also the samsung nx500 & nx1 mirrorless cameras which are both great for stills and video but not many lenses on top of not being supported by samsung anymore...

yeah im thinking about one of the a7's because its compact so i will be let in to shows more often and how great the low light capabilities are. if i went with the sony lenses id probably just get the 50mm prime 1.8 and stick with that for awhile. im looking at the lens on google and compared to my canon 50mm 1.8 it seems bigger. thats the only let down i see as far as how easy it is to carry around.. the photographer i was talking to at the show i went to saturday was using a more slim lens from what i remember and i know that would be expensive. im still down to cop though cause all i have to do is save up and get something different down the line instead if i feel the need.

on the other hand since i use film cameras at concerts right now, i may just save for a 60d and call it a day. im only doing concerts for fun at the moment and just building a portfolio that i may use in the future. i can get a 60d used for about 3-500 body only and use my current canon lenses. then for everyday use maybe i'll get a fuji x100t? these are just options im considering.

 

[mjbetch]

Did some street shooting in Toronto this weekend.

Might start looking into a new lens soon. I love the 35L as a walk around but I want to add some length.

Looking at the 135L or a 70-200L but can't decide.

I'd recommend the 70-200 if you can. Such a versatile focal length. Would you plan on walking around with that lens though?

 

[mjbetch]

Any Nikon users interested in a 35mm f/2 D?