***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

[nocturn]

So Im finally going to take the plunge into the wonderful world of DSLR. Im tired of using my wifey's little P&S Sony Cybershot and seeing my N90 and $5k worth of lenses collecting dust.

Im looking seriously at the New Nikon D80. I have a friend that has a D200 and a D70 and swears by them.

Ive done quite a bit of research on the D80 but want to hear from the average Joe, not a corporate talking head with a padded wallet.

Any thoughts?


PS, No! I will not buy a Canon.

[rinkrat]

Get a Canon.

[nocturn]

Brilliant Mikey!

[Birdman]

My brother has the first of the Canon Rebel DSLR camera's that came out (5ish years old?) and absolutely raves about it.

[psychopuck]

Don't you people read? He's NOT buying a canon.

Here's a link to a site with some good reviews, and they have forums that are specific to what you are looking for.

http://www.dpreview.com/

[SirJW]

http://cameraguild.com/
Click Magazine, Click October Issue, Click Tips and Tools for Digital SLR Info.

[Bandit]

I have a friend who has (I think) the D70 and is happy with it. I'll get the scoop from him at the game tonight, but he was saying that one of the Nikons, the right side of the body is not big enough to fit comfortably in your hand so you don't get a good grip.

My girlfriend has a Canon and she loves it, but I can understand not wanting to replace all your lenses.

[nocturn]

Jesus. I should have posted I was buying a Canon. I probably would've been inundated with "Nikon's are better" blah, blah.


I have a friend who has (I think) the D70 and is happy with it. I'll get the scoop from him at the game tonight, but he was saying that one of the Nikons, the right side of the body is not big enough to fit comfortably in your hand so you don't get a good grip.

My girlfriend has a Canon and she loves it, but I can understand not wanting to replace all your lenses.

Bingo.


I read. Canon has the better lenses. Sorry. He asked for an opinion and he got mine. I prefer Canon. After owning several other brands, I found one that has the quality I prefer and as a scrapbooker, I want the best pictures.

...on the Nikon D80. Not Canon nor its better lenses. Thanks anyways.



I went ahead and bought the D80 and the 70-300mm DX, VR lens from Ritz. I noticed my old 70-210mm had a busted turret.
Got everything for just under 2k. I'll be getting a pretty fat rebate back from Nikon as well.

Soon as the battery charges, I'll shoot off some shots from around the house and post em.

[VF]

Not that this really helps, since you've already pulled the trigger on the purchase, but for all future DSLR consumers, the decision as to which brand to go with shouldn't be made with body options, but which lenses you prefer and which ones you already have. Spend almost your entire camera budget on the glass, what ever you have left over should go to the body. Good glass does not depreciate.

[nocturn]

Alright! Here's the first batch of images.

Other than some cropping, no image processing has been done.

All these were taken in really bad light. A massive fog bank moved in early this am and killed the light making the shots "softer" than I would've liked to see.

The mute ambient light was good however for color.

Enjoy!

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/bell.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/sycamore.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/mockingbird.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/birch.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/japanmaple.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/backyard.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/nandinaberries.jpg

[SuxBeingU]

Very Nice

[BeerMan]

I love taking pics like these. great job!

[nocturn]

Thanks Guys.

I'm really impressed with this camera's "Depth of Field". I shot a few pics of a flock of Titmouse (har har) that didn't come out well because the subjects move so friggn fast. But one particular shot has a incredible field depth. I'll post it later.

BTW,
#1 is a macro of dew on very large red Christmas bells hanging on my lamppost. (12mm)
#2 is a micro of one of my Tulip poplars. The blue/gray looked phenomenal in the fog. (18mm)
#3 is (obviously) a large Mocking bird @ about 300mm. I don't know if any of you have seen Eastern Mocking Birds but they are twice the size of the Westerns...Very impressive bird.
#4 is of my American Beech leaves. Love the reds and yellows. 25mm
#5 Is of my Emperor II Japanese Maple. 18mm
#6 is the backyard overlooking the Appomattox River. Boat console is @ the bottom right (oops!). 55mm
#7 Nandina Berries @ 12mm

I dig texture. #1 is my personal fav with #2 close second.

I tried to get a couple Blue Jays but they were more interested in kicking the **** out of each other than pose for a pic.

[FBJ]

What lens do you use for the macro shots? I've been thinking of getting a macro lens for my D100.

[nocturn]

www.adorama.com/SG1224NKAF.html (http://www.adorama.com/SG1224NKAF.html)

Really good lens for the price. It has mutiple stops and 112 degrees @12mm


Nikon just released the same 12-24mm AF DX for $300 more. Its a single stop and only has 90 degrees at 12mm (I think).

http://www.adorama.com/NK1224AFSU.html?searchinfo=nikkor%20dx&item_no=7

[FBJ]

So it's not a true macro lens?

There's a difference between that Sigma lens and the DX Nikon lenses. The DX lenses are built for digital cameras, so there's no "chopping" of images. The lens I use the most is a Nikon 28-200 ED, and because it's a general purpose AF lense (as opposed to the DX digital-specific lenses), I have to really be careful of my framing since I'll lose about 1/4" of image of the right and left sides.

Chances are, that with the Sigma lense you'll only get about 100-105 degrees of FOV since the camera's CCD will only see that much.

THIS (http://www.adorama.com/NK6028AFDU.html?searchinfo=60mm%20f/2.8D%20AF%20Micro-Nikkor&item_no=2) is the macro lens I'm thinking of getting someday soon.

And THIS (http://www.adorama.com/NK18200DXU.html?searchinfo=18-200mm%20f/3.5-5.6%20G%20ED-IF%20AF-S%20VR%20DX%20Zoom-Nikkor&item_no=2) is on my list of soon-to-gets, too. I want the vibration reduction feature.

[nocturn]

Opps! Sorry FBJ. I misread your post and I f'ed up my discription above. I read "MICRO" in your first post as in "Up Close" not macro.
I also realized I f'ed up in line #1 in my discription saying "Macro"..My bad.

None of the photos above were done in MACRO. Hell, I dont think anyone makes a 1:1 or better Macro lens in the 12mm range anyway.

Photo's #1,#2,#5 &#7 were all taken with the above Sigma.
Photo #3 was taken with a new Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR
Photo's #4 & #6 were taken with a new Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX

[nocturn]

I used my old Nikon 70-210mm AF with really good results. I didnt notice any chopping. Not that I was looking.

I cant however use the camera's 3D Color Matrix, Bracketing or White balancing. I think Im going to dump it and keep the 70-300mm ED VR.

[FBJ]

I used my old Nikon 70-210mm AF with really good results. I didnt notice any chopping. Not that I was looking.

I cant however use the camera's 3D Color Matrix, Bracketing or White balancing. I think Im going to dump it and keep the 70-300mm ED VR.

That's an advantage of the new computer lenses. The old ones won't talk to the camera to let you use those features.

