***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

[FBJ]

SO MUCH FUN!!

Orange Rind:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0406.jpg

Rusty Nail:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0409.jpg

Dying Bougainvillea Leaf:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0410.jpg

Bougainvillea Flower (the yellow part is only about 1/8 inch in diameter):
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0413.jpg

Daisy:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0417.jpg

Razor-Grass Seed Stalk:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0419.jpg

Little Purple Flowers (each is about 1/4" in diameter):
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0420.jpg

These were hand-held. Had I not been lazy, I'd have put my tripod up. The difference between in-focus and out-of-focus on these images is litterally a couple millimeters, and I found that as I'd breathe, the camera would change its distance from the subject just enough to put it out of focus either on the far side or near side.

What I really need is a focusing rail! That's next. They aren't cheap!

Also, I need to play around in better lighting. I could up the shutter speed while keeping things stopped to around f/8 if I had better lighting. Wonder how an off-camera flash might be able to be used?

[BleedingPurple]

These were hand-held. Had I not been lazy, I'd have put my tripod up. The difference between in-focus and out-of-focus on these images is litterally a couple millimeters, and I found that as I'd breathe, the camera would change its distance from the subject just enough to put it out of focus either on the far side or near side.

That's crazy! Very cool stuff. Any way you could take a photo of this rig all put together?

I was wondering about the focus of some of the photos. It seems the very center (obviously) is always in focus but outer edges that appear to be in the same vacinity are out of focus.

For example, the top head of the nail;, the center 50% horizontally is in focus but the upper and lower 25% horizontally is out of focus even though they are very close in proximity.

http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0409.jpg

[Clich? Guevara]

Those are very nice Glenn. I'm gonna have to look into that.

[kingofdodgers]

****, i cant compete with that!

[FBJ]

That's crazy! Very cool stuff. Any way you could take a photo of this rig all put together?

Yeah. Gimme a bit.


I was wondering about the focus of some of the photos. It seems the very center (obviously) is always in focus but outer edges that appear to be in the same vacinity are out of focus.

For example, the top head of the nail;, the center 50% horizontally is in focus but the upper and lower 25% horizontally is out of focus even though they are very close in proximity.

Well, if you think of the focus point as being a flat plane parallel to the front of the camera on which anything is in focus, then you can see why only the middle of the head of the nail is in focus. It passes through the focal plane at an angle because I took the image with the camera pointed down at the nail from an angle of approximately 45-degrees.

Had the sun not been behind a cloud, the f-stop might have been a little higher (tighter aperture, greater DOF) so more of the nail would have been in focus. I'm still learning how to control DOF with these things installed.

[FBJ]

****, i cant compete with that!

What's to compete with? Do your own thing, man! We're not in competetion with each other!

:)

[rinkrat]

Great stuff!! I need some tubes :)

[FBJ]

That's crazy! Very cool stuff. Any way you could take a photo of this rig all put together?

You know how hard it is to take a picture of your camera when that's the only camera you've got??

The D200 with the 50mm f/1.4 mounted on it:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/IMG_2396.JPG

The D200 with the 50mm f/1.4 mounted on top of 68mm worth of extension tubes:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/IMG_2397.JPG

Yes, that's my season ticket box. No I haven't burned it yet.

[FBJ]

Heh.

I just stuck the big mama-jama 70-200 f/2.8 on the end of the stack of tubes. At 200mm, the focus point is like eight inches in front of the lens! Normal minimum focusing distance is like 5 feet!

But the funny thing was that at 70mm, the focus point is somewhere between the front lens element and the UV filter!! I can probably focus on the fingerprints on the UV filter!!

[BleedingPurple]

You know how hard it is to take a picture of your camera when that's the only camera you've got??


I thought about that after I asked. I figured you had to have a P&S or a camera phone. :) Thanks for posting!

Very interesting. Are these tubes a cheaper alternative to a very expensive lens or is the application totally different?

[FBJ]

Very interesting. Are these tubes a cheaper alternative to a very expensive lens or is the application totally different?

I guess they essentially allow you to turn a regular lens into a macro lens. Even so, macro lenses won't get you much closer in terms of minimum focusing distance, or much bigger in terms of magnification ratios.

For instance, the AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D has a minimum focusing distance of 8.75 inches. I can get within 1" of my subjects with all these tubes behind my 50mm f/1.4 lens. And (according to the tables supplied with the tubes) the image will have greater magnification ratio with the tubes (1.5:1 with all the tubes on). Most macro lenses get 1:1 ratios.

There are advantages to longer focusing distances for 1:1 magnification. Photographing poisonous things? Yeah, I'd want at least a foot between that spider and me! But you can get the increased minimum focusing distance with tubes, as well! Just put them on a longer focal-length lens!

[Cytoxan]

****, i cant compete with that!

Yea, I think I quit... :run:

Ok ok I'll give it a shot.

[DeaderFan]

For instance, the AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D has a minimum focusing distance of 8.75 inches. I can get within 1" of my subjects with all these tubes behind my 50mm f/1.4 lens. And (according to the tables supplied with the tubes) the image will have greater magnification ratio with the tubes (1.5:1 with all the tubes on). Most macro lenses get 1:1 ratios.

There are advantages to longer focusing distances for 1:1 magnification. Photographing poisonous things? Yeah, I'd want at least a foot between that spider and me!

I think both have advantages and disadvantages. I have the 60mm Micro. That 8.75" number is from the film plane. The minimum distance from the front of the lens is like 2.75" with a 1:1 ratio on a 35mm size sensor. On a DSLR it would be 1.5:1. The good thing about it is that it is sharp, compact and versitile. You are right about working distance being important though It is not easy to get so close sometimes, and it is even harder to light the subject properly when you are right on top of it. So generally I don't use the 60 for macro work. I also have the 105mm micro and use that for my close up work becase it gives me the same enlargement ratio but at a working distance of 9" or so. Problem is that it is kind of a big lens, especially the newer VR version that I have. Very sharp lens but big and heavy. I think I use it most often for copying photos on a copy stand when I don't have the time to scan them.

[PuckMonkey]

Holy crap! When will this thread be available in paperback? Nice surprise here on LGK.

Great work guys.

Now what's the theme?

[DeaderFan]

BTW FBJ, I also meant to say nice job on the pics. Very nice.

[FBJ]

I think both have advantages and disadvantages. I have the 60mm Micro. That 8.75" number is from the film plane. The minimum distance from the front of the lens is like 2.75" with a 1:1 ratio on a 35mm size sensor. On a DSLR it would be 1.5:1. The good thing about it is that it is sharp, compact and versitile. You are right about working distance being important though It is not easy to get so close sometimes, and it is even harder to light the subject properly when you are right on top of it. So generally I don't use the 60 for macro work. I also have the 105mm micro and use that for my close up work becase it gives me the same enlargement ratio but at a working distance of 9" or so. Problem is that it is kind of a big lens, especially the newer VR version that I have. Very sharp lens but big and heavy. I think I use it most often for copying photos on a copy stand when I don't have the time to scan them.

Okay. There's some good info that's new to me! I didn't know that minimum focusing distance were measured from the sensor, though to think about it now it really only makes all the sense in the world. Thanks DeaderFan!

So what is my 1.5:1 ratio from the table that was included with my tubes on my DX sensor? Is it 2.25:1? Couldn't be! Or could it?

[FBJ]

BTW FBJ, I also meant to say nice job on the pics. Very nice.

Thanks! They leave a little to be desired in DOF and camera shake, but that's to be expected with a person's first macro captures.

[FBJ]

Holy crap! When will this thread be available in paperback? Nice surprise here on LGK.

Great work guys.

Now what's the theme?

YAY! PuckMonkey's here!

BTW, paperback version available here: http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/printthread.php?t=46181

NO THEME UNTIL FRIDAY!!!

[HeShootsNScores]

What is amazing is, is that this thread has been around for quite a while and people still dont venture out of Home Ice or RH. I <3 this thread.

Can't wait 'till friday for the theme.

[rinkrat]

Hey Photo Geeks, I am testing the LGK Social Groups (new vbulletin feature) so come and join the Photo Group. I'm not sure exactly what happens after that but that is what testing is for.

http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/group.php

[FBJ]

More from my latest series: "F'in With The Tubes." At this point, I'm just taking pictures of crap for the sake of taking pictures of crap.

All with the 50mm lens and two tubes (the 12mm and the 36mm).

Compact Flash Card. This one was shot in available light at f/14 with a 10 second exposure. Yeah, on a tripod.
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0423.jpg

Guitar Pick. Same setup as above (but with a slower shutter speed).
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0424.jpg

Group Of 3-Volts. This one at f/14 and 1/60th with the SB-800 set up on the table remotely (off the upper right corner of the image) and set to an EV of -1 and diffused through a plain sheet of white paper.
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0429.jpg

The flash meters remarkably well in TTL mode, even with the tubes on! I did notice that the flash output was different with the camera's eyepiece covered. Must be some light leaking onto the meter's sensor through the eyepiece!

[kingofdodgers]

Do you guys have any recommendations for literature that would be helpful to someone who knows nothing of photography and just recently got a p&s?

Even in reading the beginning of this thread I realized that I dont know ANY of the basics and I gotta get that down before i know what the hell you guys are talking about :)

[BleedingPurple]

More from my latest series: "F'in With The Tubes." At this point, I'm just taking pictures of crap for the sake of taking pictures of crap.

All with the 50mm lens and two tubes (the 12mm and the 36mm).

Compact Flash Card. This one was shot in available light at f/14 with a 10 second exposure. Yeah, on a tripod.

What does a longer exposure do for you on a stationary object such as the compact flash card? Because it's not moving, does it allow more light to give a better picture?

[FBJ]

Do you guys have any recommendations for literature that would be helpful to someone who knows nothing of photography and just recently got a p&s?

Even in reading the beginning of this thread I realized that I dont know ANY of the basics and I gotta get that down before i know what the hell you guys are talking about :)

There's all kinds of free stuff on the net regarding the basics. Here's one:

http://www.thepeaches.com/photography/Basics.htm

Because of the website build, it's kind of a difficult read. But if you can cut and paste it into a word processor and print it out it might be easier.

Photography For Dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Dummies-Second-Russell-Hart/dp/0764541161/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199979393&sr=8-2) is another good (and inexpensive at $15) option. I'm actually a big fan of their SLR Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Cameras-Photography-Dummies-Computer/dp/0470149272/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199979393&sr=8-1) book, too.

Also, if you've got a widely-used camera make and model, a lot of times you can find books that are specific to its functions and features. Magic Lantern books cover the DSLRs pretty well. Try searchin Amazon for "A Short Course in xx" replacing xx with your camera's make and model.

[FBJ]

What does a longer exposure do for you on a stationary object such as the compact flash card? Because it's not moving, does it allow more light to give a better picture?

It's as simple as that, yeah. If the object isn't moving and I can mount the camera on a tripod, I'll go Aperture Priority, stop it down to f/10-f/14 (for increased depth-of-field), and let the shutter speed fall where it may for a proper exposure.

Also, to keep the picture as sharp as possible, I use the D200's mirror-lock feature and one of two other things: 1) use a remote shutter release, or 2) use the shutter release timer. That way, the vibration imparted to the camera from mirror movement and photographer clumsiness are minimized.

[FBJ]

More "F'in With Tubes." Pop-Quiz Edition!!

