It's 2007 people, and that means a new photography thread. Since it seems Johnny can't create any more threads (Or even banned) I thought I would fill in and start the ball rolling.
I don't think there are any particular stipulations apart from keeping image size to a respectable level. I'll be really interested to see what you guys will come up with, so without further ado; start clicking
Here's a handful more photos from my trip to France over Christmas.
All great shots. I was going to pick a favourite, but all are good.
I was going to make this thread and deliberately went and tooks ome photos yesterday! Oh well, snooze/lose. I'll post'em up shortly.
I second AMirox's request. I'm always curious as to the settings (or just mode if you're not aware of settingS) of teh camera and stuff. If anyone ever noticed, I tried to post the settings when I put my pictures up.
yes a new photo thread! i just got a canon digital rebel XTi for christmas, and I'm pretty new to photo, so I need to learn as much as I can from you guys. What are some good lenses for portrait shots? I don't want to have to be too far away from the subject, as I want to do indoor and outdoor photography. Plus I don't have a big budget so I'm thinking a fixed lens would maybe get me the best bang for the buck (for just portraits), but if there is a good zoom one I'd like to hear about it too.
yes a new photo thread! i just got a canon digital rebel XTi for christmas, and I'm pretty new to photo, so I need to learn as much as I can from you guys. What are some good lenses for portrait shots? I don't want to have to be too far away from the subject, as I want to do indoor and outdoor photography. Plus I don't have a big budget so I'm thinking a fixed lens would maybe get me the best bang for the buck (for just portraits), but if there is a good zoom one I'd like to hear about it too.
Man, great choice! Always good to hear someone willing to take the plunge on an SLR... you'll be happy you did...if you love photos, it's so rewarding. And I love to share the knowledge I've accumumlated over the course of this year...er...last year when I got my Rebel Xt (350d).
As for portrait lenses, it depends on how much of SLR-style photography you already know, in regards to how much we can offer in terms of advice.
In short, what is known as 50mm (as a focal length) is considered 'normal', in that it approximates the field of view (FOV) that the human eye/brain sees. However, it's a focal length referring to full size SLRs (that is 35mm sensor/fim size). Your Xti is slightly smaller (1.6x smaller), which is a bonus in some regards, but a bother in others, depending on the kinds of shots you want. Anyway, it means that reported focal lengths on lenses should be multiplied by that factor (1.6x) when used on your Rebel Xti (yes, even those EFS lenses which are designed for the smaller sensor size). This is true at least in terms of field of view.
Now if 50 mm is 'normal', then everything longer than that is considered a telelens, and anything shorter (or wider) is known as wideangle. Going each way has it's own sets of attributes.
So the ever popular 50mm1.8 is a 'normal' lens on a full size camera, but more of a short-medium tele on your camera. This is important when you are looking for nice portrait lenses. There are two important attributes for most photographers (again, I can't stress enough that everything is up to the eye of the photographer...you can and should experiment with your equipment, and develop your own style) taking portrait shots - one is a focal length around 80-135mmish.
The reason for this is is because one effect of telelenses is to 'compress' the image. Backgrounds look closer compared to a shot using a wideangle (with the same subject filling the same amount of the frame) - think about those fish-eye style shots that warp the edges of photos, and have really panaramic-like fields of view -those are wideangles. Wideangles are often not popular for portraits, because they exaggerate features closer to the photographer, such as noses - again, consider those 'hilarious' greeting card pictures of pets with huge noses and stuff. Not very flattering, and hence often the opposite style of lens is chosen for portraits (80mm+).
The other sought after attribute for this type of photo is the f-value. In short, the f-value refers to how wide the aperture of the lens can open. Without going into a lot of detail about aperture, the lower the f-value the wider the aperture can get. The wider the aperture setting you use in photos, the narrower the depth of field (DOF), the plane parallel to the sensor that determines what is sharp, and what is blurred. The narrower the DOF, the more the background appears blurred, a very pleasing effect for portrait photography - it leads a viewer to focus their eyes on the subject.