I'd like to try out a 70-300 VR lense sometime.

[nocturn]

If you have a Ritz Camera near you they may let you use a loaner lens. I have the 18-55mm here with me for 72 hours.

[rinkrat]

<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=letsgokingsco-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=B0007QKMSC&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I would kill for this. The price keeps dropping. 8 megapixels yow

[nocturn]

<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=letsgokingsco-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=B0007QKMSC&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I would kill for this. The price keeps dropping. 8 megapixels yow

Nice script boss. :good:

[trdi]

Not bad for a Nikon... ;) Which version of 70-300 lens did you get? I heard it's worse than 70-210, which is of course understandable. Distortions at high zooms, slow AF, focus errors,...

[Blurker]

I haven't had much time to do the research, but I'd like to have it before Tip-A-King next weekend.

My first inclination was to get the Canon Rebel XTi package with the crappy 18-55mm lens that comes with the package... Fully intending to eventually upgrade the lens.

Costco has it for $799, Best Buy has it for $899, but since I'm part of their stupid reward zone I get 12% off this weekend.

Does anyone have this model? Does anyone know where to get it cheaper? I'd rather to go a small business anyhow.

Anyone have recommendations for or against this model?

Any feedback you want to throw my way will be appreciated.

[Leatherface]

I like that Rebel, I know a lot of people who use it. Im a canon guy too, but Im not ready to make the jump to digi SLR.

did you look at bhphotovideo.com for price check? no tax and inexpensive, fast shipping.

[KBM]

I plan to upgrade my 6.3 mp Rebel to the Xti very soon. I highly recommend the Rebel line. You can't go wrong. The 18-55 lens isn't as crappy as everyone says. It's a versatile, all around decent lense. I still use it, in addition to a Sigma 55-200. I just shot about 200 pics on a recent road trip. Here's a pic from it.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/719/img0068oc5.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0068oc5.jpg)

[Clich? Guevara]

The Digital Rebel XTI goes for about as much as the Nikon D70. I have both. Check out www.shopsunshine.com, they're also on ebay. The packages ROCK!

[Leatherface]

The Digital Rebel XTI goes for about as much as the Nikon D70. I have both. Check out www.shopsunshine.com, they're also on ebay. The packages ROCK!


Which do you prefer, out of curiousity?

Most people I know that own either are happy, but I deal with a lot of pro-photos and they're usually strictly Canon or Nikon, they use stuff like RebelXTI or D70 for family vacations, and get out the big boys for work.

[PuckHead27]

I just got the Rebel XTi last month and so far I really like it.

[johnmac44]

I got the Rebel last year for my birthday. I love it. But I'm a Canon person.
I found it at Costco for $799 and they were running a $100 off promotion at the time so I bought mine for $699.
I actually like the lens it comes with, takes very good pictures and I'm a scrapbooker, so thats important. I plan on getting a couple of different lenses later this year, but I'm still having fun playing with all the options on this one and getting to know everything.

[Clich? Guevara]

Which do you prefer, out of curiousity?

Most people I know that own either are happy, but I deal with a lot of pro-photos and they're usually strictly Canon or Nikon, they use stuff like RebelXTI or D70 for family vacations, and get out the big boys for work.

I prefer the Rebel. My girlfriend prefers her Nikon. We're both photographers. She attends Brooks College of Photography. You really can't go wrong with either.

This will give you some good information on both.
Nikon (www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/)
Canon (www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/)

[mutt]

One stop research, this guy is great and has helped me many times in the past find cameras for myself and my family.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

[SirJW]

Canon has taken over the Digital Market. I linked an International Cinematographers Guild article the last time this subject came up and every still photographer interviewed recommended Canon over Nikon. Even the one who shoots all Nikon.

Search - Still Photography:
http://www.cameraguild.com/

[Leatherface]

Brooks is good, I know two guys that went there and are doing well for the 100K they spent!

[Blurker]

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions and links to great resources. I don't know if I'm any closer to making a decision on where to go, but thanks all the same.

[santiclaws]

All DSLR's are capable of taking great pictures. You need to go to the store and fondle a few. The one that feels the best in your hands is the one that you want. No review will tell you that.

Both Canon and Nikon have excellent bodies and a wide range of lenses. Don't overlook Pentax and Sony; there is a lot to be said for in-body stabilization.

One other thing which can limit you is the lens, which is far more important than the body; people moving from P&S cameras usually don't realize this. If you plan to take good photos with your DSLR, plan to spend some money on some good lenses, rather than sticking with the crappy kit lens. A DSLR without good glass is pointless, other than impressing the neighbors; you would be better off with a point-and-shoot.

[nocturn]

Cant go wrong with a Nikon D80 and the 70-300mm VR2 lens.

Santiclaws is 100% correct. The bodies are basicaly the same. Spend your money on glass.

[rinkrat]

I use a Canon digital rebel for all my pics. :)

[UnderTheGUN]

I always go to dpreview.com before making any digital camera or accessory purchase. They do VERY in depth professional quality reviews complete with scientific testing and sample photos. They show you the results of the test not just talk about it. You can also view every screen on the control system. There is also a forum where you can ask your question there. They have educational/technique articles and its all free.

Here is a link to a side-by-side comparison of the tech specs for the two cameras in question:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos400d%2Cnikon_d80&show=all

But you should check out the reviews of each of the cameras, they will either make your decision easy or they will confuse the hell out of you. They also list current pricing comparisons at some of the online stores. In the reviews they make comparisons between these models.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/

All said, I agree with the other comment that you have to go touch them. That is when you will know which one to get. I would probably buy from Costco, I think they have a liberal return policy.

[wngr2552]

I have the Rebel xt. and LOVE it!!
Its fun and easy to use.. Enjoy it!

also... the best part of getting into the Cannon line is that you can interchange your lenses.

[FBJ]

Resurrected. Any way we can merge this with the latest Canon DSLR thread (http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=52111) and sticky it?

EDIT: Awesome. Thanks, CD!

[FBJ]

Here are some online sources for lens rental. Most of the big stuff is always out of stock, but you can sign up for in-stock notification. Try before you buy!!

http://www.ziplens.com/ (Nikon and Canon)
http://www.rentglass.com/ (Nikon and Canon)
http://www.lensprotogo.com/ (Nikon and Canon)

[nocturn]

Hey! This Canon Schit is funking up my Nikon thread...;)

Dont tell Deeker about this thread. Apparently any moran can take pictures.

[nocturn]

Be careful with the rental lenses. You may not get what you expect!

Think "rental skates at the ice rink".

[nocturn]

FBJ, Do you use a Speedlight? I think I'm going to pick up a SB-800AF. The flash that I bought in 1993 for my 5005 just craped out on me.

I cant belive how much a frigg'n flash goes for nowadays.

[FBJ]

I've got the SB-800 and it's a great flash.