What is this?
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0447.jpg

Another hint:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0445.jpg

And another:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0443.jpg

Give up?
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/_GCC0441.jpg

[VF]

Something tells me even if the upcoming challenge is something like "vast, wide open landscape" Glenn will find a way to do it with his new tubes :)

They are pretty darn cool.

[HeShootsNScores]

Something tells me even if the upcoming challenge is something like "vast, wide open landscape" Glenn will find a way to do it with his new tubes :)

They are pretty darn cool.

or we'll get a macro shot of a landscape painting... hahaha.

I agree... REALLY cool shots.

[BleedingPurple]

I guess it's an Orange or to be more exact, a Clementine?

[FBJ]

Clementine?

Winnah Winnah Chicken Dinnah!

[FBJ]

Something tells me even if the upcoming challenge is something like "vast, wide open landscape" Glenn will find a way to do it with his new tubes :)

They are pretty darn cool.

Don't tie my tubes, man!

[BleedingPurple]

Winnah Winnah Chicken Dinnah!

HA HA WOOT WOOT!

:mmprt::mmprt::mmprt::mmprt::mmprt::mmprt:
:sign_beer::sign_beer::sign_beer::sign_beer::sign_ beer::danc::danc::danc::danc::danc:kneel:

[rinkrat]

First time messing with the 2.8 L IS 70-200....
http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=180

It was pretty much like using the f4, except when you get a shot that is on, it is ON. It also handles the tricky lighting a lot better than other lenses I have used, with the auto-white balance only. Sharp as hell when I got the focus right. Now I see what all the adulation is about. It's also lighter and smaller than I expected since everyone complains about that. I thought it was pretty comfortable and balanced on the D30.

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_8416_original.jpg

[FBJ]

Those are some SWEET http://uncyclopedia.org/images/thumb/c/ca/Jon_heder_napoleon_dynamite_interview_top.jpg/180px-Jon_heder_napoleon_dynamite_interview_top.jpg photos, Mike! What ISO and shutter speeds were you running? I imagine everything was shot at f/2.8, right?

I need to get out to a practice soon, myself. I've learned some things about the focusing system on my D200. I've changed a few camera settings having to do with focus area and how it acts in continuous autofocus that should make things come out a hell of a lot better than my last trip.

Again, nice pics! Aren't you glad you popped for that bad-boy, now?

[rinkrat]

If you look at each picture it tells all the exposure information underneath it under "Camera Information" Here is the info for the pic above. I was shooting aperture priority set to 2.8 the entire time I think, why not? :)

Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 30D
ExposureTime: 1/500
ISOSpeedRatings: 1600
FocalLength: 180/1

[Unfiltered]

Winnah Winnah Chicken Dinnah!

Dang. Before that last pick I would've went with a cheese puff. (Not a Cheeto, but just a cheese puff.)

[FBJ]

If you look at each picture it tells all the exposure information underneath it under "Camera Information" Here is the info for the pic above. I was shooting aperture priority set to 2.8 the entire time I think, why not? :)

Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 30D
ExposureTime: 1/500
ISOSpeedRatings: 1600
FocalLength: 180/1

Pretty noise-free for ISO 1600! Did you run it through any software?

[rinkrat]

Just photoshop to resize and crop. I might have to try 800 next time.

[rinkrat]

Today I figured out that the Image Stabilization switch was off yesterday for every pic. Today I remembered to switch it on and leave it on. ;)

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=181

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/01112008_3.jpg

I never noticed each guy has his name stitched on his gloves and Crawford's say "CROW".

[SirJW]

Hey RR, what do you think of the new lights at TSC? I think they are color corrected Tungston's, maybe Kino Flos?

[SirJW]

re: gloves, ha you obviously are not a gear hound...

[rinkrat]

Damn, I didn't even notice the lighting being different. The new offices look sweet though! ;)

[FBJ]

Alright. The last two games I've been to, there's been a photographer behind the bench during warmups who has not ONE, but TWO D3s hanging around his neck. One has the fisheye on it and the other has th 70-200 f/2.8 attached. Each has a Pocketwizard attached to it.

Ass-hat has like $13,000 in gear slung around his little neck.

My question is: Who do the guys who take pictures of the team work for? Are they Kings employees? And where do they park?

[DeaderFan]

The other night my kid did a Zamboni ride during a game and afterward we road up the elevator from ice level with a guy with 2 D3s with some long lenses on them. I asked how he liked the D3 and he told me it was awsome. Wonder if it was the same guy? He told me that even with the high ISO of the D3 he was still using the overhead flash units but loved the results he was getting.

[FBJ]

I imagine that the overhead flashes allow you to freeze motion even better than with just the high ISO alone.

[PuckHead27]

My question is: Who do the guys who take pictures of the team work for? Are they Kings employees? And where do they park?

I don't know about the Kings photographers, but a photographer friend of mine used to work for the Houston Oilers/Tenn Titans organization. He worked for the team, but he also did some stuff for the NFL. Example, a couple times the Raiders (at the time still in LA) used him for Raiderette tryouts. That was awesome because one year he asked me to come along as his assistant. :crazy: OK I've gone off topic. ;)

He also used to go to all the Superbowls (regardless of what teams were playing) and shoot. He was going to take me along one year (as an assistant), but I couldn't get off work. He took a great photo of Emmit Smith that the league used as the cover of one of the Cowboys Championship videos that year. Superbowl XXVII I believe.

In other words, technically he worked for the Oilers/Titans, they hired and paid him, but his stuff was also used by the NFL and they sent him elsewhere to shoot if the Oilers/Titans were not playing. Again, I have no idea what the Kings/NHL do.

It's too bad I haven't seen or talked to him in about 10 years now. I don't know if he is still shooting for the Titans, but at one point I heard he was looking to get into the NHL with the Dallas Stars.

[FBJ]

Mongo in his favorite afternoon sunny spot, the back of the loveseat in our bedroom:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2133/2193403511_f055dd4c41.jpg?v=0

That's with the 70-200mm f/2.8, sitting about twelve feet from him. It's the first shot I've gotten where fill-flash has worked properly. I used the D200's built-in strobe at -1.0.

And here's another attempt at some HDR imaging. This is the church altar at San Fernando Mission. It's a five-image HDR.

http://gcalvin.com/files/HDR/_GCC0582And8More_tonemappedsmall.jpg

Lemme tell you, it was dark as a mofo in that place today.

[VF]

Mongo in his favorite afternoon sunny spot, the back of the loveseat in our bedroom:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2133/2193403511_f055dd4c41.jpg?v=0

That's with the 70-200mm f/2.8, sitting about twelve feet from him. It's the first shot I've gotten where fill-flash has worked properly. I used the D200's built-in strobe at -1.0.

That is a great shot! Very natural fill, that looks fantastic.

[FBJ]

Another HDR work-up from yesterday's pictures at the Mission.

http://gcalvin.com/files/HDR/_GCC0562_58_60_tonemappedsmall.jpg

[hockeynut]

Hi,

I like doing nature shots more than anything so here is my first couple of photos. It snowed here (in MI) so I am going out today and snap a few more off. I have a point and shoot olympus sp310, that one I used to take the bee photo. the second one I took from my camera phone is of my cat. Hopefully the uploading worked if not I may need some help with that.

Hockeynut

[FBJ]

Good stuff, hockeynut! Welcome!

[rinkrat]

OK, seeing these hummingbird pics got me wanting to try some. Handheld with flash.

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/bird5.jpg

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/bird4.jpg

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/bird2.jpg

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/bird1.jpg

[FBJ]

DAMN DUDE! It's like a freakin' Hitchcock movie at your house! We very rarely get more than one or two at a time and you've got a freakin' infestation!

Those freakin' OWN, Mike. Great job! Only things I'd even consider saying are to 1) maybe diffuse the flash a bit (or dialing it back a little) to keep the harsh shadows and shine marks from being so noticeable, and 2) moving the focus/metering point to a place in the viewfinder where you'd most often get the birds so that the lens doesn't focus on the feeder instead of the birds.

Other than that, screw you for getting the shots I've been after for weeks! ;)

[VF]

Yeah, awesome shots! Is this the 70-200 f/2.8 IS? Echo everything that FBJ said, awesome shots! Love seeing a humming bird with his (her?) tongue sticking out.

[FBJ]

Gonna toot my own horn a bit here:

I made the top 500 in Flickr's "Most Interesting" images for Jan 15, 2008. #61. I guess that's pretty decent considering the fact that they have literally 100s of thousands of images uploaded in a day's time.

http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2008/01/15/

I'm top of page #7.

[Watti]

Gonna toot my own horn a bit here:

I made the top 500 in Flickr's "Most Interesting" images for Jan 15, 2008. #61. I guess that's pretty decent considering the fact that they have literally 100s of thousands of images uploaded in a day's time.

http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2008/01/15/

I'm top of page #7.

Well deserved! congrats:

[FBJ]

I don't think it hangs with the rest, really. Most of those photographs in that list are freakin' uber creative and masterfully shot!

[BleedingPurple]

Gonna toot my own horn a bit here:

I made the top 500 in Flickr's "Most Interesting" images for Jan 15, 2008. #61. I guess that's pretty decent considering the fact that they have literally 100s of thousands of images uploaded in a day's time.

http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2008/01/15/

I'm top of page #7.

That's awesome! Great Job, Glenn!

[DeaderFan]

I don't think it hangs with the rest, really. Most of those photographs in that list are freakin' uber creative and masterfully shot!

I don't know. I think it fits in fine. Some of the others do nothing for me, especially once you get past page 8 or so.

[DeaderFan]

Well these photography threads have finally inspired me to try to get back into it. These days I've been shooting thousands of shots of family stuff, like vacations and my son's hockey games. I have not really tried anything creative for the sake of creativity in years. Anyway, the other thread got me inspired. Only problem is I have so little time. So yesterday we had a pretty nice sunset so I went out on the balcony of our office building to see if I could come up with something with glass. Fortunately we are across from the beach so it is a nice setting. I'm one of those that think sunsets are a little cliche but, what the heck it was pretty and you gotta start somewhere. Unfortunately I could not come up with a "glass" shot I liked. Here is one example:

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/2/9/8/sunset_5.jpg

On the other hand it was a nice sunset so I took some looking off the balcony. I thought the one of the lovers on the beach was kind of the most interesting because of the reflection off the sand and the fact that these "love birds" are not really alone although they are sharing a pivate moment.


http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/2/9/8/sunset_1.jpg

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/2/9/8/sunset_4.jpg

I'm still thinking "glass" and when I come up with something good I'll post it.

[FBJ]

That first one TOTALLY goes into the Challenge!!! It's awesome! The other two are great, too! I do like that flash of orange on the sand.

[rinkrat]

Great job on the Flikr top rating!

[PuckMonkey]

OK, so I've been experimenting with the whole reverse-lens macro thing and it is pretty amazing. I've gotten way beyond what I had yesterday, and I'll give a detailed run down of what I found soon. I just wanted to show you guys some of the macros I've been getting. All images are uncropped.



This is how tight I was getting yesterday...

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/bin/images/small/One_Nation_Under_Shards.jpg



Now today...

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/mac3.jpg




Notice that the DoF is smaller than half a grain of salt.

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/mac2.jpg




Guess what this is.

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/mac1.jpg

Give up?

It's the high-E string on my acoustic, .010 gauge.

I'm having a blast!