So the 50mm1.8 is an absolutely awesome lens for portraits, with an 80mm equiv view for your camera, a really low f value, and to top it off, it's one of the best performing lens in terms of image quality such as contrast, colour, and sharpness. And to top it off it is one of Canon's cheapest lenses, if not the cheapest at US$70 (trust me its basically chump change when looking at lenses). A superb tool for beginners to SLRs.
Ok, some of those shots I was going to post earlier.
These are from the West Coast of northern NZ, Muriwai, the location of one of NZ Gannet colonies. (sorry if the pictures are a bit arge...I try to select sizes depending on the shots...and I thought larger do these shots better justice - luckily, the actual file sizes aren't so large )
ef70-200f4L, 70mm, f5.6, 1/1250s, iso100
ef70-200f4L, 200mm, f5.6, 1/1600s, iso100 (adjusted in iPhoto)
ef70-200f4L, 84mm, f5.6, 1/640s, iso100 (adjusted in iPhoto)
mrkgoo thanks a lot for the explanation and advice and great pictures! What camera do you use? Since I got the cam a few days ago I have been doing lots of reading and experimenting, with aperture and shutter speed and exposure, just trying to figure out what types of shots I can get away with without the flash in dim situations, and well to get a decent shot at night with streetlights and such even I need about a 0"3 shutter speed with aperture at 3.5 (this is kit lens). This requires great steadyness (i don't have a tripod...yet). So will the 1.8 aperture of the 50mm lens improve the shutter speed needed at night (dim situations) by a significant amount?
I've looked at some lenses and you're right that is a really cheap lens and it looks like it has a great bang for the buck. How much was that 70-200mm lens? And how the f did you get such steady shots of the bird in flight? I noticed that you took them at iso 100. Is the iso value only affected by light source (ie darker = use higher iso) because I had an impression that a higher iso is useful for a fast moving object also and I would have mistakenly used it there giving my picture more noise. Thanks for the advice!
I got my Canon XTi in early September for my first ever photography class...I'm going to post a sample of what I did throughout the year in segments in this thread. Tell me what you think...I improved a lot in the class, not because of what was taught, but simply because finally taking a course forced me to put down the textbooks/video games/cup of beer and go take photos. Hopefully it shows when comparing this post with the next ones to come.
Hopefully flickr photo hotlinks work and don't die? I just made an account because it seems that's what everyone else uses.
Testing out my new camera:
Starting to work on a landscape/wide-angle project
I was so mad about this, first because I had brought a gba game so I was missing the bottom white flap and doesn't look as good and also because I had put the game in sleep mode and forgot, so when I took the picture, I had just ripped the cartridge out without remembering, only to come back to a frozen screen later. The little speck on the screen also bothers me:
In-class test assignment, teacher's foot in view
At a football game (Texas Tech)
Two photos from one of a couple of "photo essays" I was supposed to do. I tried to be creative and do a comic
Finished product, I got an 82
from a lame assignment, wrote random words on a piece of paper and drew to see what we got, I got "highlights (hair)", I have some stuff for that too but it's lame.
mrkgoo thanks a lot for the explanation and advice and great pictures! What camera do you use? Since I got the cam a few days ago I have been doing lots of reading and experimenting, with aperture and shutter speed and exposure, just trying to figure out what types of shots I can get away with without the flash in dim situations, and well to get a decent shot at night with streetlights and such even I need about a 0"3 shutter speed with aperture at 3.5 (this is kit lens). This requires great steadyness (i don't have a tripod...yet). So will the 1.8 aperture of the 50mm lens improve the shutter speed needed at night (dim situations) by a significant amount?
I've looked at some lenses and you're right that is a really cheap lens and it looks like it has a great bang for the buck. How much was that 70-200mm lens? And how the f did you get such steady shots of the bird in flight? I noticed that you took them at iso 100. Is the iso value only affected by light source (ie darker = use higher iso) because I had an impression that a higher iso is useful for a fast moving object also and I would have mistakenly used it there giving my picture more noise. Thanks for the advice!