[PuckHead27]

It's all about the glass.

[FBJ]

So I rented the big-bad mama-jama Nikon 80-400 VR from ziplens.com for my trip to Vero Beach this week. This lens is SOOO ****ING BADASS! The only downside to it is that it weighs about five pounds. It's definitely a monopod-required deal. Or just make sure your left arm is buffed up before you grab one.

I also made the mistake (?) of heading into my local Hooper Camera this morning to buy a new bag and some cleaning stuff. While I was there, I grabbed a Nikon D200 body and attached it to that lens. They let me step outside to take some pics with it and I was so impressed with the ability of that camera that I bought it. It is SOOOOO MUCH FASTER than my D100!!! I'm able to take continuous shots without running out of memory buffer as fast as FIVE FRAMES PER SECOND!!!

Of course, I must now sell my D100. Any takers?

[nocturn]

Why'd you go and do that? You still have to send the lens back.

[nocturn]

Here are some pics I took this morning of some fauna around the house.
All shots are @400mm and in AF w/M Priorty. Anyone who shoots birds knows its almost impossible to go 100% manual. These things move quickly. Enjoy

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/RedHeadFlicker.jpg
Red Head Flicker

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/flicker1.jpg
Same Flicker

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/pileatedwoodpecker1.jpg
Pileated Woodpecker (pain in the ass to shoot)

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/DowneyWoodPecker.jpg
Downey Woodpecker

[nocturn]

...and before anyone else says it, I know, it's a lot of Peckers. :)

[FBJ]

Hey Nocturn...

Check out some of the pics I put up from Vero Beach, FL. They're in the Dodger's Spring Training thread in Sports Bar.

[nocturn]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/422080009/in/set-72157600001128420/
Best shot right here. Nice and sharp. Good color saturation.
Good Job Glenn.

All with the D200 and the 400mm?

[rinkrat]

Love the bird shots:)

[FBJ]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/422080009/in/set-72157600001128420/
Best shot right here. Nice and sharp. Good color saturation.
Good Job Glenn.

All with the D200 and the 400mm?

Thanks. Yeah. All with the new D200 and the big lens.

[FBJ]

Well, my D100 didn't sit on Ebay for 24 hours before someone purchased it. I gave the person a pretty good deal ($450 for the body and battery-pack with some extras), but I'm glad I sold it so quickly. I'll be shipping it off to Boulder, CO today!

[nocturn]

That's awesome.

I just went and picked up the multi battery base grip for the D80. Makes a hella difference in weight and simple gripping. The new Digital SLR's are too small for larger hands like mine. I always had the feeling I was going to drop the damn thing especially when I had the big glass on.

Also picked up a nice Giotto monopod for quick fauna shooting stability.

Some time in the next 2 weeks I'm going to have my wife buy me the 60mm Macro Nikkor for my b-day. What a nice wife she will be...:)


I shot off some more bird action last eve. I'll post them in a bit.

[nocturn]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/MaleBlueBird.jpg
Male Eastern Blue Bird
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/MaleBlueBird2.jpg
Same Blue Bird, different pose.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/femalebluebird.jpg
Female Eastern Blue Bird. The above male's mate.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/miscfinch.jpg
Eastern Phoebe
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/miscfinch2.jpg
same Eastern Phoebe
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/miscsparrow.jpg
Song Sparrow in mid song.

[VF]

So like the retard I am, I managed to drop my EF 24-70 f/2.8L the other day onto a carpeted hardwood floor. It landed just wrong, and I managed to bend the rear mount 0.02" out of plane, so just enough not to mount. I drove it down to Irvine today (1.5 hr from Burbank), flat repair rate of $156.00, and they had it on the bench within the hour (back probably tomorrow). They offered to clean my 5D for free to boot.

Just thought that perhaps someone else here might be as retarded as I am one day and would like to know how much a lens gravity test costs.

[FBJ]

Repairing any kind of camera equipment isn't cheap. I had a set of AA batteries that were less than two weeks old blow up inside my flash last year just before Thanksgiving. Four weeks and $180 later I had my flash back. I guess that's still 1/4 of the cost of a new speedlight, though.

Note to self: DO NOT EVER USE COSTCO KIRKLAND BRAND BATTERIES AGAIN.

[nocturn]

Here's my next lens. http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=618728&start=1

Thats the cheapest I found it. Everywhere else it's between $750 and $850.

Its alot of bones to throw at a micro but I tried it last week on my buddy's D200 and WOW...what a lens.

[FBJ]

That's a fast one, for sure. F2.8 should get you some high shutter speeds and extra-shallow DOF. Good for birds and relatively close action shots that you want to be able to freeze. A relatively short minimum focus distance for a 105mm, too.

Today I'm taking the D200 out to the ballgame along with the 80-200 and the 70-300 lenses. I'm going to shoot in RAW format and process the images with the three software suites I'm trying out (Nikon's, Adobe's Lightroom, Capture1). I want to compare them side-by-side to determine which one's flow I like better.

Link to the "Best Photo Processing Software???" thread... (http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=55923)

I'll post some of the results tomorrow.

[VF]

I'm going to shoot in RAW format and process the images with the three software suites I'm trying out (Nikon's, Adobe's Lightroom, Capture1). I want to compare them side-by-side to determine which one's flow I like better.

I don't know how Adobe Camera Raw is with Nikon Raws using the default "As Shot" settings, but with my Canon (5D), I had to make my own color profiles using a Macbeth ColorChecker chart in different lighting setups (available at www.sampage.net/color if anyone is interested) before I was at all happy with the color coming out of ACR. But once I got my profiles in there, ACR has been great.

[VF]

It seems that most of those still active in this thread are Nikon-ers, but for the Canon folk, I just finished renting a lens (EF 85mm f/1.2L, Mmmmmmmm) from www.lensrentals.com, and it was one of the best lens rentals I have experienced so far. Really great rates, lens was in good shape, you can reserve lenses if you know you need it on a certain date, and everything is in stock (unlike rentglass which is why I went looking for another rental house). Anyway, renting is a great way to try out the lenses you can't afford, and this is a great resource for that.

[FBJ]

I don't know how Adobe Camera Raw is with Nikon Raws using the default "As Shot" settings, but with my Canon (5D), I had to make my own color profiles using a Macbeth ColorChecker chart in different lighting setups (available at www.sampage.net/color if anyone is interested) before I was at all happy with the color coming out of ACR. But once I got my profiles in there, ACR has been great.

Lightroom is supposed to support all current proprietary RAW formats. We'll see how it works a bit later tonight. I'm still trying to figure out how the program works.

[FBJ]

It seems that most of those still active in this thread are Nikon-ers, but for the Canon folk, I just finished renting a lens (EF 85mm f/1.2L, Mmmmmmmm) from www.lensrentals.com, and it was one of the best lens rentals I have experienced so far. Really great rates, lens was in good shape, you can reserve lenses if you know you need it on a certain date, and everything is in stock (unlike rentglass which is why I went looking for another rental house). Anyway, renting is a great way to try out the lenses you can't afford, and this is a great resource for that.

