Thread: ***DSLR Thread***

Originally Posted by FBJ

Nice! I've been wanting to get up there for quite a while to do just that sort of image.

This is one of those scenes that just screams "DO ME HDR-STYLE." And by that, I don't mean over-cooked HDR, I mean very subtle HDR...maybe just a two-exposure blend via layer masks to help bring out more detail and color in the highlights and shadows.

I would love to do something like that. There are two issues that you encounter though that make it difficult. One, the lighting is very low so you end up doing 4-5 second exposures. Two, there are a LOT of people in a narrow canyon so getting two (or three) shots off in a row in the same spot is very difficult. If you have another person helping you on the other side of the wall, that would be the best way to do it.

Having said that, even if you don't get a single picture out of there, it's amazing to visit. You feel like you're in a temple and you just don't want to touch anything, but at the same time you want to touch it all.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

Where is this place at?

Originally Posted by RomJan27

Where is this place at?

It's Antelope Canyon in Page, AZ.

Navajo Parks & Recreation - Antelope Canyon

Here are a handful of shots I've finally managed to process.































I realize that there isn't really any connection between these shots, but they're some of the more interesting ones that I've come up with over the last couple months.

Awesome thread , lots of great info in here. I recently bought my wife a Canon 50D with a kit lens, and the 1.4 50mm lens.

So far so good, but the lenses simply are not getting it done for action sports/ice hockey. (My wife enjoys coming to my league games and has become the team photographer/videographer.)

All signs seem to point to me purchasing the 70-200mm 2.8L IS lens in order to handle action/low light situations.

My question is this: Is there another lens I should be considering that can handle hockey as well as portraits? My wife is a wedding planner, who is interested in possibly becoming a wedding photographer. At this point, I cannot afford to just buy lenses that will serve one single purpose. I really want to squeeze the most out of every $ spent.

I did hear that Canon was going to come out with a new version of this lens, hopefully the price will go down a little for this one...

I've heard good things about the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. Much lighter and easier to handhold than a 70-200 beast, much cheaper, and gives you the same coverage on an APS-C body. That said, it is only for crop frame cameras so if she ever upgrades to FF, you're out of luck. The Canon will also probably give you better quality wide open, but at double the price, it should.

Sweet! Hopefully my local shops will have the Sigma to rent. I think I will rent both for a weekend and work from there...

Originally Posted by kozak

So I won a Nikon D5000 at the company Christmas party. I am a total DSLR newbie. Have always had point a shoot cameras.

It came with 2 manuals and 2 DVD's to teach me how to use the thing. Since I don't have the patience to study all of this, can anyone offer advice, websites, magazines that can give me pointers on how to use this new toy?

Fing good for you mate.

Time to talk lenses...

Originally Posted by Jeffrock

All signs seem to point to me purchasing the 70-200mm 2.8L IS lens in order to handle action/low light situations.

My question is this: Is there another lens I should be considering that can handle hockey as well as portraits? My wife is a wedding planner, who is interested in possibly becoming a wedding photographer.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

I've heard good things about the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. Much lighter and easier to handhold than a 70-200 beast, much cheaper, and gives you the same coverage on an APS-C body. That said, it is only for crop frame cameras so if she ever upgrades to FF, you're out of luck. The Canon will also probably give you better quality wide open, but at double the price, it should.

If she is serious about being a wedding photog, then EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS (II) without question. The IS isn't going to do much good for hockey (players are moving to fast for it to be of use), but for low light ceremony shots where you can't use a flash, it is extraordinarily handy. Also, she is going to need at least two bodies for wedding work (no skimping here, at least two bodies is critical, not just for focal length coverage, but for backup, bodies go bad at the worst times), one of those is probably going to want to be either full frame or 1.3x frame (1D). You are going to want a stable of lenses that will work on all her cameras.

Now for the nerdy talk (skip all this if you like ):
Here are the MTF charts for both lenses. What you are looking here is the lenses ability to resolve fine detail (green lines for Sigma, fine black lines for Canon ) and contrast (red lines for Sigma, bold black lines for Canon). The contrast line will indicate how much "punch" and clarity a lens will deliver, the detail line will indicate how much fine detail (personally I find that while both are important, the contrast line is the more important of the two). If you are wondering what dotted vs. solid means, it is the direction of the test line on the chart. Lenses have a harder time resolving lines which run perpendicular to a line drawn from center of frame to edge of frame.

Y axis (height of chart) is contrast (1 would be perfect contrast), X axis is distance from center of frame, so the left side is center, the right side is the extreme diagonal corner of frame. One important thing to note, the sigma chart ends at 13.5mm on the X axis (because it is for cropped cameras) while the Canon chart extends to 21.6mm, just keep in mind when comparing the two charts to look at the same X value.

Sigma:


Canon:


So what you can see is that in fact on wide end, the Sigma has slightly better contrast while Canon has slightly better detail across frame.

On the long end the Canon really shines. Better contrast, and much more detail resolving power.