[HeShootsNScores]

OK, so I've been experimenting with the whole reverse-lens macro thing and it is pretty amazing. I've gotten way beyond what I had yesterday, and I'll give a detailed run down of what I found soon. I just wanted to show you guys some of the macros I've been getting. All images are uncropped.



This is how tight I was getting yesterday...

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/bin/images/small/One_Nation_Under_Shards.jpg



Now today...

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/mac3.jpg




Notice that the DoF is smaller than half a grain of salt.

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/mac2.jpg




Guess what this is.

http://cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/Glass/mac1.jpg

Give up?

It's the high-E string on my acoustic, .010 gauge.

I'm having a blast!


I have GOT to try that... PM, what lens are you reverse hand-holding? (ha!)

[FBJ]

Yah. What kind of lens are you using backwards? I can't believe the magnification!

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

Holy smokes..... Puckmonkey, that **** is freaking AMAZING. And un-cropped too??? Looks like fun indeed!

[FBJ]

Took the kid to Travel Town this morning. Worked a little bit on composition of detail shots. I was mostly looking for high-contrast stuff that would look good in black-and-white.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2207693800_fff97be642_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2207685340_da132278c5.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2207683012_3b30239581.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2243/2207699838_ff3d146e1b.jpg

[FBJ]

Looking more closely at the images I took today, I think I might be starting to hate using the 28-200 (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2143#) that I own.

After buying the 50mm f/1.4 (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1902) and using it as much as I have, the softer focus of the 28-200 is very annoying and almost to the point of making it a completely useless lens for anything more than all-purpose snapshot stuff.

[rinkrat]

I went to the Doo Dah Parade today for the first time ever. I always meant to go but never hear about it till I see the highlights on the news the day after and then it's too late. Anyways, since the wife was actually in the thing I figured I could get the date right this time. It was amazing for photo ops. i am usually kind of shy about asking people if I can take their picture, but this place was like having a few hundred blue fauxhawk girls in the same spot. Anyways it was really cool, and there was virtually no security so I pretty much had free reign to actually join along with the Derby Dolls for the entire length of the thing. There are so many bizarre and colorful people that it's hard to not to take a great pic.

I'll post a few as soon as I go through them. Here is a teaser..

http://www.letsgokings.com/images/custom/bush.jpg

[VF]

Great shots Glenn! It looks like you captured what you set out to do.

[VF]

Looking more closely at the images I took today, I think I might be starting to hate using the 28-200 (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2143#) that I own.

After buying the 50mm f/1.4 (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1902) and using it as much as I have, the softer focus of the 28-200 is very annoying and almost to the point of making it a completely useless lens for anything more than all-purpose snapshot stuff.

Primes will spoil you like that :)

[rinkrat]

Look what i found on Flikr lol

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2207543133_a7bd107f2e.jpg?v=0

[FBJ]

Who's the ugly dude begging tht hot chick to let him take her picture?

[VF]

This was actually the first shot with the sound trigger, and sadly I think it is still the best of the bunch. I'll have to keep playing with it a bit.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20080115_4953.jpg

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/doo_dah_parade_2008_30.jpg

This is one of about 5 pics I took with the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 IS and they were all real sharp. I'll have to try using it at more places than just the hockey rink I guess!

[FBJ]

Yah that's definitely a great image, Mike!

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/doo_dah_parade_2008_30.jpg

This is one of about 5 pics I took with the 70-200 f2.8 IS and they were all real sharp. I'll have to try using it at more places than just the hockey rink I guess!


Kick ASS!! 70-200? Friggin sharp indeed! How far away were you from her? And did you crop the image, or were you in that tight?

[rinkrat]

About 10 feet away, no cropping. That is pretty much just resized. She was dancing with some other ladies to a conga drummer. She looked into the barrell of the lens and I could feel the vibe and started firing away. I like the ones that you know are gold before you even look at the results. Nothing better than having a subject look you right in the "eye" in something like this (or hockey pics). I guess having a big-ass white lens can be an advantage after all because it screams "Hey, photographer over here!".

[PuckMonkey]

OK, so I'm feeling like a total lame-ass for not participating here much lately, especially with all the great images being added. But I just had to add this to my "Macro-roni & Cheese" catalog...


http://www.cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/DSC_0167b.jpg

[FBJ]

DUDE!

I HATE YOU!!

That's AWESOME!!!

Tell us how you did it!!

[HeShootsNScores]

giving Karma doesn't quite do the image justice....


damn PuckMonkey... and you have the same camera I do!

[BleedingPurple]

OK, so I'm feeling like a total lame-ass for not participating here much lately, especially with all the great images being added. But I just had to add this to my "Macro-roni & Cheese" catalog...

Holy crap, that's amazing!

[FBJ]

http://www.cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/DSC_0167b.jpg

Actually, after looking at the image more closely, I've got to say I'd like some more depth of field. Maybe crank the f number up and use an off-camera flash.

I give the image a B.

(don't really mean that stuff above, just had to pick a route to the punchline)

[PuckMonkey]

Wow, thanks guys. That again is the hand-held reverse-lens macro. It was Monday and it was cold and there were a few bees semi-comatose in the garden. Very docile. So I snatched a blooming camellia and scooped up Mr. Sleepy Bee and went into my garage, which is quickly becoming my studio. Set it up under a 100-watt and as soon as he got warmed up, the bee went right back to grabbing pollen. I only got a few shots before he flew away. Image is full frame, 1/100 sec, ISO 200. I retouched out a dust speck that was on the lens and applied very minimal USM, but other than that, this is right off the SD card.

The hand-held reverse-lens macro technique is a pain in the ass, but I'm getting the hang of it. I have two variations that I have worked out. #1 is an old 35-80 lens literally held backwards against the lensless camera body. Aperture wide open and I taped the lens down at 35mm. As soon as I starting thinking of it as a loupe and not a lens, I became more comfortable with the process. Variation #2 is using two lenses. A 210mm zoom attached to the camera as normal, and the same 35-80 being held backwards against the 210. This is pretty cumbersome to say the least, so I've just resorted to taping the lenses together with painters tape. I do a lot of test firing to get the lighting because I am sans-aperture here, and there are no readings to be had from the camera. So far it is unpredictable what the lighting needs will be for any given shot. Method #1 is not nearly as extreme as #2 (see my previous penny pics as an example), but I am finding that the extreme magnification of #2 is usually out of range of being useful. Too close.

Also, since the DoF is painfully small, and the shutter speeds are not so zippy, I shoot in burst mode. Knowing that 1/4 of a millimeter is the difference between focus and blur, I just brace myself, the camera, the lens... then exhale and hold that shutter down. Like the Soldier of Fortune t-shirt says, "shoot'em all and let Lightroom sort them out later".

Since I've started doing this, I have discovered that Nikon makes reversing adapters for this very purpose and for both configurations I mentioned above. They will be ordered within the next day or so. Along with a set of triggers that ValleyFan hooked us up with.

And probably a few other things...

:)

[FBJ]

I figured you already knew about the reversing rings, otherwise I'd have mentioned them to you.

You can find them CHEAP on eBay!! You can also find those triggers CHEAP on eBay. I'm sure Sam had as much fun wiring them up as he did using them. Me? I'd probably solder my fingers together.

Extension tubes are good, too. Promaster makes a nice set for Nikon or Canon for about $140. Reversing rings are much cheaper and probably give you better magnification. But you won't have the ability to set f-stops using the ring.

[rinkrat]

Amazing stuff Puckmonkey!!

I just noticed that all of my parade pics were ISO 1600 .. D'oh!!

I have to get some default settings going and I mean right now.

[FBJ]

Amazing stuff Puckmonkey!!

I just noticed that all of my parade pics were ISO 1600 .. D'oh!!

I have to get some default settings going and I mean right now.

That's surprising, considering how noise-free they are. That little 40D's got a good sensor!

[VF]

I just noticed that all of my parade pics were ISO 1600 .. D'oh!!

Yeah, I really wish Canon would display the ISO in the viewfinder.

Actually, as I type this, it looks like the 450D that was announced today has ISO in viewfinder.

[DRGinLBC]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_7957.jpg

Walking around the neighborhood drunk with a camera and a dog

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_7954.jpg

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_7942_398610.jpg

That's right down the street from my place. Beautiful shots.

[VF]

When I was out shooting signs for the #2 photo challenge (here (http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1061993&postcount=17)), I would occasionally have to hide in my car from the rain (I'm shooting a 5D, which is not weather sealed, and I don't have a rain bag for it). This is from my 135mm shooting at f/2.0, at it's minimum focusing distance, shooting the windshield of my car (passenger side, so about 3' focal distance). I was amazed at how narrow the depth of field was.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20080127_5301.jpg
A little Lightroom Selenium toning on there.

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lone_sailor.jpg

I tried some HDR with lukewarm results. I'll have to keep at it.

[VF]

I tried some HDR with lukewarm results. I'll have to keep at it.

Ooo, I think this one has some good HDR potential! If it where up to me, I would brighten the sky on the on the periphery (if you can do so without desaturating your sky), trying to leave the clouds where they are, perhaps lighten the ground a bit, but I would leave the shadow of the statue pretty dark like it is now. That is an excellent start, nice shot!

[VF]

Something that might be interesting, sort of along the lines of the Photo Challenge, might be a Photo editing "conference" where someone can post something they want to work on, like a HDR, everyone can have their crack at it, then we can compare results and see other peoples work flow.

I say this because looking at Rinkrat's photo, it is a really cool image, and it makes me want to play around with HDR again, but I don't think I'm going to have a chance to shoot anything anytime soon, and it might be cool to see how other people do things. It probably would be pretty hard to do practically though because for it to be really useful, you would want to look at people Photoshop file, which mean we would need a server with a LOT of space to share things.

[rinkrat]

Hold it now. Hit it! Here's the Remix.


http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lone_sailor2.jpg


Being the first one I am just figuring out what I can tweak and what I cant. It still looks a little dull. I think I need to shoot raw and use a tripod to start. :)
Here it is resampled and mixed up a little, still not the real punch I need though. Getting there :)

Then again, the muted colors set an appropriate mood.

[FBJ]

Something that might be interesting, sort of along the lines of the Photo Challenge, might be a Photo editing "conference" where someone can post something they want to work on, like a HDR, everyone can have their crack at it, then we can compare results and see other peoples work flow.

I say this because looking at Rinkrat's photo, it is a really cool image, and it makes me want to play around with HDR again, but I don't think I'm going to have a chance to shoot anything anytime soon, and it might be cool to see how other people do things. It probably would be pretty hard to do practically though because for it to be really useful, you would want to look at people Photoshop file, which mean we would need a server with a LOT of space to share things.


That's an idea. Each of us could post the three raw image files used to make an HDR and then others could download and tweak and put up the results. As long as we're on the same page as far as programs are concerned (because cross-platform, I think we'd create more questions than we answer), I think we could learn a lot.

[FBJ]

Hold it now. Hit it! Here's the Remix.


http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lone_sailor2.jpg


Being the first one I am just figuring out what I can tweak and what I cant. It still looks a little dull. I think I need to shoot raw and use a tripod to start. :)
Here it is resampled and mixed up a little, still not the real punch I need though. Getting there :)

Then again, the muted colors set an appropriate mood.