Rentglass.com never has anything I need in stock. I rented the 80-400 VR Nikon from ziplens.com and I was very happy with it. Their customer service was amazing, too. Very attentive and they came through with exactly what they promised me. The lens was in like-new shape when it got to me, too.

[FBJ]

Lightroom is supposed to support all current proprietary RAW formats. We'll see how it works a bit later tonight. I'm still trying to figure out how the program works.

Okay folks. Here's a few images that I processed with Adobe Lightroom. I'm loving this program! And I love shooting in RAW format! There is SO MUCH MORE DATA in the image to play with! It gives you MUCH MUCH more control over how your images turn out!

Main dome at Griffith Observatory. I processed this in B&W (durhey) and tweaked the highlights and contrast to bring out the cloud detail. I also turned off the noise reduction to give it that grainy look.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0002-2.jpg

Obelisk. A shape study. B&W processed much the same way as the one above.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0013.jpg

Another black-and-white processed image. This one was shot from the roof with the 10.5mm fisheye. I liked the way the contrast turned out.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0046-2.jpg

An architectural/scenic. I enhanced highlights and slightly deepened the blue hues. In addition, I cranked up the color and luminance noise-reductions.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0109.jpg

Here's an indoor, low-light image. Shot through the fisheye with a 1/8 sec exposure at f2.8, ISO200, no flash. Fast enough to stop motion while not underexposing was what I was after. White balance was corrected for tungsten lighting and noise reductions were maxed.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0025-2.jpg

The rotunda. This image turned out to be one of my favorites of the day. White balance corrected for custom color samples (I used the light coming through the glass door). Sharpness cranked to maximum.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0029.jpg

Tesla Coil. Creative cropping saves a ****ty photo.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0102.jpg

This was an interesting one to process. I found that as I cranked up the highlights to bring out the clouds, I lost the color in the greenish patina of the brass hardware. This is the happy medium.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0043-2.jpg

Ghetto Buzzard. This shot was experimental in nature. I wanted to make sure the exposure wasn't so fast as to freeze the rotor blades. This was cropped and enlarged from the original image.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0080-2.jpg

Here are a few images I shot at Dodger Stadium last Wednesday. These were taken from my seat in the lower reserved section, about a third of the way between the third-base bag and the foul pole. Probably three-hundred yards. 70-300 lens.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0098.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0154.jpg

Those two really show the limits of the optics on my cheap-ass 70-300. Its especially noticeable when you zoom in a click or two. Ghosty whites. I need a better quality long lens.

EDIT: Sorry, folks. If you're reading this page of this thread for the first time, there's a reason there's no pics in this post any longer. The server where these pics were was changed. Most of them are on my Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157602611819544/) page, now.

[FBJ]

Damn. No loves for my picses.

[Cytoxan]

Wow, this thread really makes me want to take a class. Did you guys take a class or just pick it up?

I have a Digital Rebel xt like a few others and have just started to uses some of the manual settings. I felt like the kid that just had his training wheels taken off? I am looking for a good lens to take on a Caribbean cruise. We?re going on several tours and want to take lots of scenic shots. What would you recommend in the $500.00 - $1000.00 range?

Thanks,

[UnderTheGUN]

Wow, this thread really makes me want to take a class. Did you guys take a class or just pick it up?

I have a Digital Rebel xt like a few others and have just started to uses some of the manual settings. I felt like the kid that just had his training wheels taken off? I am looking for a good lens to take on a Caribbean cruise. We?re going on several tours and want to take lots of scenic shots. What would you recommend in the $500.00 - $1000.00 range?

Thanks,

I will let someone else comment on the lens choice, but I would highly recommend taking a polarizing filter to the Caribbean.

[VF]

Okay folks. Here's a few images that I processed with Adobe Lightroom. I'm loving this program! And I love shooting in RAW format! There is SO MUCH MORE DATA in the image to play with! It gives you MUCH MUCH more control over how your images turn out!

Main dome at Griffith Observatory. I processed this in B&W (durhey) and tweaked the highlights and contrast to bring out the cloud detail. I also turned off the noise reduction to give it that grainy look.


Some how I missed these, they look great! It isn't easy to use wide angle / fisheye without making people nauseated, but I think these look fantastic, very nice. I like your B+W conversion.

Shooting RAW is great! I can not tell you how many times I have been saved by the 4 extra bits per channel (for the 5D at least)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/523383249_bb226a03c9_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/523383245_57e9f8488f_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/523383237_95a5a541ea_o.jpg

[VF]

Wow, this thread really makes me want to take a class. Did you guys take a class or just pick it up?

I have a Digital Rebel xt like a few others and have just started to uses some of the manual settings. I felt like the kid that just had his training wheels taken off… I am looking for a good lens to take on a Caribbean cruise. We’re going on several tours and want to take lots of scenic shots. What would you recommend in the $500.00 - $1000.00 range?

Thanks,

Although my photos aren't great, I would say the best advice is just take a BUNCH of pictures. Try everything, play with settings, see how far you can push things. Try taking the same picture many many times with different settings to see what it does. Once you start getting the technical stuff down a bit more, you mind is more free to think about the shot you want to get and you aren't worried about how you are going to get it. Reading the "rules" of photography, the tips and tricks (the rule of 1/3s, etc.) is not a bad idea, just make sure you then break all the rules and do what works for you. Now that I have just said to ignore the rules, one of the great sites for learning about lighting is http://strobist.blogspot.com/

I would say if you are just starting, don't go to the full manual modes quite yet, I would try futzting around with either the aperture or shutter speed priority modes (Av or Tv modes), that way if you know if want very shallow depth of field, all you do is you set your camera to Av mode, set the f stop you want, and the camera will set the shutter speed for you. It's nice as sort of a semi manual mode. That way, you can set the parts you care about, and watch to see what the camera does to set the exposure, and you can start getting a feel for the amount of light you need to properly expose for the settings you want.

As for a lens for the XTi, it heavily depends on the style of photography that suits you. Which lenses do you have now, and what do you feel that they are lacking? One of the great walk around lenses for the XTi, and one that 1.6 croppers are loving is the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS (B&H has it for $949 right now) really fast lens which also boasts image stabilization, and a fantastic zoom range, which is the equivalent to a 28-85 on a full frame camera, but again it depends on what you are after. I use a 24-70mm on a full frame 5D, and 24mm is pretty wide, but if you are seeking really wide angle, 17mm on a 1.6 crop camera isn't going to cut it, and you might want to look at the EF-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. A bit over a stop slower on the long end (so half the about of light reaches the sensor = twice the amount of time the shutter has to be open) but it is a fantastic ultra wide.