I haven't got a external flash (yet), as flash photography is an entirely different beast! I do have a couple of tripods, but I don't really use them all that much - they're kind of ike a specialised tool for certain shots, I reckon (night landscapes, long shutter shots etc). Every person differs in their ability to take non motion-blurred shots by hand. Some can hold a camera steadier than others. Again, it depends on how much blur you're willing to accept in a shot. Some shots you might actually want some shake! Personal preference.
But in response to your question, yes f 1.8 will help you take faster shutter speeds in dim situations. The way I see all this exposure stuff is this:
Shutter speed + Aperture (+iso) = Exposure
You want to choose what exposure you want (average, under, over exposed, etc.), and that exposure is reached from a combination of the other three aspects. If you widen the aperture (allowing in more light), you can shorten the shutter speed (make it faster) to achieve the same exposure. The most often used analogy is the tap (or fawcett): The exposure is filling the tub to a certain level. The time you have the tap on is teh shutter speed, adn teh amount you open up the tap is the aperture. If you only open it a little, you need to have it open for a long time to get the right exposure.
So if you have an f1.8 aperture setting (pretty wide open), you can achieve shutter speeds at much higher speeds for the same exposure. Iso refers to the sensitivity of the sensor. The higher the sensitivty, the less light needed to hit the sensor to achieve the same exposure, at the cost of higher noise. One reason I chose Canon was the supposed advatnage that the Canon sensor has in terms of noise - The pictures I take, I prefer as little noise as possible (a bonus from this is that file sizes are smaller, as compression is more efficient!). Of course, preference again. Futureman on these forums does an awesome job at using noise to enhance his photography.
I prefer to shoot at as low an Iso as I can get away with.
Just a few notes on exposure (only read if you want to go in to in a bit more detail - I don't want to overwhelm!):
There is a 'general' rule as to what shutter speed you can get away with in terms of no camera shake - that is, 1/x s, where x is the converted focal length you are using (ie, 1/80s if you were to use the 50mm1.8 on your camera - 50x1.6). So you try and keep the exposure at a certain point while keeping your shutterspeed fast. Play with shutter priority or manual modes.
Your digital camera sensor is refered to as having a dynamic range of 4 exposure values (EV) (I'm entering territory I'm not familiar with myslef, so people please correct me if I'm heading astray). This is what that exposure bar you see in your viewfinder is - the -2...-1...0...+1...+2. Zero is what is considered 'correct' exposure, with the entire scene (depending on your exposure metering mode) averaging out to 18% grey. each full EV value is referred to as a 'stop'. If you increase your shutter speed by one 'stop', you have to decrease your aperture by one 'stop' also to achieve the same exposure.
These so-called 'stops' are exponential -they double (but are changeable in 1/3 increments by default, except for iso, which is only adjustable by whole values on your camera model - the larger cams can asjust iso by incremetns also). So shutterspeeds of, say, 1/50s...is slower by one stop compared to 1/100, which is slower by one stop by 1/200. Aperture, but he nature of the opening being circular (if you know your geometry) changes by 1.4x (the approximate factor of doubling circular area, when refring to diameter or radius) Whole values begin as 1.0 and shift approximately to 1.4 -> 2.0 -> 2.8 -> 4.0 -> 5.6 -> 8.0 -> 11.0 ->16.0 etc.
You'll notice your kit lens at it's tele end has a maxium aperture of 5.6. The 50mm has 1.8, which is just over 3 stops 'faster' (faster refers to the shutter speeds you can achive - so a wider aperture lens = faster lens). In other words, if you open the aperture wide on the 50mm1.8, it can let in approximately 8 times as much light as your kit lens at the same focal length. This translates to a much faster shutter speed, and less blur! (at same iso of course - you can adjust this to try and compensate also) The 50mm1.8 is ideal for available light shots, even indoor or night.