I think the HDR version of that image would definitely benefit from a couple of things, the first being a tripod. The second would be to start with the exposure set for the shadows of the statue. If you can get that exposed correctly, the sky should be blown out. If you can bracket that first exposure by +/- 2 EV (+2 to get the darkest areas and -2 to get the sky), you should get three images that are far enough apart in range to create a pretty slick HDR.

If you start the bracketing with an exposure for the sky, then you'll not get enough of a change in detail in the sky itself to make a good HDR, and the level of detail in the shadows will be nonexistent.

And yes, you pretty much have to go RAW for the increase in data in each image.

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/belmont_pier.jpg

Belmont Pier - Another HDR

Next time I'l bracket more extremely and use a tripod and RAW. Thanks for all of the help guys. I'm surprised I held it still enough to work at all ;)
=========
EDIT: Second try

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/belmont_pier_2.jpg

[FBJ]

That one is SLICK! What program are you using to create the HDR images?

[FBJ]

Photo Contest!!

BISSELL(R) Invites Pet Lovers to Make Their Pet a Celebrity (http://www.cyperus.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-17-2008/0004738665&EDATE=THU+Jan+17+2008,+05:07+PM)

Online Contest to Choose Pet for the Packaging of the New Pet Hair
Eraser(TM) Vacuum

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., Jan. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- BISSELL Homecare, Inc.
wants to help pet owners make their pet a celebrity. In BISSELL's Most
Valuable Pet Photo Contest, one lucky pet will be featured on a new Pet
Hair Eraser(TM) vacuum package. Beginning January 1, 2008, pet owners can
enter their most valued dog or cat by e-mailing a photo of their furry
friend to petphotos@bissell.com.

[FBJ]

http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/01/new_nikon_d60_digital_slr_came.php

New Nikon D60 announced today.

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/the_lone_sailor2.jpg

Getting closer. A little noisy though.

[VF]

That is starting to look fantastic! I was completely wrong about the statue shadow, what you have there looks great! I think the sky could use a little tweaking, but that is looking awesome! It almost looks like an illustration.

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/the_lone_sailor_2_small_original.jpg

Another one

Lone Sailor Memorial, Long Beach, California

[FBJ]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/the_lone_sailor2.jpg

Getting closer. A little noisy though.

THAT is exactly what I envisioned when I looked at your original photograph, Mike. Outstanding!

[FBJ]

It almost looks like an illustration.

That's what I think is one of the coolest aspects of HDR images.

Take this for example (by Stuck In Customs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/)):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2272/2134218775_d0b1319f26.jpg

and this (also by Stuck In Customs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/)):

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/386333536_6e63211c55.jpg

I could never create an illustration like those. But with my camera, it's possible to create illustration-like images! I need a lot of work at getting to know what images would look good as HDR, especially when compared to that guy. He's awesome! One of my favorite photographers!

[rinkrat]

I think the whole key is to have a really wide dynamic range with lots of shadowed areas and some really bright highlights. Then (if you shoot raw like I should have) you can pull the details from the dark and light pics and complete the full spectrum of details from highlight detail to shadow detail and make it look great. I still have a long way to go but it's nice to see some improvement. It seems like I lucked out with clouds being a very good subject because of their wide range of textures.

[VF]

That's an idea. Each of us could post the three raw image files used to make an HDR and then others could download and tweak and put up the results. As long as we're on the same page as far as programs are concerned (because cross-platform, I think we'd create more questions than we answer), I think we could learn a lot.

OK, I started something up (http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=72252&referrerid=1078). Lets see how that goes, but I imagine people can just post in images they want others to work on as they like.

[VF]

New Sigma lens (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp) (or rocket launcher, your call). 200-500 f/2.8!! Comes with a tele-coverter which turns it into a 400-1000mm f/5.6. Has a dedicated Li-ion battery for focus and zoom. Only 24" long and 35lbs, Nikon, Canon, and Sigma mounts.

On a somewhat related note, DPReview.com has started new lens reviews, (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012913dpreviewlensreviews.asp) that have a pretty slick little widget so you can adjust the aperture and if the lens is a zoom adjust the zoom and watch the effect on the sharpness of the lens. Currently there are only 4 lenses tested, but if they keep up with this, it could be a handy resource.

[rinkrat]

$1 Image Stabilizer For Any Camera - Lose The Tripod

Cheapo I.S..

[HeShootsNScores]

$1 Image Stabilizer For Any Camera - Lose The Tripod (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1041948/1_image_stabilizer_for_any_camera_lose_the_tripod/)

Cheapo I.S..

Ha! Good Idea!:punk:

[FBJ]

That has to be the most jollyweehocken thing I've ever seen.

[FBJ]

Shot this one today at Universal CityWalk.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2234034650_b68bb92037.jpg

That's some f/1.4 DOF, baby! I love that little lens!

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/hummer.jpg

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

*Heads up, shutterbugs* Ovation channel is doing a photography show marathon today. DIG IT! Or at least TiVo 'em...

[FBJ]

Here's some more HDR play from me. From our little trip to the Natural History Museum today.

http://gcalvin.com/files/BonesB&WHDRsmall.jpg

This image was just kind of "bleh" in color. I was about to give up until I decided to check it out in black-and-white. WHAM! It looks awesome in b&w, I think.

Here's the color version:

http://gcalvin.com/files/BonesHDRsmall.jpg

And another (non-HDR) pic I really really liked the look of in black-and-white.

http://gcalvin.com/files/primaries/_GCC1724small.jpg

[rinkrat]

Love this one

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/swingin_utters.jpg

Swingin' Utters at Alex's Bar
I was trying out the new flash with the tupperware on the end. . (That you guys recommended)

[VF]

Love this one

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/swingin_utters.jpg

Swingin' Utters at Alex's Bar
I was trying out the new flash with the tupperware on the end. . (That you guys recommended)

That is an awesome shot!

[rinkrat]

Hand held HDR>

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/virgin2.jpg

[FBJ]

I hit Hooper in Chatsworth for a couple things earlier today. None of which they had in stock, but whatever.

I did get a chance to play around with a new 24-70 f/2.8 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm) lens, though. This thing is the absolute shizz-nizzle, as a matter of fact. It will be a great all-purpose lens on the D3. On the D200, it's equivalent is 36-105, so even then it would be a good carry-around lens. The advantage is it's speed at the longer focal lengths on the D200.

I wish I could afford it.

The really great thing about this was that I could focus as close as about 6 inches! Ultra cool!

I was going to try and save for the whole kaboodle as a package-purchase (the D3, the 14-24 f/2.8, and the 24-70 f/2.8 all together), but I might not be able to wait to afford the D3 to buy this lens.

[FBJ]

Part of the reason I went to Hooper yesterday was to have my wife's Powershot A640 fixed. Her screen went Tango-Uniform after the cat knocked it off the counter onto the tile floor in the kitchen.

They told me it would be $200 for the part (the little LCD screen) and $50 for labor through Canon to repair. Oh and tack on an additional $25 for Hooper to ship it back and forth.

**** that.

I went looking yesterday for camera parts and came across a site called darntoothysam.com (http://www.darntoothysam.com/). For $60, they're shipping me the replacement screen. It'll be about a five-minute job for me to swap the bad one out for the new one.

They've got LOTS of parts in stock for lots of different camera models. So don't throw away that digital point-and-shoot or pay big bucks to have it repaired! If you've got even the smallest ability with a screwdriver, some of the minor problems that people have with cameras can be fixed for 1/4 of the cost of sending it in for repair or buying a new camera.

[rinkrat]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2374/2255768548_5aa01d9762_b.jpg

Love this one from FF 10

[BleedingPurple]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2374/2255768548_5aa01d9762_b.jpg

Love this one from FF 10

Very nice, love the colors. Hey RR, is that your finger on the right? ;-)

[VF]

Has anyone been able to find the rules regarding cameras at Tip-a-King?

[rinkrat]

No that is my penis.

[FBJ]

No that is my penis.

Kinda short and stubby, ain't it?

:D

[FBJ]

AND in other news...

I think I've found the compact digital camera I want.

Sigma DP1 (http://sigma-dp1.com/)

SLR-sized, full-color image sensor
14.1 megapixel
RAW capture capability
Auto-bracketing to +/- 3EV

Downsides are that it'll only shoot to ISO800, has a fixed focal length of about 28mm, and f/4 is the widest aperture you can get.

Personally, I think the big image sensor, 14 MP, and RAW capture overshadow all the negatives I can find.

Comes out in late March for around $800.

Ack. This or the Powershot G9!?!? I need a small camera, but I should probably just stick the money I'd spend into the savings account. Only $3000 left to save for the D3!! lol

[VF]

And it has the Foveon X3 direct image sensor. I was seriously tempted by their bodies for a while due to that sensor, but in the end (because I hadn't seen any shot from it at the time) I went with the only full frame I could afford at the time and the Canon glass. But having the only sensor that offers true color at every pixel is pretty darn cool, and having it in a little p&s is mighty tempting.

[Unfiltered]

This kind of thing is going to dramatically change photography.

Adobe (http://blip.tv/file/660907)

[FBJ]

A little blog write-up of my camera repair escapades the other day:

Rant Air - Welcome Aboard! ? Blog Archive ? Get Geeky (Again)… (http://gcalvin.com/blog/?p=177)

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/hummer2_original.jpg

One of my favorite subjects :)

[PuckMonkey]

On the subject of birds... Went to the park today with the boy and caught a wild scene - Crane vs Lizard. The bird stalked the lizard for a bit, then POW! The lizard put up a hell of a fight which, according to my timestamps, lasted a solid 4-minutes.

BTW, the crane won.

http://www.cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/headlock.jpg

[rinkrat]

That's insane! Great ****ing photo PM!!! Looks like he already has one halfway down his throat.

This is why it pays to take the camera everywhere. (Which I never do).

[FBJ]

That's just awesome!

I brought my camera with me to work this week for this four-day. Nothing fancy, just the 50mm lens. We'll see what I can come up with. I need to start carrying it everywhere I go.

[rinkrat]

I submitted a pic to CBS News - Weather Photo of the Day and it is displayed on their web site so I guess it will be oin the weather report backdrop at sometime or another. :)

cbs2.com - Josh Rubenstein's 'Photo Of The Day' (http://cbs2.com/slideshows/Josh.Rubenstein.Photo.20.644253.html?rid=17)

[HeShootsNScores]

hey RR, is that the HDR version of the photo that you used? Rather... did you sumbit the HDR photo?

[rinkrat]

Yeah, they wanted a horizontal shot so I made a new HDR from three other pics I took on the same day as the one I originally made. ;) That statue is about a block away and I have this weird bond with it for various reasons. ;)

[FBJ]

I submitted a pic to CBS News - Weather Photo of the Day and it is displayed on their web site so I guess it will be oin the weather report backdrop at sometime or another. :)

cbs2.com - Josh Rubenstein's 'Photo Of The Day' (http://cbs2.com/slideshows/Josh.Rubenstein.Photo.20.644253.html?rid=17)

Kick ass, Mike! I liked that photo, too. Glad you're gettin' some press out of it!

[Unruely35]

OK kids... Camera help needed!

As a few of you may know, I have been unceremoniously pwnd out of the Photo Challenge thanks to my kid breaking my camera. He's been performing manual labor around the house so Ive almost forgiven him. Anyway, I need a replacement and have decided to step up the game from the $99 ghettocam I was rollin hard with.