[Cytoxan]

Although my photos aren't great, I would say the best advice is just take a BUNCH of pictures. Try everything, play with settings, see how far you can push things. Try taking the same picture many many times with different settings to see what it does. Once you start getting the technical stuff down a bit more, you mind is more free to think about the shot you want to get and you aren't worried about how you are going to get it. Reading the "rules" of photography, the tips and tricks (the rule of 1/3s, etc.) is not a bad idea, just make sure you then break all the rules and do what works for you. Now that I have just said to ignore the rules, one of the great sites for learning about lighting is http://strobist.blogspot.com/

I would say if you are just starting, don't go to the full manual modes quite yet, I would try futzting around with either the aperture or shutter speed priority modes (Av or Tv modes), that way if you know if want very shallow depth of field, all you do is you set your camera to Av mode, set the f stop you want, and the camera will set the shutter speed for you. It's nice as sort of a semi manual mode. That way, you can set the parts you care about, and watch to see what the camera does to set the exposure, and you can start getting a feel for the amount of light you need to properly expose for the settings you want.

As for a lens for the XTi, it heavily depends on the style of photography that suits you. Which lenses do you have now, and what do you feel that they are lacking? One of the great walk around lenses for the XTi, and one that 1.6 croppers are loving is the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS (B&H has it for $949 right now) really fast lens which also boasts image stabilization, and a fantastic zoom range, which is the equivalent to a 28-85 on a full frame camera, but again it depends on what you are after. I use a 24-70mm on a full frame 5D, and 24mm is pretty wide, but if you are seeking really wide angle, 17mm on a 1.6 crop camera isn't going to cut it, and you might want to look at the EF-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. A bit over a stop slower on the long end (so half the about of light reaches the sensor = twice the amount of time the shutter has to be open) but it is a fantastic ultra wide.

I don?t know if I should thank you for all this information, or to curse you for all the research I have to do to understand what you said?

Seriously thanks! That lens looks pretty sweet.

[VF]

I don?t know if I should thank you for all this information, or to curse you for all the research I have to do to understand what you said?

Seriously thanks! That lens looks pretty sweet.

Feel free to PM me if you want to talk through the lens choices some more. Knowing what you currently have, and where you need to fill out I might be able to give you more useful advice :)

[Cytoxan]

Feel free to PM me if you want to talk through the lens choices some more. Knowing what you currently have, and where you need to fill out I might be able to give you more useful advice :)

I got a bundle with the camera that included 2 Sigma lenses.

18 ? 50mm & 70 ? 300mm, I?m sure they?re nothing special as the bundle wouldn?t have been so inexpensive. I got married about two months ago, the photographers were great and recommend to get a better lens for our trip. We never got the chance to go over the best choice for us. Once I get a better handle on this one, I want to get a point and shoot converted to infrared.

[ImA1032]

Here are a few images I shot at Dodger Stadium last Wednesday. These were taken from my seat in the lower reserved section, about a third of the way between the third-base bag and the foul pole. Probably three-hundred yards. 70-300 lens.
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0098.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Griffith%20Park/_GCC0154.jpg

Those two really show the limits of the optics on my cheap-ass 70-300. Its especially noticeable when you zoom in a click or two. Ghosty whites. I need a better quality long lens.

Wowww... I missed all of this while I was in Chicago for 3 weeks in May due to a family medical issue. Some excellent pictures! The 70-300 lens you have, is it the Nikon 2.8 VR? I used that out in Fontana for a NASCAR race and had some fantastic shots. I'm looking to pick one up in the not too distant future... Once I get a few spare overtime shifts in so I can part with the $1100+.

As far as rental lenses go, there's also Samy's Camera that rents equipment. That's where I got my start with a rental Nikon D100 and the VR lens.

The pics below were shot using my D70s and (I believe) my Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6.
http://a.pcb3.cherrytap.com/14/86/566841/427140932.jpg

http://a.pcb3.cherrytap.com/14/86/566841/2452962149.jpg

http://a.pca1.cherrytap.com/14/86/566841/2056125814.jpg

[FBJ]

Wowww... I missed all of this while I was in Chicago for 3 weeks in May due to a family medical issue. Some excellent pictures! The 70-300 lens you have, is it the Nikon 2.8 VR? I used that out in Fontana for a NASCAR race and had some fantastic shots. I'm looking to pick one up in the not too distant future... Once I get a few spare overtime shifts in so I can part with the $1100+.

As far as rental lenses go, there's also Samy's Camera that rents equipment. That's where I got my start with a rental Nikon D100 and the VR lens.

No. The 70-300 is the f4-5.6 G (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207359-USA/Nikon_1928_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html) lens that Nikon USA had made in China until about three years ago. It's really a cheapo. Cost me $175, new. The new VR lens is the shizznit, so I'm told.

I've got a few lenses I need/want, and that 70-300 VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-GREY/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html) is at the top of the list. I also want the 80-400 Nikon (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207360-GREY/Nikon_1996_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6D_ED_AF.html) (or perhaps the 50-500 Sigma (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/380688-USA/Sigma_736306_Zoom_Normal_Telephoto_50_500mm_f_4_0_ 6_3.html), but I think the Nikon's VR would be useful at the longer focal lengths), a nice macro lens, and the 28-200 VR lense that Nikon makes. It just takes money, which is in short supply at the moment.

[VF]

I got a bundle with the camera that included 2 Sigma lenses.

18 – 50mm & 70 – 300mm, I’m sure they’re nothing special as the bundle wouldn’t have been so inexpensive. I got married about two months ago, the photographers were great and recommend to get a better lens for our trip. We never got the chance to go over the best choice for us. Once I get a better handle on this one, I want to get a point and shoot converted to infrared.

How do you like the 18-50mm zoom range? If you like it, and just want to move up in quality, it might be worth renting the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD and the Canon EF-S 17-55mm to see which one you like (www.lensrentals.com has them, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 macro is also of similar quality, but I couldn't find if for rent). The Canon is more expensive, but it does have IS, which the others don't (IS is supposed to be good for an extra 2-3 stops, which is handy hand held with a stationary subject, but if your subject is moving, IS isn't going to help all that much)

If you just want to fill out your wide end, you could keep the 18-50mm you have and try the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, or the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. The Sigma is slower than the Canon, and not quite as sharp, and it's about the same price. The reason for that, and it's one potential advantage for you, is that it can be mounted on a full frame camera, so if you ever see yourself upgrading to a 5D or any of the 1D-s, that is something to keep in mind.