Heh...hope it's not all too overwhelming. Please don't let it all intimidate you! It is nearly totally unimportant for taking good pictures. Phantomile, I believe, was taking amazing pictures long before he figured any of this out (still does take amazing pictures). For me though, part of the fun is the technical side of things. I love photography, because there is a constant learning curve! The more you play, the more you discover. There is always something to keep you busy! (hope I'm not coming off as pretentious)
As for your other questions:
If you can figure out my above ramblings, I chieve the steady shot from high shutterspeeds, even at low iso. Notice they are abotu 1/1250-1600s. Easily achiveable at day time.
The 70-200F4L (non IS - they released an IS version a few months ago, which is suposedly jsut as awesome, but at twice the price) costs in US, I believe about US$600. I got mine for about US$900. Penalty for being in NZ (and it was substantially cheaper than full retail price too!). FOr comparison, the recommended retail for the 50mm1.8 here is around US$140.
Crab Shaker: Great stuff... Apart from any technical aspects, I think you have a very good eye for shots! I would say your photo assignment was creative in concept, but the comic presentation took away some of the photo aspect.
Did you use that comic program that comes with the new macbooks?
As for your teachers foot...you could always crop the pictures. Cropping can a be a smple but very powerful tool in post-processing, and can make the difference between a 'meh' to a 'wow'.
Crab Shaker: Great stuff... Apart from any technical aspects, I think you have a very good eye for shots! I would say your photo assignment was creative in concept, but the comic presentation took away some of the photo aspect.
Did you use that comic program that comes with the new macbooks?
As for your teachers foot...you could always crop the pictures. Cropping can a be a smple but very powerful tool in post-processing, and can make the difference between a 'meh' to a 'wow'.
Thanks! I didn't use that program, I used a combination of Adobe InDesign and Photoshop on a PC.
And yea, I know how to crop and all that, I'm just lazy and didn't crop for this upload . That's also why you see my shadow in one of the comic photos.
Thanks! I didn't use that program, I used a combination of Adobe InDesign and Photoshop on a PC.
And yea, I know how to crop and all that, I'm just lazy and didn't crop for this upload . That's also why you see my shadow in one of the comic photos.
You probably know more than me then. All I use for editing is iPhoto, and occasionally Graphic Converter (free with my laptop). I'm not that well versed in photoshopping, adjusting photos, levels etc. I'm biding my time for newer macs, newer MacOSx, newer iLife, newer photoshop... Maybe then, I'll actually have money, and launch into RAW, and develop some more post processing skills.
Funny, you should check out this comic program for mac (comes iwht Macbooks), pretty much does the comic layout thing. I had fun with it on a freinds computer, anyway. Your way is probably much more robust with more options!
You probably know more than me then. All I use for editing is iPhoto, and occasionally Graphic Converter (free with my laptop). I'm not that well versed in photoshopping, adjusting photos, levels etc. I'm biding my time for newer macs, newer MacOSx, newer iLife, newer photoshop... Maybe then, I'll actually have money, and launch into RAW, and develop some more post processing skills.
Funny, you should check out this comic program for mac (comes iwht Macbooks), pretty much does the comic layout thing. I had fun with it on a freinds computer, anyway. Your way is probably much more robust with more options!
Yea I got into photography through journalism/desktop publishing so I had a good amount of experience with the Adobe Creative Suite before I developed an eye for photography. Not some expert or anything though. And yea haha while my way is probably a lot more customizable, probably also a lot more time-consuming :lol .
I got a Panasonic Lumix FZ7 for christmas. These are the first photos I've taken in about ten years and my first experience with digital. As such I'm still very much in the familiarization stage.
Hopefully I'll have some better stuff to add later in the thread,
I was just wondering about how some of you guys take pictures...do you go on specific shot hunts, knowing what you want and going and taking them? Or do you carry a camera everywhere and just be a sort opportunist?