Im lookin at this: Canon | EOS Digital Rebel XT (a.k.a. 350D) Digital | 0209B001 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=371189&is=REG)

It would be used for still shots, family trips, and occasionally sports photography featuring my kids and their activities.

Im probably going to buy this one, but what do you suggest I need as far as peripherals to make it work well for the uses Ive described?

Thanks in Advance. :)

[VF]

You are going to need a lens for that bad boy. I'm not sure what your budget is, but based on the body, here are a few suggestions:

The "kit lens" - This is the lens that is usually packaged with the body, the Ef 18-55. There are a couple of different versions of this lens, the original, which is the non IS (image stabilization) gave this lens a very bad name. It was renown for poor build quality, bad focus, and really bad chromatic adoration (color fringing around high contrast areas). The newer version, the IS version, is quite a bit better, but about 50 bucks more. The IS is not a bad lens for the cost, but still not a stellar lens.

The "Nifty 50" - the ef 50mm f/1.8, about $80. Although this lens is a prime (it doesn't zoom at all) I would recommend it over the kit lens if you can live without a zoom. Still the same build quality (plastic fantastic), but better image quality, and a lot faster than the kit lens, which means this lens will let in a lot more light than the kit lens, so you can take images in darker situations at the same shutter speed.

The EF 50m f/1.4 - About $220 more than the nifty 50, but the advantage is better build quality, and full time manual focus (which neither the nifty 50 or the kit lens have), so you can auto focus on a subject and without flipping a switch on the lens, manual focus to fine tune. It will also autofocus a bit faster than the f/1.8. If you have the cash, this is a fantastic lens on a Rebel body.

The EF 85mm F/1.8 - Very similar both in price and build quality (actually, it is build a bit better than the 50 F/1.4, and even faster focus), but just a little longer, which will help you get closer to your subject. This is a great tight portrait lens, and would probably be good for kids indoor sports.

I would say on the Rebel type sensor (APS-C sensor) the "gold standard" for a nice walk around zoom lens would be the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8. This is an amazing lens, great zoom range, fast, nice build quality, but much more than those listed above. Again, I'm not sure what you budget is, so this might be totally out of the range, but a great lens.

Beyond lenses, you are going to need compact flash cards for the camera. The Rebel doesn't make huge files, so you can probably get by with a pair of 2GB cards ($20 for SanDisk cards). You might want to get a card reader, so you don't have to plug the whole camera into the computer to down load your images.

Beyond that, it is really just accessories. A tripod and a flash are the two big ones that come to mind, but you certainly don't have to pick those up to get started. Unfortunately, photography is a expensive and addictive hobby, so you will always find things to spend money on, but really, the body and the lens is all you really need.

[FBJ]

I was checking out a travel magazine that had been left on the airplane the other day when I came across this advert on the very back cover:

http://gcalvin.com/files/BeefAds/BeefRiver.jpg

I was totally blown away! The perspective is amazing! It gives the two slabs of meat the look of cliffs standing above that river of gravy! And the parsley (or whatever leafy green that is off in the distance) made the whole scene look even more like a landscape! That's some pretty amazing macro work and depth of field control, right there. Anyone think a tilt-shift lens (like the one ValleyFan used for Challenge #3) was used?

There's some more ads like it:

Beef Beach:
http://gcalvin.com/files/BeefAds/BeefBeach.jpg

Beef Canyon:
http://gcalvin.com/files/BeefAds/BeefCanyon.jpg

Beef Cliffs:
http://gcalvin.com/files/BeefAds/BeefCliffs.jpg

Beef Mountain:
http://gcalvin.com/files/BeefAds/BeefMountain.jpg

Beef Plains:
http://gcalvin.com/files/BeefAds/BeefPlains.jpg

Great bit of advertising photography there. I should cook up a big ass steak to see if I can replicate it.

[rinkrat]

Good choice. Get it cheap here with no tax or shipping:

Amazon.com: Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 Lens (Silver): Electronics (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007QKMQY?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0007QKMQY)

[FBJ]

AUGH!!! Another Canonite among us!!

I need to rally my Nikonians!!

[DRice]

Personally, I am going to wait for the reviews to come in on this...

Amazon.com: Canon Digital Rebel XSi 12MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens (Black): Camera & Photo (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012YA85A?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0012YA85A)

...before I make a purchase. I bought my wife a Canon 20d a few years ago, but we need a second camera for backup and also so I'm not bored while she's out taking pictures.

[Unruely35]

Too rich for my blood, DRice. I have to justify my purchase to both my checkbook and the ability to take pictures at even an amateur level. :mhihi:

Hopefully with the help of the challenge threads I will someday reach the point of mediocrity!

[FBJ]

Mediocrity is what I strive towards. I mean, why shoot for standards you can't achieve, right?

[FBJ]

Do you think I've gone to far?

I did it.

Guilty as charged.

I did it.

It was me, right or wrong.

I did it.

Yeah.

http://www.purelygadgets.co.uk/images/user/products/Nikon_D3_14-24.jpg

Now I've just gotta wait a couple weeks till it gets here.

[VF]

Oooohhhhhhhh SNAP!

Full frame is awesome, you are going to love it. The one downside is not having quite as much reach, but everything else makes it worth it. You going to keep the old body?



Jealous congrats!

[FBJ]

You going to keep the old body?

Yeah. I think so.

It took a lot of rationalization to convince myself I was worthy of owning a tool that capable. Fact is, I'm still not quite sure about it. It helps that I've seen much improvement in my own skill level in the last year (mostly due to the practice I'm getting shooting for the DSLR thread and the Challenges). It also helps that I've got a very patient, supportive, and understanding wife for whom I count my blessings on a daily basis.

I guess the really good thing is that I've got 3-4 weeks to re-think things or change my mind before it arrives at the camera shop.

[DeaderFan]

Nice! Congratulations!

Did you show the wife how good that 14-24mm lens looks on the front of it? You know you can't get a great suit without the tie to go with it.

[Unfiltered]

Mediocrity is what I strive towards. I mean, why shoot for standards you can't achieve, right?

BAD GLENN! THAT'S A VERY BAD GLENN! BE NICE!

[ianmonsta]

thats the exact camera i have and i love it, its a great beginners slr but at the same time is a good advanced camera at a great price.

[VF]

Full frame is awesome, you are going to love it. The one downside is not having quite as much reach, but everything else makes it worth it. You going to keep the old body?

Yeah. I think so.

It took a lot of rationalization to convince myself I was worthy of owning a tool that capable.


Well, the nice thing with the DSLR bodies is that now the mega pixel race is all but over, the body turn over is less and less, my 5D is case in point, almost 3 years old with no replacement announced (and now I have just domed myself to a replacement being announced 5 minutes after I post this). So a mondo body like the D3 starts to become more of an investment rather than an expense.

As for keeping the D200, I would say if at all possible, I would think it would be advantages to hang on to for your long shot camera. While the D3 is a great sport camera, with full frame, it is going to be strongest for you either with really long lenses (do I smell a AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR in your future ;) ) or at a shorter distance, as you won't have the crop factor working for you.

That camera is going to be kick ass! Even if you aren't excited, I am :)

[FBJ]

Well, the nice thing with the DSLR bodies is that now the mega pixel race is all but over, the body turn over is less and less, my 5D is case in point, almost 3 years old with no replacement announced (and now I have just domed myself to a replacement being announced 5 minutes after I post this). So a mondo body like the D3 starts to become more of an investment rather than an expense.

Precisely my feeling on the subject. This is an investement for me. In fact, if it ends up being half as kick ass as I've heard it is, it'll be the last DSLR I ever buy.


As for keeping the D200, I would say if at all possible, I would think it would be advantages to hang on to for your long shot camera.

There's a couple reasons why I plan on holding on to the D200. First, it really is a great camera with a LOT of potential (even with the D3 in my stable). Second, while I'm out with my wife, I can teach her to the ins-and-outs of DSLR photography using the D200 while I'm beside her shooting the D3. Third, if I go out by myself, it'll be nice to have one body with the long glass on it and one with the wide-angle glass on it. Fourth, plain-and-simple backup.


While the D3 is a great sport camera, with full frame, it is going to be strongest for you either with really long lenses (do I smell a AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR in your future ;) ) or at a shorter distance, as you won't have the crop factor working for you.

You smell nothing of the sort. At $8,500, that lens costs as much as the D3, the 14-24 f/2.8, and the 24-70 f/2.8 combined. If I need that much glass, then I'll rent it. Besides, with the 2x teleconverter I already own, I've got the length in attaching the 70-200 f/2.8 to it. Of course, it won't be as fast.


That camera is going to be kick ass! Even if you aren't excited, I am :)

Agreed. I'm excited...just shell shocked at the amount of cash I'll be dropping when it arrives. I'm sure that when I've got it in my hands, all the butterflies will vanish...replaced with a sly smirk on my face and thoughts of world domination.

Hopefully it'll be here before Red Bull San Diego in May.

[FBJ]

Testing out the macro function of the little PowerShot G9 I picked up today:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2099/2327689580_52905acaea_o.jpg

Not bad for a P&S. Shot in RAW at 800 ISO and processed in Lightroom. I'll be playing with the functions and features of this little gem on my trip this week.

[HeShootsNScores]

I like Nikons better... try the nikon d40x...

same deal... just feels more... I dunno... secure in my hand.

[FBJ]

More from the new G9.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2330427506_7fc985cb5b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2329573913_8b6b66b5ca.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2329558433_8bb9bc7eed.jpg

I grow more and more impressed with the abilities of this little point-and-shoot. Aside from the built-in limitations of this style of camera, I can only find one thing I really don't like about it...and that is simply the fact that it didn't come with a wrist strap. The viewfinder is also quite ****ty, but who cares when you've got a 3" screen on the back?

Metal body. BIG screen. Stabilized. Good zoom. RAW mode. Nothing not to like.

[DeaderFan]

Finally! Phil Askey over at dpreview.com posted a review of the D300: Nikon D300 Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/)


I have been lamenting whether I should have bit the bullet and gone for the D3 like FBJ. Phil's conclusion that "there's simply no better semi-professional digital SLR on the market," makes me feel a little better. Of course I could save up now for the D3 and I would have a great 2-body camera combo! I'm not sure I could convince my wife though.

BTW, speaking of the wife, just like FBJ, my wife has inherited my D200 and she is really enjoying it and has learned a lot about photography.

[HeShootsNScores]

Finally! Phil Askey over at dpreview.com posted a review of the D300: Nikon D300 Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/)


I have been lamenting whether I should have bit the bullet and gone for the D3 like FBJ. Phil's conclusion that "there's simply no better semi-professional digital SLR on the market," makes me feel a little better. Of course I could save up now for the D3 and I would have a great 2-body camera combo! I'm not sure I could convince my wife though.

BTW, speaking of the wife, just like FBJ, my wife has inherited my D200 and she is really enjoying it and has learned a lot about photography.


I want one! Sooooo bad! But with the wife-to-be becoming my wife in May... it doesn't look pretty yet. Maybe one day

[rinkrat]

SanDisk 12GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card Part Number SDCFX312288 @ samys.com (http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=10096)

$70 after mail-in rebate for a few more days

Here is the ad
http://www.samys.com/ads/current_ad.pdf

FBJ has been encouraging me to shoot RAW so I've been looking for a huge CF card.
This one should fit the bill, guess I'll have to get on the road so I can have it for Derby Dolls tomorrow!