If overall quality (both image quality and build quality, i.e. built like a tank) is of greater importance to you than zoom reach, and you want lenses that will mount on a full frame camera, then you might look at the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk II (the 16-35 is quite a bit more expensive due to it being a stop faster (when I was starting out, 1 stop never sounded like that much, and it always baffled me why with two lenses, with all else being equal, why the one that was 1 stop faster was almost twice the cost, but 1 stop is a lot, twice the amount of light you can capture))

As for the long end, I don't know how useful it will be to your trip, but in case you where itching to replace your Sigma 70-300, Canon now has their workhorse 70-200L non-IS in a f/4.0 version that is a very reasonable $600 or so, and it is a fantastic lens for the cost. I don't know if you are willing to shoot primes or not, but in that zoom range, the EF 135mm f/2.0 is simply magic (although it might be a little long on a 1.6 crop camera for it's intended use as a portraiture lens), the EF 85mm f/1.8 ($300) holds up surprisingly well against it's big brother "THE" portraiture king 85mm f/1.2 ($2000), and if you don't like the idea of a big white L lens (the 70-200) and want something a little more stealthy (not white) and still want the image quality on the long end, the EF 200mm f/2.8 is a fantastic choice. And I have to throw it in there because it has to be the best $80 lens on the planet, the "nifty fifty": EF 50mm f/1.8 (or it's sibling the 50mm f/1.4, which is $300, but lets you manual focus full time instead of having to flip the autofocus switch to MF like you do on the f/1.8 - both of these might be a good compliment the to 17-40 or the 16-35 if you chose to go that route)

[ImA1032]

No. The 70-300 is the f4-5.6 G (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207359-USA/Nikon_1928_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html) lens that Nikon USA had made in China until about three years ago. It's really a cheapo. Cost me $175, new. The new VR lens is the shizznit, so I'm told.

From some of the reviews I've read, that lens was supposedly made by Tamron. They pointed out several things between the two that were exactly identical but I don't remember the details. It certainly sounded as though Nikon had gone to someone else to make a lens for their labeling.



I've got a few lenses I need/want, and that 70-300 VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-GREY/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html) is at the top of the list. I also want the 80-400 Nikon (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207360-GREY/Nikon_1996_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6D_ED_AF.html) (or perhaps the 50-500 Sigma (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/380688-USA/Sigma_736306_Zoom_Normal_Telephoto_50_500mm_f_4_0_ 6_3.html), but I think the Nikon's VR would be useful at the longer focal lengths), a nice macro lens, and the 28-200 VR lense that Nikon makes. It just takes money, which is in short supply at the moment.

Luckily summer is here and that's my busy time. Hopefully in July I'll have 96+ hours of overtime and be able to swing the $1100-$1400 for the 70-300VR lens. BUT... I also want to get a nice size LCD TV too... which I think I'd get more use out of than the lens... so we'll see where my priorities wind up. Then again, there's always August overtime...

[FBJ]

From some of the reviews I've read, that lens was supposedly made by Tamron. They pointed out several things between the two that were exactly identical but I don't remember the details. It certainly sounded as though Nikon had gone to someone else to make a lens for their labeling.

I don't know who built it, but its a piece of ****. It was what I could afford at the time. At $150, you get what you pay for. That's for sure.



Luckily summer is here and that's my busy time. Hopefully in July I'll have 96+ hours of overtime and be able to swing the $1100-$1400 for the 70-300VR lens. BUT... I also want to get a nice size LCD TV too... which I think I'd get more use out of than the lens... so we'll see where my priorities wind up. Then again, there's always August overtime...

$1100-$1400?? Where do you shop, man? The Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR (http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?omid=113&ref=dealtime&utm_id=9&utm_source=Dealtime&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NK70300AFSVR&sku=NK70300AFSVR) lens shouldn't cost you any more than about $500 with shipping included! For $1200, you could probably pick up the 80-400 VR that Nikon puts out. Sigma also makes an 80-400 (or even one of their discontinued 50-500 lenses on eBay) that's about $200 less and just as good, quality-wise.

I've got enough saved up to buy the 70-300, but I'm thinking I'm just going to save up another $600 and buy the 80-400. You don't lose much on the wide end of the focal lengths ( I always carry my 28-200 lens anyhow) and you gain another 150mm (with the conversion factor figured in) on the high end. I've used the 80-400, and I was exceedingly happy with it.

[Clich? Guevara]

My new Canon 30D just arrived late last week.

I was just testing out some of the features and took an alright snapshot of one of my boys.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/522507711_b183c5277f_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1224/530672318_ce18993d7e_o.jpg
My woman, taken in Santa Monica over the weekend.

[rinkrat]

I'm curious why you would buy the 30D which has 8 megapixels for $1100 when you can get the RebelXTi which has 10 MP for only $800?

I have an old 6MP model and I am really tempted to upgrade.

[Clich? Guevara]

Easy.

More control. It felt better, the white balance comp. controls, low noise, and the photos I've taken with a friend's 30D look outstanding when using low-light lenses.
Plus, the XTI is tiny. Impressive that they can fit a good camera in that size but I felt like I was holding a junior's camera. It wasn't comfortable.

[FBJ]

Easy.

More control. It felt better, the white balance comp. controls, low noise, and the photos I've taken with a friend's 30D look outstanding when using low-light lenses.
Plus, the XTI is tiny. Impressive that they can fit a good camera in that size but I felt like I was holding a junior's camera. It wasn't comfortable.

Mike,

You're going to want the best white-balance control you can get, what with all the indoor-ice shooting you do.

[VF]

I'm curious why you would buy the 30D which has 8 megapixels for $1100 when you can get the RebelXTi which has 10 MP for only $800?

I have an old 6MP model and I am really tempted to upgrade.

They are both great cameras, as for the extra cost on the 30D, here some of the differences between the two:
The 30D does 5fps where the 400D does 3pfs, it has the rear dial and the multi-controller (very handy for quickly selecting AF points), the top ISO rating is 3200 as opposed to 1600 for the XTi, the 30D has a larger penta prism (which means a brighter viewfinder), the max shutter is 1/8000 sec as opposed to 1/4000 sec for the XTi, and (this one might be a biggie for hockey pics) the 30D has spot metering. Also, with the smaller pixel pitch of the XTi will give you more noise compared to the 30D (5.7 ?m on the XTi vs 6.4 ?m on the 30D).

As for the ergonomics (which are highly subjective), the XTi is smaller and lighter, the 30D larger and heavier and has a more robust feel to it.

[Clich? Guevara]

Mike,

You're going to want the best white-balance control you can get, what with all the indoor-ice shooting you do.

Definitely. I'll post some photos I took with my friend's 30D for the last Kings home game. Good snapshots.

ValleyFan, thanks for reminding me. Spot Metering is also a big + for the 30D.

[FBJ]

Definitely. I'll post some photos I took with my friend's 30D for the last Kings home game. Good snapshots.

ValleyFan, thanks for reminding me. Spot Metering is also a big + for the 30D.

How'd you get an SLR into Staples? The one time I tried, they wouldn't let me in even though my lens was only 3" (when locked in 28mm).

[FBJ]

A couple pics I shot today while cooking dinner.