Me, I tend to carry a camera everywhere, but rarely actualy pull it out and use it. I normally just take a lot of picutres when there's some sort of event or if I go out to some nice place that lends itself to photography. When my camera was still new, I took a lot more random shots, a lot of my cat, for example. I would actually set aside whole days for shooting, from dawn to dusk! I would travel to places I had never been in the hope of getting a nice picture - I went up lots of volcanoes (The city I live on is built on/around like 20-30 volcanoes). I tried to challenge myself and take a variety of 'standard' photos, trying my hadn at them (macro, portrait, sunset, etc). These days I mostly just whip out the camera when it's a place I haven't been to and less 'just for the sake of it' (which is abit unfortunate, because it's summer now, and a lot more available light time! - sadly times at the moment are perhaps a bit more busy to get as into it as I was a year ago. But there will be that time again, I swear).
I've been experimenting with a new lens (75-300mm) and here's a couple that turned out nicely. I'm still experimenting with suitable uses for it, though.
110mm, f5.6, 1/10s, iso4000
300mm, f5.6, 1/25s, iso4000
75mm, f5.6, 1/160s, iso4000
Also, mrkgoo, I would also like to thank you for that little primer on photo jargon, particularly the iso bit. I've never really grasped it, and it's probably something I should know (esp, since I take so many night shots).
I've been experimenting with a new lens (75-300mm) and here's a couple that turned out nicely. I'm still experimenting with suitable uses for it, though.
Also, mrkgoo, I would also like to thank you for that little primer on photo jargon, particularly the iso bit. I've never really grasped it, and it's probably something I should know (esp, since I take so many night shots).
Cool...hope it helped and didn't just confuse more
What I really like about long telelenses is the compression effect. It makes situations look a lot more crowded...cool if you want that effect (also has the effect of closing in on your subject, and thus reduces the DOF for lovely blurred backgrounds). If you have the patience and time, try some bird shots!
I found I learned to enjoy all sorts of challenges with various styles...
thanks mrkgoo! very helpful stuff. And after reading what you wrote and some other impressions, I went out and got the 50mmf/1.8 lens and I love it. I really wanted to go out today to take some shots of some nice stuff, but it has been raining wayyy too much. Here are some random shots taken near the house just experimenting (btw, no tripod yet)...
canon digital rebel xti
18-55mm lens (kit)
thanks mrkgoo! very helpful stuff. And after reading what you wrote and some other impressions, I went out and got the 50mmf/1.8 lens and I love it. I really wanted to go out today to take some shots of some nice stuff, but it has been raining wayyy too much. Here are some random shots taken near the house just experimenting (btw, no tripod yet)...
Haha, wow. You really are keen! Actually, for many people, they are very satisfied with the kit lens. Actually, I fnd my copy of the kits lens to be very good, and nowhere near the trash as most people describe it.
Didn't stop me getting bitten by the lens-envy bug though. I spent way too much money on camera equipment last year.
I like your night shot - I love the way grain adds to those kinds of shots.
What modes are you playing around in at the moment? To really learn, I say you should avoid all the preset auto modes, and stick with the creative modes (M, Av, Tv, and P), and prefrentially, stay off of P if you can help it. AT least in terms of taking pictures to learn. If you're in a situation where you just need a good photo, and you're not confident of your abilities yet, just go ahead...but you really do learn a lot more if you jump a littl ein the deep end!
I was just wondering about how some of you guys take pictures...do you go on specific shot hunts, knowing what you want and going and taking them? Or do you carry a camera everywhere and just be a sort opportunist?
I find I don't carry my camera with me all the time just because it's sometimes a pain to lug around plus I don't have insurance on it and I've found in the past I have an amazing ability to loose quite valuable things easily :lol
So normally I go out in the weekends and block out an afternoon or more recently evening to go out and shoot. Since being in London normally when I do travelling or sight-seeing I group that with photography and that seems to work well, but now I'm trying to move away from strictly tourist attractions with my shots.
Ps/ I really love the last two shots of yours in particular. God I remember doing 7th form geography a few years ago and we did a field-trip to Muriwai learning about sand-dune formations or some garbage. Nice location indeed.
mrkgoo said:
Actually, for many people, they are very satisfied with the kit lens. Actually, I fnd my copy of the kits lens to be very good, and nowhere near the trash as most people describe it.