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

I like Nikons better... try the nikon d40x...

same deal... just feels more... I dunno... secure in my hand.


You nailed it. Recently I did about 2 months of research before narrowing it down and choosing, and the Nikon D40, Rebel XTi, and Olympus E-510 were very similar in price, features, and ratings. But when I went and handled them in person (before ordering at Amazon of course) I was surprised how uncomfortable 2 of the 3 were for my particular hands. That clinched it. The Olympus has it's cons, but was heavenly in my hand--like a custom-made glove. But each person is different. The Canon is known for being a great "action" camera, and having young kids that might be perfect. The Nikon (sister-in-law has one) takes AWESOME pics right out of the box, and seems to be very intuitive and great in low light. But bottom line if it feels bad or clumsy in your hands you'll be less excited to use it. If ordering on-line, PLEASE go somewhere and hold them first.

Good luck in your search Ruely!

[HeShootsNScores]

You nailed it. Recently I did about 2 months of research before narrowing it down and choosing, and the Nikon D40, Rebel XTi, and Olympus E-510 were very similar in price, features, and ratings. But when I went and handled them in person (before ordering at Amazon of course) I was surprised how uncomfortable 2 of the 3 were for my particular hands. That clinched it. The Olympus has it's cons, but was heavenly in my hand--like a custom-made glove. But each person is different. The Canon is known for being a great "action" camera, and having young kids that might be perfect. The Nikon (sister-in-law has one) takes AWESOME pics right out of the box, and seems to be very intuitive and great in low light. But bottom line if it feels bad or clumsy in your hands you'll be less excited to use it. If ordering on-line, PLEASE go somewhere and hold them first.

Good luck in your search Ruely!

Thats excatly what I'm saying! I liked the E510... and almost got that... except for the one feature I didn't like was that the focal lengths or something to that effect of the kit lenses were cut in thirds, due to the mount? I think the DSLR junkies (FBJ, ValleyFan, Deader...) can explain this further.

I felt like I could Break the Cannon... which steered me away from it.

The Nikon, however, felt like a camera to me. My dad and uncle have Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 respectivley, and I grew up learning to shoot on those... ... all metal bodies.... I just wanted something that I felt would feel like a camera.

Plus, the Cannon's trigger location felt awkward to me. I'm a musician, (saxophone, woodwinds, piano...) so I have longer fingers... and the cannons location made it very awkward to press for me.

I echo Otto's post... HOLD THE CAMERA BEFORE YOU BUY IT!

[VF]

...was that the focal lengths or something to that effect of the kit lenses were cut in thirds...

I think what you are describing is what is called the crop or lens multiplier. If the sensor of the camera is smaller than 24mm x 36mm (which the vast majority are in the dSLR world), the lens will feel longer than it is. Most Nikons have a 1.5x multiplier, so a 100mm lens will look like a 150mm, while most Canons are 1.6x, so a 100mm will look like a 160mm.

While the body ergonomics are important, being happy with the glass that is available for that mount should also be a major deciding factor. Stereotyping here, but Nikon is fantastic on the wide end. Canon has been catching up a bit with the EF-s 10-22 and the EF 14 f/2.8 L mkII, but still in favor of Nikon. If you like shooting long, Canon has a few more options than Nikon, but Nikon has been catching up on the long end.

Oh, and both the OM-1 (my dad's camera, which I shot on all the time) and the OM-2 (stolen by an ex-girlfriend) where both amazing cameras. I loved those things.

[FBJ]

Dude! Thanks for that!!! I think I'll head out and pick up two of those tomorrow. The D3 has dual CF slots!! 24GB BAAAAYBAAAAY!!!

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

SanDisk 12GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card Part Number SDCFX312288 @ samys.com (http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=10096)

$70 after mail-in rebate for a few more days

Here is the ad
http://www.samys.com/ads/current_ad.pdf

FBJ has been encouraging me to shoot RAW so I've been looking for a huge CF card.
This one should fit the bill, guess I'll have to get on the road so I can have it for Derby Dolls tomorrow!




12 gigs???????? That's INCREDIBLE for the price. I always shoot double format (jpeg super hi qual. + RAW) and have plenty of room on a 2 or 4 gig card. But I'm emptying often, shooting little, and well, err, nuf said. But RAW RAWKS. Only one problem may be importing and storage. Double format takes up lots of HD space. I'm no professional, but a 12GB card sounds pretty damn cool...

[FBJ]

SanDisk 12GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card Part Number SDCFX312288 @ samys.com (http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=10096)

$70 after mail-in rebate for a few more days

Here is the ad
http://www.samys.com/ads/current_ad.pdf

FBJ has been encouraging me to shoot RAW so I've been looking for a huge CF card.
This one should fit the bill, guess I'll have to get on the road so I can have it for Derby Dolls tomorrow!

One thing I didn't notice about the ad before I got to Samy's this morning was that the more of these you buy, the bigger the rebate. Buy two and the rebate is $130!! So it's like buy-one, get-one free!! You get the retail price of one back in the mail!

I also found out that Samy's has the D3 for rent. Only $300 A DAY!! LOL

[rinkrat]

I put mine in the camera and switched to RAW and the counter stays on 999 photos left because that is high as it can go. Sweet! I checked Amazon where the 8 gig Extreme II is the same price as this 12 gig Extreme III. Great deal. ;) The thing writes super-fast too!

[rinkrat]

When I started using a flash a few months ago I was happy to get the exposure of the main subject right. Now that I've had time to get the settings down I'm beginning to look at the exposure of the background that is done by the camera like in a normal photo by changing the ISO, exposure etc while still getting the same good lighting on the foreground subject with the flash. This way the flash works almost like a fill light instead of the main source of illumination with vast blackness in the backgound.

This is all basic stuff, but being so new to this flash deal I have to learn a step at a time.

Probably what I'll do tonight at the Derby Dolls gig is set the camera to full manual mode and then on-camera meter for the background settings and let the ETTL-II on the flash do the foreground.

Here's an example:

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/not_good_original.jpg

It's a little nicer to finally have some settings etc. and be able to think about things like this now that I have somewhat of a system. Can't wait to try out some more fun things tonight! I love this ****.

[FBJ]

Well...filling out the rebate paperwork for those SanDisk cards. Come to find out that they don't issue you a check for the refund, but a pre-paid VISA card. I don't imagine it's much different, but whatever.

[FBJ]

I put mine in the camera and switched to RAW and the counter stays on 999 photos left because that is high as it can go. Sweet! I checked Amazon where the 8 gig Extreme II is the same price as this 12 gig Extreme III. Great deal. ;) The thing writes super-fast too!

Something sounds fishy there. My D200 gets 633 captures remaining with the 12gb card in it when set to RAW + Jpeg Basic. It gets 728 when set to capture RAW only.

As an aside, I learned that my understanding of the camera was a bit off. From what I remember reading, I understood that the camera would not show an image on the display after a capture if shooting in RAW only (without the .jpg sidecar image, that is). So since I started shooting RAW, I've been shooting in RAW + JPEG Basic. Just found out that you can indeed see the image on the screen of the captures you make.

So what's the point of me shooting RAW + JPEG? I don't see one anymore, so I turned off the JPEG capture. Yay! More space on my cards!

[rinkrat]

Yeah remembered you saying that but tried just setting RAW anyways and it worked so I left it. I thought maybe it was a Nikon thing. ;)

One thing that I can't do is multiple exposures on a frame. I guess that's what Photoshop is for.

[PuckMonkey]

Funny, because I've been shooting RAW only, and am actually considering shooting RAW +jpeg. I'm still tooling around with a comfortable work flow, and can see the benefit of my first selection edit being with jpegs. My next volume shoot will be my first experiment with it, so I may find I'm wasting my time. But the thought of being able to quickly junk test shots and soft focus shots without waiting for them to render in Lightroom makes it worth a try.

[rinkrat]

I always go straight to the chip and do my first deleting before even importing them.

[FBJ]

I always go straight to the chip and do my first deleting before even importing them.

Same.

I usually have some downtime between capture and import where I can hunch over the camera and poke at the images. I decide what the ****can and what to keep and import. After the import, I decide what's worthy of post-processing and flag them. The rest stay in my image folder. Never know when you'll need something that's in one of them.

[HeShootsNScores]

I think what you are describing is what is called the crop or lens multiplier. If the sensor of the camera is smaller than 24mm x 36mm (which the vast majority are in the dSLR world), the lens will feel longer than it is. Most Nikons have a 1.5x multiplier, so a 100mm lens will look like a 150mm, while most Canons are 1.6x, so a 100mm will look like a 160mm.

While the body ergonomics are important, being happy with the glass that is available for that mount should also be a major deciding factor. Stereotyping here, but Nikon is fantastic on the wide end. Canon has been catching up a bit with the EF-s 10-22 and the EF 14 f/2.8 L mkII, but still in favor of Nikon. If you like shooting long, Canon has a few more options than Nikon, but Nikon has been catching up on the long end.

Oh, and both the OM-1 (my dad's camera, which I shot on all the time) and the OM-2 (stolen by an ex-girlfriend) where both amazing cameras. I loved those things.


My dad's OM-2 is in MINT condition. Like... not a scratch. He had it in a leather body for years, and he took immaculate care of his lenses and stuff. I'll take some pics and post them. He doesn't use it anymore... not cost effective.... but the camera still looks brand new, if you can believe it. My uncles OM-1's battery exploded in it, so while he cleaned it out, it has a little bit more wear and tear on it.

[VF]

I always go straight to the chip and do my first deleting before even importing them.



Same.

Wow, you guys live on the edge! ;) I have come to the realization that I don't trust myself dumping photos off the camera unless it is seriously and obviously flawed (like lens cap on flawed). Usually the ones that I suspect are bad actually end up being so, but every once in a while, I decide that one that I thought where poor when I was taking or reviewing in the camera actually has some merit to it and with a little help, I can pull it out.

I have also been a little interested in trying the RAW +JPG to render faster in Lightroom, has anyone done it? It would be nice if it stacked the two (with the JPG at the top of the stack), but I haven't had a chance to play with it.

Thinking about going RAW +JPG makes the Samy's sale pretty attractive, but I can't seem to find the newest firmware for my camera that will allow it to recognize a card over 8Gb. Perhaps I spend that cash on some grip equipment instead :)

[FBJ]

Your camera won't recognize cards over 8Gb?

Damn Canons suck! ;)

[VF]

It's an OLD camera :)

[santiclaws]

Let me ask a basic question - why do you want a DSLR? They do not automagically produce better photos than a regular "point and click." A lot of people buy DSLR's because they are marketed heavily and because their friends/neighbors have them, despite the fact that it is the completely wrong camera for them. DSLR's are capable of taking better pictures than just "point and click" cameras, but they won't do it by themselves - the photographer must be capable of taking good pictures as well. Most people use DSLR's to take bad pictures which may have been better pictures if the camera was NOT a DSLR.

A DSLR is not the camera for you if:

1. You don't really intend to learn photography - you know, how light works, f-stops, apertures, etc. The whole point of the (D)SLR is to give the photographer more control over the photography process, and if you aren't capable of using that control, there is no point in having a DSLR. If you are just taking pictures on the "auto" setting, the advantages of the DSLR are lost and only the disadvantages, such as the larger size and weight, remain.