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Oil/as-shot%20(1%20of%201).jpg
This is a picture of some olive oil floating on top of some water as I heat it in a stainless-steel collander pot. I stirred the crap out of it then focused as close as possible with the 18-200 lens at the longest FL.

Here's what happened when I started playing around with the white balance and hue/saturation controls in Lightroom.

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Oil/_GCC0063.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Oil/_GCC0041.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Oil/_GCC0048.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Oil/_GCC0055.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Oil/_GCC0057.jpg

Psychadelic.

Those pics are all hand-held, too. I could get MUCH sharper images with the camera on a tripod and a hotter off-camera strobe.

[VF]

Ooo, very cool, me likey 3 and 4 quite a bit. A lot of "The Fountain" visual effect shots where done the same way (but microscopic oil and water)

OT PS - What up with the name change?

[FBJ]

OT PS - What up with the name change?

Change is good...

[FBJ]

Some pics I shot up in Spokane, WA last week.

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0027.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0028.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0029.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0030.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0034.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0037.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0039.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0041.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0051.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Spokane/_GCC0056.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Some images from the zoo in Hyderabad, India from a recent business trip. Granted the images don't really show off what my Canon Rebel XTi with a 18-55 lens can do, but I thought they showcased something you might not see everyday :)

http://www.quidprocode.com/hyd1.jpg

http://www.quidprocode.com/hyd2.jpg

Here's a shot with my macro lens from a recent trip to Maui:

http://www.quidprocode.com/flower.jpg

[rinkrat]

I've decided I need a Canon 5D.

[VF]

I've decided I need a Canon 5D.

Yeah you do! I love love LOVE it! Be forewarned though, that camera really likes having really good glass in front of it. Because it is a full frame, soft edges really start showing up. I'm shooting with the 27-70 f/2.8 L like 90% of the time, and the rest with the 135 f/2.0 L, you simply can not take a bad picture with that lens ;)

Edit: Now that I have said that, there are also a lot of non L lenses are like butter with the 5D, but mostly primes. The 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 (I actually like the f/1.8 a bit better than the f/1.2, but I'm definitely in the minority in that decision) and the 100mm f/2.8 macro all immediately spring to mind.

[rinkrat]

OK, well reality set in and there is no way I can spend $3,500 for a camera and lens for the D5, so I had the choice of the the 30D, the xTi or the wait for the 40d. After reading all of the positives and negatives of each and going to the store to hold each one and fire off a few shots, I decided on the 30D.

I read at Fatwallet that they were dumping the 30D Kit with the 18-55 lens at Circuit City to make room for the new configuration. I went to the local store and sure anough the kit was $849 (Usually over $1200) but they were already gone in every So Cal store. Damn!

I went on Ebay and sure enough the people who bought the kits at CC were dumping them for a profit. I found one with 45 minutes left and it was at $850, so I bid $904.06 and walked the dog. When I came home I was the proud owner of a brand new Canon D3!! W00t! Can't wait for it to arrive tomorrow. :)

I am trying to resist buying the 22-70 L 2.8 IM lens as a walkaround lens for this camera. I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics. The 5 fps should be fun to play with. This should be quite a shock after owning the original Digital Rebel all this time and now upgrading over a few models to get something more current, rugged and professional.

[VF]

Congrats on the new 30D! They are great cameras.



I am trying to resist buying the 22-70 L 2.8 IM lens as a walkaround lens for this camera. I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics.

The EF 24-70 f/2.8L might be a little long on the 30D for a walk-about, a very comparable lens that might be in a more comfortable zoom range for the 1.6 croppers is the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS. Unfortunately, it is the same price as the 24-70, and not an "L", but you get image stabilization, and being a EF-s, it is going to be considerable smaller and lighter than the 24-70, which is a beast in size and weight for that zoom range. I have heard that it's build is extraordinary, and really the only reason it didn't get an "L" is because it is an EF-s type lens (it is also not weather sealed). The only bad thing I have heard about it is that it is more prone to flaring than most in its zoom range, but, 30D + 17-55 = one of the standard wedding photog setups.

[FBJ]

I dunno. I think that f/2.8 would be great for hockey pics with that big aperture. Depth-of-field control might be rough when things are moving that fast, but still...lots of light to be let in would allow a lower ISO to be used.

[VF]

I dunno. I think that f/2.8 would be great for hockey pics with that big aperture. Depth-of-field control might be rough when things are moving that fast, but still...lots of light to be let in would allow a lower ISO to be used.

f/2.8 lenses are great for sports with Canon bodies (Nikons might do this too, I just am not familiar with them), even if you aren't shooting it at 2.8 because with a f/2.8 or faster lens, it allows the body to use the faster cross type auto focus sensors, so AF becomes super snappy (on most lenses, the 85 f/1.2 is the notable exception just because there is so much glass to move when you focus) and impressively accurate for a non 1D body. You are going to want to change your auto focus to the * button and use AI Servo focus mode for sports, then you start tracking a player way off, hold down the * button, AF will track the subject, and exposure is set right before the shutter fires (exposure will be set with a half press of the shutter button, so with AF and AE both on shutter button, your AF might be right, but exposure will be set for the player being all the way across the ice.) The nice thing about AF on the *, is that you will be able to keep your camera in AI Servo all the time, because a quick press of the * and then off again, and it acts like AF single shot mode. Super handy in my opinion. Another trick is to only use either the center focus point, or one of the lower ones (you can set them using the little joystick) for sports. That way, if you slip off the player, the AF doesn't have far to hunt if it is tracking their torso or feet because it will slip to the the ice (or dirt, what ever you are shooting) right below or behind the player. If you are using all points and you slip off the player, if might decide that the top point, which has the netting or glass support 100' behind the player is pretty easy to focus on, then you have to wait for the lens to rack all the way back when you get it back on the player.

All that being said, I got to see a fiends 70-200 f/4 last week, and it is an impressively fast focuser for being a f/4.

[rinkrat]

I won't be using the walkabout for sports so I'm not sure if I even need the 2.8. I am afraid to get an S lens since they are going to be outmoded as soon as the full frame models take over and if I am spending that much on a lens I want it to outlast this camera. The weight difference sounds good so I am tempted. I'll do a little more homework.

The 17-55 would leave me with a gap between 55mm-70mm range.

I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002Y5WXO?tag=letsgokingsco-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=B0002Y5WXO&adid=1QDFHJ6XD3VSQQV57ZPW&

[trdi]

I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics.
You need 2.8 lens. If Canon 2.8 70-200 is too much, you should take a look at Sigma 70-200. Apart from 300-800mm I think 70-200 is the best lens Sigma has made. A good Sigma 70-200 is practically equal to Canon 70-200 - for considerably less money. The only difference might be SLIGHTLY slower focus. Aside from that, you can't say a difference between both lenses.