What modes are you playing around in at the moment? To really learn, I say you should avoid all the preset auto modes, and stick with the creative modes (M, Av, Tv, and P), and prefrentially, stay off of P if you can help it.
As I mentioned in the last photography thread I'm still using the lens kit and I believe I can still get a huge amount of milage from it still. And one reason I'm certain of that brings me to the second part of your post, in terms of modes being used. All my photographs I've taken (And posted) have been with pre-set auto modes if you would believe that and something I've now become quite mindful finally reading through a Digital SLR book from David Busch.
I've certainly been handicaping myself with just the auto-modes so I'm testing out and experimenting with the manual modes and seeing what results I can get from that. Should be fun
Edit: I've still got a few more France photos to put up, but I thought I would post some older photo(s) taken around Canary Wharf.
Haha, wow. You really are keen! Actually, for many people, they are very satisfied with the kit lens. Actually, I fnd my copy of the kits lens to be very good, and nowhere near the trash as most people describe it.
Didn't stop me getting bitten by the lens-envy bug though. I spent way too much money on camera equipment last year.
I like your night shot - I love the way grain adds to those kinds of shots.
What modes are you playing around in at the moment? To really learn, I say you should avoid all the preset auto modes, and stick with the creative modes (M, Av, Tv, and P), and prefrentially, stay off of P if you can help it. AT least in terms of taking pictures to learn. If you're in a situation where you just need a good photo, and you're not confident of your abilities yet, just go ahead...but you really do learn a lot more if you jump a littl ein the deep end!
I have been using almost only the M mode right now. I want to learn as much as I can before I start making it easier on myself. All those pics above are with manual mode and manual focus. Yeah, the kit lens is good and there is a ton I know I can do with it, but 70 bucks wasn't too much of a leap after spending 800 on the camera. Plus it was between the lens and the tripod and well now I still need a tripod. ha. I'm really trying to play with the depth of field and I got some new shots today that I'll post in a little bit.
I was just wondering about how some of you guys take pictures...do you go on specific shot hunts, knowing what you want and going and taking them? Or do you carry a camera everywhere and just be a sort opportunist?
Me, I tend to carry a camera everywhere, but rarely actualy pull it out and use it. I normally just take a lot of picutres when there's some sort of event or if I go out to some nice place that lends itself to photography. When my camera was still new, I took a lot more random shots, a lot of my cat, for example. I would actually set aside whole days for shooting, from dawn to dusk! I would travel to places I had never been in the hope of getting a nice picture - I went up lots of volcanoes (The city I live on is built on/around like 20-30 volcanoes). I tried to challenge myself and take a variety of 'standard' photos, trying my hadn at them (macro, portrait, sunset, etc). These days I mostly just whip out the camera when it's a place I haven't been to and less 'just for the sake of it' (which is abit unfortunate, because it's summer now, and a lot more available light time! - sadly times at the moment are perhaps a bit more busy to get as into it as I was a year ago. But there will be that time again, I swear).
Thanks. You've contributed some excellent photos (in this thread and the last) so if you approve, I must be doing something right.
I've been going out with locations for shooting in mind but not specific shots. I don't drive so I have been sticking to places fairly close to home, the *botanical gardens and cathedral square mostly, makes me feel like a tourist.
this is a great shot. I really like the angle of the rain and the drops splashing on the deck, especially the single large one on the left that is in focus. draws your eye to it.
The background kind of reduces the impact of it though, and I don't think cropping would help. Great subject anyway.
Don't worry too much about the techinical aspects too much. A good subject and composition are more important I think.
thanks tnw. yeah, i agree about the background i wish it was less cluttered. thanks for the advice too. I liked mrkgoos bird shots so much i had to get one...
i hate the fact that the red car is in the shot. it should be cropped but i don't have photoshop on this comp.
thanks tnw. yeah, i agree about the background i wish it was less cluttered. thanks for the advice too. I liked mrkgoos bird shots so much i had to get one...
i hate the fact that the red car is in the shot. it should be cropped but i don't have photoshop on this comp.