2. You don't intend to become at least somewhat proficient at Photoshop or similar software. Generally, DSLR photos look worse without post processing than a consumer-camera photo because they are not as sharp or as vivid. A consumer camera does quite a bit of processing in camera. The DSLR end-user is expected to do much of the post processing, such as sharpness and color adjustments, etc. him/herself.

3. You don't intend to spend good money on lenses. The "kit" lens that comes with the overwhelming majority of DSLR's, especially low-end DSLR's, are utter crap. When buying a DSLR you're buying a camera system, not just a camera body. The lens is far and away the most important part of that camera system, not the body. For most pros and serious amateurs a camera body (or bodies) constitute a small fraction of their investment in lenses. Every DSLR is capable of taking good pictures, but that's hardly the case with every lens. If you buy a DSLR but do not use it with a good lens, you take away your DSLR's capability to take better quality images than a "point and click."

Finally, if you do decide that a DSLR is for you, don't just look at Canon and Nikon. They're both excellent brands that make excellent products, but they're not the only ones and other manufacturers may offer cameras which have important features which Canon/Nikon do not have, either at the same price point or at all.

[FBJ]

Let me ask a basic question - why do you want a DSLR? They do not automagically produce better photos than a regular "point and click." A lot of people buy DSLR's because they are marketed heavily and because their friends/neighbors have them, despite the fact that it is the completely wrong camera for them. DSLR's are capable of taking better pictures than just "point and click" cameras, but they won't do it by themselves - the photographer must be capable of taking good pictures as well. Most people use DSLR's to take bad pictures which may have been better pictures if the camera was NOT a DSLR.

A DSLR is not the camera for you if:

1. You don't really intend to learn photography - you know, how light works, f-stops, apertures, etc. The whole point of the (D)SLR is to give the photographer more control over the photography process, and if you aren't capable of using that control, there is no point in having a DSLR. If you are just taking pictures on the "auto" setting, the advantages of the DSLR are lost and only the disadvantages, such as the larger size and weight, remain.

2. You don't intend to become at least somewhat proficient at Photoshop or similar software. Generally, DSLR photos look worse without post processing than a consumer-camera photo because they are not as sharp or as vivid. A consumer camera does quite a bit of processing in camera. The DSLR end-user is expected to do much of the post processing, such as sharpness and color adjustments, etc. him/herself.

3. You don't intend to spend good money on lenses. The "kit" lens that comes with the overwhelming majority of DSLR's, especially low-end DSLR's, are utter crap. When buying a DSLR you're buying a camera system, not just a camera body. The lens is far and away the most important part of that camera system, not the body. For most pros and serious amateurs a camera body (or bodies) constitute a small fraction of their investment in lenses. Every DSLR is capable of taking good pictures, but that's hardly the case with every lens. If you buy a DSLR but do not use it with a good lens, you take away your DSLR's capability to take better quality images than a "point and click."

Finally, if you do decide that a DSLR is for you, don't just look at Canon and Nikon. They're both excellent brands that make excellent products, but they're not the only ones and other manufacturers may offer cameras which have important features which Canon/Nikon do not have, either at the same price point or at all.

I've gotta agree with all that.

[Unruely35]

Great questions!

Well, to be honest there are a few reasons I wanted to go DSLR.

I have small kids and want the ability to take pictures of them during their activities that will not be blurred from a distance (sports/action photography). With my Ghettocam, I was able to take those fun close up candids when we went to hang out (mostly of friends hanging out or whatever), but when I wanted to get actions of my son playing basketball or my daughter playing softball the quality fell short. In addition, I would probably start taking pictures of my friends playing hockey. Cheaper to be the organ-eye-sation photog than make them pay out the ass per picture at tournaments.

Also, I have specific visions of the type of artwork I want to put in my home, and frankly I would like the flexibility to be able to learn to take those pics myself than pay horrendous amounts for something that isnt exactly what I wanted but is a similarly themed framed art piece. I guess Ive always wanted to get out there and start photography as a hobby with potential, but havent had the time until now to do so.

I do have enough interest in photography to really want to learn how to take a great picture and I am more than willing to take the time to learn how to use whatever I purchase properly, but Im not sure if I have enough interest to justify cost in what several people here have said they have spent. Im not a professional, and I am not looking to become professional... so I dont want to get in the habit of spending what ValleyFan does on a lens. That's why I started the thread, for good suggestions from knowledgeable people.

Finally, Im sick to death of being smoked out of the Photography Challenge threads! mhihi:

[santiclaws]

As far as lenses are concerned, figure out what you want and make ebay your friend. You can get great deals on good lenses if you're willing to go used. Lenses are not like camera bodies which are now almost like commodities - a great lens today will still be a great lens 10 years from now when your camera is hopelessly out of date.

If you're shooting kids/sports, the ability to auto focus quickly/accurately will be extremely important, so pay special attention to comparisons on that basis.

I would recommend that you take a close look at Sony and Pentax cameras. Both offer in-body image stabilization, which means that every lens that you buy will be image-stabilized, a capability which Nikon and Canon build into the lenses themselves. The in-lens stabilization is supposed to perform a little better than in-body, but the image-stabilized lenses are damn expensive.

Image stabilization will give you the ability to take sharper pictures of fast action and in low light. If you're going to be shooting kids/sports, especially indoors and especially hockey (which is commonly known as one of the toughest sports to shoot because of the fast action and the white ice), image stabilization would be a very important feature.

[VF]

I dont want to get in the habit of spending what ValleyFan does on a lens.

Hey! I don't have a problem, I can stop any time I want! Besides, FBJ spends more than me (at least that is what I tell myself to make me feel better) ;)


Image stabilization will give you the ability to take sharper pictures of fast action and in low light. If you're going to be shooting kids/sports, especially indoors and especially hockey (which is commonly known as one of the toughest sports to shoot because of the fast action and the white ice), image stabilization would be a very important feature.

Image stabilization will help in low light, but not much for fast action as the players will still be blurred. Shutter speed is your only friend here, so you want fast lenses, for sports f/2.8 is going to be the slowest you are really going to want to go.

For those who don't know, the lower the f number, the faster the lens. f numbers are also logarithmic, so a lens that is one f stop faster lets in twice the amount of light, so:

f/1.0
f/1.4 (half as much light as f/1.0)
f/2.0 (half as much light as f/1.4)
f/2.8 (half as much light as f/2.0)
f/4.0 (half as much light as f/2.8)
f/5.6 (half as much light as f/4.0)
etc.

Another thing to stuff in the mind hole, lenses with the same aperture (f stop) may not let in the same amount of light, as the f stop measurement is simply the focal length of the lens divided by the lens aperture. The transmission efficiency of the lens is measured in T stops (which you won't see listed on most still photo lenses, but it is very common in high tolerance settings like motion picture). So if you have a prime lens and a zoom, and they are both an f/2.8, the prime will actually meeter a little brighter because there is less glass for the light to go through (not much, maybe a 1/3rd of a stop, but it is something). Just something to think about if you are trying to eek out every last bit of light for the cost.

[FBJ]

Besides, FBJ spends more than me (at least that is what I tell myself to make me feel better) ;)


QUIET, YOU!!! Don't you know my wife reads the boards??

(Hi, sweetheart! I'm glad you like the earrings and bracelet I bought you last week!)

[Unruely35]

Hey! I don't have a problem, I can stop any time I want! Besides, FBJ spends more than me (at least that is what I tell myself to make me feel better) ;)
<snip>
The rest of that post looked like algebra, and quite frankly I got lost.

Stuff like that is scaring me away from looking at what I probably should be looking at.

Indimidation factor: 10.

[VF]

QUIET, YOU!!! Don't you know my wife reads the boards??

(Hi, sweetheart! I'm glad you like the earrings and bracelet I bought you last week!)

Right, I meant RinkRat. RinkRat spends WAY more than both me and FBJ combined. Total addict.

[VF]

The rest of that post looked like algebra, and quite frankly I got lost.

Stuff like that is scaring me away from looking at what I probably should be looking at.

Indimidation factor: 10.

What I was trying to say is if you are coming down to it, and your main goal is shooting sports, if you are trying to decide between a fast prime lens, a slower prime with IS, or a zoom (which is slower than the prime), go for the fastest lens if sport shooting (or just fast moving kids) is your main goal.

Zooms are great in that they are sort of the jack of all trades, but they often also suffer from being the jack of all trades in that they are the master of none, as they tend not to be super fast or super sharp, and the ones that are will be super expensive.

Ideally, you might want to try a few lenses out before you buy (rent or borrow) to give you an idea of what you are interested in.

[Unruely35]

I think I might need someone to come with me. LOL


Ruely has teh fears.

[santiclaws]

I think I might need someone to come with me. LOL


Ruely has teh fears.

I'd suggest doing some online research to narrow down your choices to 2-3 cameras on price/features and then go down to a store and fondle the candidates. They have to fit comfortably in your hand.

The good news is that I'm not aware of a bad entry-level DSLR out there - they're all pretty good these days, so you can't really go wrong.

[Unruely35]

I have already publically fondled the cameras of choice and the Canon and the Nikon were the finalists.

My questions really leaned on the peripherals.

[jlhamon]

I can't believe this thread is still going!

[HeShootsNScores]

I have already publically fondled the cameras of choice and the Canon and the Nikon were the finalists.

My questions really leaned on the peripherals.

It came down to these for me too...

I suppose it comes down to these two for most as well.

Sammy's gave me a deal on my Nikon D40x.... they gave me the Camera + 18-55mm + 55-200mm + tripod + camera bag all for $615.00 +tax.

My dad was the one who said to go there... they'll deal with you.

[VF]

I have also been a little interested in trying the RAW +JPG to render faster in Lightroom, has anyone done it? It would be nice if it stacked the two (with the JPG at the top of the stack), but I haven't had a chance to play with it.

OK, so I have finally had a chance to try it (shows you how much time I have had as of late if I am finally getting around to importing any photos), and it doesn't really work like I would prefer it to. The default in Lightroom is for it just to ignore the jpgs and import the RAWs. If you override that so it does import the jpegs, it doesn't stack them with their respective raws. If you autostack, it stacks the jpeg under the raw (for the Canon at least, I have a feeling it is because the RAW is written first, then the jpeg), so it doesn't really help you. It seems that the most effective so far is to just take the one time hit, when importing have it render the 1:1 preview, and go get a cup of something while you wait.

Also, on a side note, USB 2 reader vs. Firewire 800 reader, holy cow what a difference. I tried to limp by on a USB 2 reader for a while, and I just got the FW 800 reader back, so uber fast.

[PuckMonkey]

I don't know... I just don't know...

YouTube - Nikon D3 Overload Test

YouTube - Nikon D3 Drop Test

[VF]

Boo, video no longer availible :(

[VF]

Trying to get a few pregnancy pics in:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20080318_7312.jpg

[FBJ]

The guy's vids are "embedding disabled."

Here's his stuff....

YouTube - Lilkiwiguy87's Channel (http://youtube.com/user/Lilkiwiguy87)

I didn't know the D3 had an in-camera HDR feature!?!?

WOOT!!

He's also got a website.

Welcome to Phozoid 4D (http://www.photozoid4d.com/)

It's supposed to be his professional website, but it is absolutely FULL of bad grammar and spelling mistakes. Looks professional, reads like a third-grader's work, sad to say. Still, he's got some good stuff on youtube and a relatively useful tutorial on remote flash technique up there.