I think the red actually adds to the picture. A little bit of vibrancy is nice; the pigeon and the rest of the back ground is grey (not in a bad sense). It also gives the pigeon a sense of direction rather than just being suspended in flight.
Cropping can be done in pretty much any program, you don't need photoshop for something that simple.
And actually that water splashing on the patio does look pretty awesome cropping it.
And you're right those mrkgoos's bird photos are a good subject. I like the one of the rock face covered with birds. very nice. They remind me of ICO kind of....
thanks, yeah, it was pretty creepy looking that's what i liked about it. it reminded me of a long solitary corridor when the overhead lights would switch on one by one coming toward you.
tnw, what do you mean? cropping the top 50 percent of the photo out of there?
these are from a test shoot gone bad. the make up artist flaked at the last second, and considering how bad the models skin was, all the pictures pretty much became useless.
this pic is far from the best of the shoot, but it doesn't show her face/skin, so i don't mind posting them. besides, i really wanted to contribute to the new thread. whatever though, it was only a test shoot.
im reshooting it again (w/ better model) tomorrow if all goes well.
these are from a test shoot gone bad. the make up artist flaked at the last second, and considering how bad the models skin was, all the pictures pretty much became useless.
In future particulary with something as straight and uniform as streets, with a slight change of angle or tilt you can use the lines on the road to make the picture a whole lot more dynamic. Your last shot reminds me, how I need to take some shots with field of view, I love mucking around with that specific technique.
New shot from me, I was out this weekend and I saw this couple on the peer, unfortuntely you can just make out their silhouettes (I thought it was a bit creepy if I stuck around and kept shooting them). Eh, I liked the backdrop
Haven't posted in the photography threads for a while, too lazy to upload images. But continuing the birds theme, here are a few recent bird pics, even though I don't really have the lense to phtograph birds
thread dying already ?
bump to say i used an old EOS300D and Sigma 28-70 f 2.8
will consider upgrading in the next few months, but i don't believe upgrading to an xti or 30D will help me take better pics. I'd rather try and get better with my current camera.
this thread has been on life support since it's inception. glad to see imastalker is back. post those new pics! btw eso, i like what you did with the noise for the 'industrial look' picture. nice.
I know nothing about cameras. Is it "normal" for digital cameras to deliver that level of clarity (the pictures above)? Or are cameras like TVs, in which you have to spend a lot of time "calibrating" them in order to get a good picture?
eso: love your studio shots. Just getting that kind of clarity and exposure is awesome.
Shawn: I guess it is normal for digicams to get these shots, seeing as we, well, are taking these shots. Calibration for portables is hardly ever necessary, but calibration for lenses on SLRS can be reasonably common - some can front or back focus a little...but often most people don't realise, or just use manual focus. Also SLR lenses can vary in quality, even on same models - copy variation. But for the most part yeah, these are what we take.
Some people argue that digiphotos often can get an aided boost by adding contrast and sharpness in programs like photoshop. They often help, but there's also developing the ability to take a shot great to not require it (in my experience, if you have really good lenses, you can achieve high contrast, sharp images with your technique). Portable digicams often apply these post-processing effects quite heavily when it saves the picture.
Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens - (Refurbished By Canon U.S.A) for $300
or
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens - USA Warranty for $190
I'm seriously thinking the 28-200mm since it has a wider angle and therefore would be more versatile and I don't think there's that big of a difference between 200 and 300 mm right? I mean at that level I could just crop and take the versatility right?
Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens - (Refurbished By Canon U.S.A) for $300
or
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens - USA Warranty for $190
I'm seriously thinking the 28-200mm since it has a wider angle and therefore would be more versatile and I don't think there's that big of a difference between 200 and 300 mm right? I mean at that level I could just crop and take the versatility right?
I'd say there's a reasonable difference between 200mm and 300, but not as much as 28mm to 75mm. if you want to take some nice small animal pics, 300mm is probably bare minimum (even on a crop camera - you have 400d, right?).
Keep in mind, you get what you pay for in lenses. The cheaper you go often, the pooere the quality. You just have to ask youself how much of a stickler for the supposed 'quality' you are.
Well, here I go with some shots I took recently. First up, a trio of shots I took at a park near a friend's.
Saw a pair of ducks swimming in the pond. Zoomed in on the male with my S3. This is from about 40-50 feet away, I think. Sharpened a bit in Elements 5.
My attempt at a sarcastic image.
Shooting straight up in a circle of trees.
The last two are of my dogs. I wanted to do portrait shots of them as a present. I turned my bedroom into a impromptu studio with a bedsheet and replacing the bulbs in the ceiling lights with those Reveal lightbulbs from GE (4 X 100watts), then doing a custom white balance for my S3 using a reference card. I took the shots using a good heavy tripod and a little fill flash. f2.7 at 1/15 at iso80, IIRC. Then I adjusted the levels and added a soft focus using layers in Elements. I think they came out well.
I'd say there's a reasonable difference between 200mm and 300, but not as much as 28mm to 75mm. if you want to take some nice small animal pics, 300mm is probably bare minimum (even on a crop camera - you have 400d, right?).
aaahhh digital picture calls both of them mediocre. Now I'm freaking out but I'm a student and can't afford very much. What's a good, versatile(wide focal range) telephoto zoom lens? Any places in particular safe but cheap to order from?
aaahhh digital picture calls both of them mediocre. Now I'm freaking out but I'm a student and can't afford very much. What's a good, versatile(wide focal range) telephoto zoom lens? Any places in particular safe but cheap to order from?
Not sure about where to order from (I heard B&H are good and reliable or something.). I don't think there is such a things a super quality, wide range lens for cheap, otherwise everyone would have one! The closest perhaps, if you have a crop camera is probably the EFS 17-85 mm IS. A cheap consumer lens with wide range and IS to boot. I'm not saying it's what I recommend, but it's a popular choice for people wanting to step up from the kit lens.
My opinion is that if you're going to go up, you may aswell go up to a significantly higher image quality. If you can't tell the difference or you're happy with what you have (ie kit lens), then maybe you just want to add lenses to complement you current setup. It depends on how you perceive quality and cost.
Ask yourself what pictures you want to take, and plan out the lenses. Macro? Long tele? etc.
There're basically lenses for what you want to take, that excel at what they do, and few catch all answers. For cheapish telephoto, I hear the latest 70-300 IS is pretty damned good for 'consumer' level lens (they fixed the portrait problems with earlier copies).
Another option is third party lenses, which can sometimes match the optical quality of 1st party offerings at a much reduced cost.
I really need to get all of my pics from Hawaii onto my computer... I thought this one was cool . It's too bad I was in the car when I wanted to take the picture .
Not sure about where to order from (I heard B&H are good and reliable or something.). I don't think there is such a things a super quality, wide range lens for cheap, otherwise everyone would have one! The closest perhaps, if you have a crop camera is probably the EFS 17-85 mm IS. A cheap consumer lens with wide range and IS to boot. I'm not saying it's what I recommend, but it's a popular choice for people wanting to step up from the kit lens.
My opinion is that if you're going to go up, you may aswell go up to a significantly higher image quality. If you can't tell the difference or you're happy with what you have (ie kit lens), then maybe you just want to add lenses to complement you current setup. It depends on how you perceive quality and cost.
Ask yourself what pictures you want to take, and plan out the lenses. Macro? Long tele? etc.
There're basically lenses for what you want to take, that excel at what they do, and few catch all answers. For cheapish telephoto, I hear the latest 70-300 IS is pretty damned good for 'consumer' level lens (they fixed the portrait problems with earlier copies).
Another option is third party lenses, which can sometimes match the optical quality of 1st party offerings at a much reduced cost.
I have the 18-55 lens kit and I'm fine with that for that range for now. What I need is a decent-to-good lens from at least 70 to 200 mm, 300 if possible. damn that 70-300 IS, why must it be 500 something bucks? I was settling for the 300-400 range.