[VF]

Wow, you Nikonians are F-ing crazy!

[HeShootsNScores]

Haha... I thought this was funny

http://www.photozoid4d.com/Advanced_Photography_Gallery/AP_2.jpg

[HeShootsNScores]

woah... can we say: LGK Photography challenge #1???

http://www.photozoid4d.com/Product_Gallery/4.jpg

[FBJ]

HOLY ****!!!

D3 WAITING FOR ME AT HOOPER RIGHT NOW!!!

I GO PICK UP!!!!

/Speed Racer Mode ON

[FBJ]

Charge!!! Damned Battery!!!! CHARGE, WILL YOU!!!

[FBJ]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2351215228_f247d86837_o.jpg

[PuckMonkey]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2351215228_f247d86837_o.jpg

Wipe that smirk off your face.


:)

[FBJ]

Wipe that smirk off your face.


:)

Can't help it, man. I'm D3lighted! I'm D3lerious!

[rinkrat]

Sweet!!

[FBJ]

That's 2000 ISO, btw...

[FBJ]

So I tried out both of the new F/2.8 lenses Nikon is making on the new body. I decided to go with the 24-70 instead of the 14-24. At 14mm, it's SUPER freakin' wide for an aspherical lens. There's some distortion, though it's minimal. I just can't see using that wide a lens on a full frame camera a whole lot, so instead of buying the 14-24 at $1699, I bought a used (E+) Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 aspherical from Adorama to throw into the bag.

I also beefed up my flash abilities with an SB-400 (which is a small, light, carry-around kinda flash since the D3 doesn't have one built in and you never know when you might need fill), two additional SB-800s, and the SU-800 Flash Commander.

I need to get off my ass and get some pics into the current Challenge. I'm lacking in inspiration for the current theme, though.

[FBJ]

Another. 70-200 f/2.8 VR with the 2x teleconverter.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2350674417_8315436588_o.jpg

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2351215228_f247d86837_o.jpg


Dude.... big and sexy!! Look at that body! DAYAAM. But for the price of my first three cars combined it'd better be substantial--and have a shutter button on the side for vertical shooting. Wait.... you are renting this, right? And I'm guessing you've heard Kevin James once or twice?? :winky2:

[FBJ]

Dude.... big and sexy!! Look at that body! DAYAAM.


I bet you say that to all the full-framed boys! :P

[rinkrat]

Hey the camera adds 10 lbs!

[OTTo VoN BLoTTo]

Seriously, congrats on the purchase! Looking forward to seeing what you can do with it. You must be 10 miles high right now....


And the pic above..... any post-processing noise reduction on that? If not, for ISO2000 that is UNREAL.

[FBJ]

Nope. No post. That's straight outta the camera.

[Blurker]

I'm sure that this might have been touched on in the DSLR thread, but I've been interested in this new fangled HDR thing. (New to me, at least)

I've googled and gotten a couple of tutorial type things and attempted a couple of images which didn't turn out much differently than the original.

I'm using Photoshop CS2 and the merge to HDR function and then tweaking after the downconvert from 32bit to 16bit. I don't have Photomatix, although a lot of the tutorials tie that in for tone mapping purposes.

I guess my question beyond the technical aspects of building the HDR image, what TYPE of image do those of you who shoot for HDR look for.

Most of the stuff I've seen online involve clouds. I've got to believe that you can do a pretty good HDR without clouds. Should I be shooting a wide range of color? Tone? What?

And yes, I know you should bracket shots, at least 3. I've got that part down, it's just subject matter that I'm having trouble with. (And time to shoot good HDR shots.)

When I get more time, I'll try to post the couple of first attempts for any advice.

[rinkrat]

Since HDR stahds for high dynamic range you are looking for things that you could never capture on film because they have a lot of detail in the highs (whites) and lows (blacks) that you can bring out with the HDR. Clouds are good because they run the gamut of tones from black to white with lot of detail in all of the areas. Also you can hov little or no movement of anything in the picture or it will be blurred.

Here is an HDR that worked because it picked up the details in the dark bricks and also the whites of the clouds.

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/the_lone_sailor_2_small_original.jpg

[ianmonsta]

Rinkrat or flyboeingjets - any recommended tutorials for HDR Photography?

[HeShootsNScores]

Rinkrat or flyboeingjets - any recommended tutorials for HDR Photography?

FBJ sent this tutorial out in the DSLR thread...

you can check the last 10 pages or so of the thread for a TON on HDR.

Here is the link:
Stuck In Customs ? HDR Tutorial - New and Improved for 2008! (http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/)

[FBJ]

Yep. That's the one I'd suggest.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/2240831826_ab20b9ed4f_b.jpg

I'd also suggest a merge with the DSLR/Photography thread.

[ianmonsta]

ok this is kind of a dumb question but ive never used auto bracketing on my Canon EOS 350D and i actually have no clue how to set it up & cant find any help from googling.... so any help?

[FBJ]

Go to the Canon site and search the Support section for a downloadable copy of your camera's manual.

[FBJ]

More D3 stuff that I'm just getting around to processing today.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2359270184_de6125754d_o.jpg

The 70-200mm lens has a slight vignetting in the corners at 200mm on the full-frame camera. I thought it added a nice artistic touch, so I deepened it and darkened it for that photograph. Aside from that, it's pretty much untouched.

[Blurker]

More D3 stuff that I'm just getting around to processing today.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2359270184_de6125754d_o.jpg


Damnit I hate cats.


But that's an awesome shot.

[ianmonsta]

duh, got it thanks! gonna try my hand at this HDR thing

[FBJ]

Tubes work well on it, too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2359251240_bde0113541_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2377/2358417545_0edf5ab359_o.jpg
To give you an idea of the magnification, that's the rim of a shotglass on the right side of the image.

[HeShootsNScores]

FBJ -- aren't you a mod now? Can't you merge?

[Unfiltered]

FBJ -- aren't you a mod now? Can't you merge?

Do we want to merge it or just stickie it below that main DSLR thread? Just a thought.

[ianmonsta]

Do we want to merge it or just stickie it below that main DSLR thread? Just a thought.

personally i like not having to dig through a 100 page thread just to find some of the info found in this thread.

just saying.

[Casbahrock77]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/the_lone_sailor_2_small_original.jpg

Good God, that is just a fantastic photo.

I miss photography.

[rinkrat]

Thanks! :)

That was hand held and braketed which is very unprofessional. ;) Luckily it worked anyways. Always use a tripod for bracketing and HDR.

[Blurker]

personally i like not having to dig through a 100 page thread just to find some of the info found in this thread.

just saying.

I second that. Thus my starting of the thread.

:)

Here's my first attempt at HDR. As a reference, the first image is the middle exposure in the bracket. (-2, 0, +2 if my memory serves.)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2358372488_62a78fb056_o.jpg


This is the culmination of my HDR attempt using Photoshop CS2 only, Merge to HDR, and some tweaking until it didn't look crappy.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2357538663_392ab80cbd_o.jpg

I'm not stoked about the loss of definition in the two mountain ranges in the BG, nor the ultra-black foreground foliage. There's also a bit of movement in one or all of the exposures as I don't have the IR remote or a cable release.

Either way, I'm curious to see if you guys think the HDR shot is too processed, not processed enough, or what.

[ianmonsta]

I second that. Thus my starting of the thread.

:)

Here's my first attempt at HDR. As a reference, the first image is the middle exposure in the bracket. (-2, 0, +2 if my memory serves.)




This is the culmination of my HDR attempt using Photoshop CS2 only, Merge to HDR, and some tweaking until it didn't look crappy.



I'm not stoked about the loss of definition in the two mountain ranges in the BG, nor the ultra-black foreground foliage. There's also a bit of movement in one or all of the exposures as I don't have the IR remote or a cable release.

Either way, I'm curious to see if you guys think the HDR shot is too processed, not processed enough, or what.

i agree the mountains should be more defined, i think that would really make the image, but i think the foreground and sky look great.

i plan on trying my hand at HDR tomorrow evening at sunset since my office is on the beach in hermosa but i dunno if i can stick around work long enough to catch sunset, i have a great (hopefully) shot in mind. as a recreation of this

http://a943.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/33/l_ea5946963cbab960761089a4332553d6.jpg

[Unfiltered]

personally i like not having to dig through a 100 page thread just to find some of the info found in this thread.

just saying.

And I agree, which is why I suggested the stickie idea. :)

[DeaderFan]

Congratulations man! Looking forward to seeing a lot of great shots from that D3.

[FBJ]

Just licensed this image of mine to Schmap.com. It'll show up in the next edition of their Guide To Texas that will be web-published at the end of April.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/512352181_ac171ef14a.jpg

[rinkrat]

How did they find you? Flickr?

[FBJ]

Yep.

[rinkrat]

Sweet! Good to know that if you have the talent the people who can use the images can find you.

[VF]

My way over processed HDR:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20080216_5606_4_5_tonemappe.jpg

[ianmonsta]

My way over processed HDR:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20080216_5606_4_5_tonemappe.jpg


very cool where is that?

[VF]

very cool where is that?

That is Big Bear. It is pretty heavy handed, it was just trying to see how far you can push it.

[Unfiltered]

My way over processed HDR


How redundant of you! ;)

[Blurker]

Here's another attempt.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2366664246_94257df58e_b.jpg

Dunno about it though.

[HeShootsNScores]

Here's another attempt.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2366664246_94257df58e_b.jpg

Dunno about it though.

I'm not sure about this image Blurker... I think it doesn't have enough range to be an HDR... or at least to effectively be one I think. I'm no pro though.... it all looks like its in the same color range.... maybe something with a little more contrast?

[Blurker]

That is the HDR image posted above... Here's the orginal.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2366571791_70c2de16e2.jpg?v=0

And the HDR.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2366664246_94257df58e.jpg


But I do tend to agree that it's not the best subject for HDR. I thought the movement of the water (between the bracketed images) would be an interesting thing.

[ianmonsta]

I'm not sure about this image Blurker... I think it doesn't have enough range to be an HDR... or at least to effectively be one I think. I'm no pro though.... it all looks like its in the same color range.... maybe something with a little more contrast?


Gonna agree here, although after seeing the original the HDR did help the image a bit i think theres better/easier ways to acheive this with this image. The bricks are the only part of the image that are really benefiting from HDR.

[PuckMonkey]

OK, starting to get the hang of it I think.

http://www.cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/hdr4.jpg

[rinkrat]

Nice one PM.

This is the kind of pic to use with a wide range of tones and plenty of detail in the dark areas.

Excellent pic.

[PuckMonkey]

Here's another. After the 5 or so HDRs that I have processed so far, I am amazed at how unpredictable the outcomes are. Still not sure if I like it though, although some of the results are somewhat interesting.

http://www.cindrome.com/LGKPHOTO/hdr5b.jpg

[PuckMonkey]

Nice one PM.

This is the kind of pic to use with a wide range of tones and plenty of detail in the dark areas.

Excellent pic.

Thanks Mike. I decided today was going to be the day that I was going to do this HDR stuff to see what I could learn, and you don't really learn anything until you start processing them. I've learned a lot already. Just not sure if I have learned to like it or not.

[HeShootsNScores]

I agree PM... its unpredictable as to what is going to come out. Plus I'm not crazy about CS3's merge to HDR tool... for some reason I just haven't gotten the hang of it yet.