So why is Sigma cheaper? Because of control quality. 5% of Sigma 70-200 and 80% of Canon 70-200 are A quality. So you need to test lot of Sigma lenses to find a top quality lens. You need to test every lens, even the Canon L lenses, but you will find top quality Sigma lens less frequently. It's all about control quality. :)


I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.I know you won't be having this for sport, but still 5.6 on the tele end is just too bad. Isn't F5.6 the lowest value where Canon can do the autofocus? So if it would be half F worse, this lens wouldn't be able to autofocus at 85mm. I know it's not important, it's just a visualization of how bad 5.6 is. I would really like to see some test photos at 5.6 @ 85mm anyway, because I think that they might not be the best. We all know that usually best photos are at apertures a couple of stops slower than fastest. F5.6 might be too limiting even for everyday use.
What's your price range for this kind of lens?

[FBJ]

You need 2.8 lens. If Canon 2.8 70-200 is too much, you should take a look at Sigma 70-200. Apart from 300-800mm I think 70-200 is the best lens Sigma has made. A good Sigma 70-200 is practically equal to Canon 70-200 - for considerably less money.

Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.

The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.

[rinkrat]

Since I already have the 70-200 f4, I am not going to dump it for a 2.8 so I am going to have to make due. I guess I'm going to have to suck it up and spend $900 for the S lens or be content with the 18-55 kit lens.

[trdi]

be content with the 18-55 kit lens.
No way. :)

I read that you are worried about S mount being replaced by some other stuff or abandoned completely because of full frame cameras. Don't be. S series is serious stuff and it will be more and more important, not less. Canon does not have any intention to abandon 1.6? cameras. Full frame will remain top level for a very long time, because top quality material is needed for FF program. And there is no industry in the world that would be offering only top level products. The only change in market might be in the range of entry level DSLRs (like Rebel) or top compacts ($900+ range). I can't say what is going to happen there, but it seems top end compacts are being replaced by entry level DSLRs.


Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.

The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.
Actually, I made a mistake there. I think Sigma 120-300 might be the top of their program. This lens is sooo fantastic. :)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3274&navigator=3

[VF]

I won't be using the walkabout for sports so I'm not sure if I even need the 2.8. I am afraid to get an S lens since they are going to be outmoded as soon as the full frame models take over and if I am spending that much on a lens I want it to outlast this camera. The weight difference sounds good so I am tempted. I'll do a little more homework.

The 17-55 would leave me with a gap between 55mm-70mm range.

I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.


I don't think you have to worry about Canon's APC sized sensors (1.6 crop) going anywhere for a long, long time. Having only two full frame models, it lends some justification as to why you would spend $8000 on their flagship camera (1Ds Mk II). If they moved all their bodies to full frame, they would have a hard time convincing pros that a slightly better Digic processor, AF, and weather sealing is worth $6000. This, coupled with the the fact that of all three sensor sizes that they offer, the 1.6 crop has been by far the most successful, and the concentration recently on only rolling out EF-s lenses (there hasn't been a new EF in a long time, only updates), I think Canon is convinced the 1.6 crop sensor is a HUGE potential market for them, the entry DSLR is where it is at right now, which means APC sensors, even for prosumer bodies.

As for the gap between 55-70, I don't think you will miss it at all. For a full frame, that is a gap between 88mm and 112mm. I currently have a gap from 85mm and 135mm, so a considerably wider gap than you will see, and I still don't feel the need to run out and get a 100mm, I don't even think about it.

As for the 17-85mm f/4-5.6, it all depends on what you want it for. If you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it will be a great lens. One of the interesting things about it though is that the majority of the zoom range is actually in the f/5.6 range. If I recall correctly, the stops are as follows:
17 mm - f/4
22 mm - f/4.5
24 mm - f/5.6
So at 24mm, you are already at the slow end of the lens. The IS is good for 2 to 3 stops, so you could conceivably hand hold this lens at f/5.6 with IS where you could do it with a f/2.8 or f/2.0 without IS, but it only helps you when your subject is static, so not great for people in moderate action. So, if you need 1/200 sec to get the shot with a f/2.8, you are going to need to go down to 1/50 sec with a f/5.6, which is a lot more time to get motion blur in your subject.

I always hate making these decisions, because one is almost twice the cost of the other, but you do get 4 times the amount light, therefor 4 times the speed. Really, it all comes down to what to do with the lens and what is important to you. For me, I am such a sucker for natural light and background blur, I almost always go for the faster lens, which almost always results in a dispute with the wifey over the cost :)

[rinkrat]

Ok gents, after having my arm twisted I have decided on the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS. I just ordered it from Amazon for delivery on Monday. :)

Thanks for the help, I'm sure that once I get over the buyer's remorse I will enjoy this thing. With the f/2.8 through the whole range and the IS, it should be a fun low light lens. One advantage that it had over the L lenses is that it is under 4" long so I can still bring it to Staples Center. ;) Now I need to upgrade my 70-200 f/4 but I'll save that for another day.

[VF]

I think you are going to love that lens, it will be on your camera constantly.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_17_55_28_is_usm - just keep on clicking on "more"

[BIG JOE]

Heres a few pics I took while I was in Seattle last week.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bigjoeltd/IMG_1975.jpg
Mt. Saint Helens
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bigjoeltd/IMG_2088.jpg
The Blue Angels
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bigjoeltd/IMG_2461.jpg
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bigjoeltd/IMG_2487.jpg

[trdi]

Ok gents, after having my arm twisted I have decided on the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS.
Very nice choice. IS, better USM motor, constant 2.8, 17 wide... :victory:

You will never notice the "gap" to 70mm, that's for sure.

[rinkrat]

110.60 mm = 4.35433 in

Damn i hope I can get into Staples with the extra .35433 of an inch. Anyone know how strict they are on the 4" rule?

[VF]

I'd be currious to hear the answer to this, as my EF 135 is about 4.25"

[trdi]

Obviously I can't answer your question, but I did find this, dated 6 months ago:


Right before X'mas, I went to the Disney on Ice show at Staples Center in LA where Lakers and Clippers play. I rented the 70-200 2.8 IS lens, but I knew they wouldn't let me take it in, so I put the lens at the bottom of the backpack and put baby diaper, juice bottles and other stuff (we took our 2 & 4 y/o). I put my 28-135 IS lens on my 20D. They didn't see the 70-200 in the backpack, but they wouldn't let me take the 28-135 lens because it's about 1/4 inch longer than the long side of the guy's ID card (same size as a credit card). We went back and forth for like over 5 minutes, then his supervisor came and told the guy to let me in.
Rinkrat, try using these arguments:
- it's only 0.33 more
- it's not a pro camera
- it's not pro lens
- it's only 0.33 more
- you are not a pro
- you are not selling pics
- it's only 0.33 more
- your neighbour was let in with the same lens

[ImA1032]

Last season after buying my D70s, I went on a group trip to a game and wanted to bring my camera. So I looked on the Kings website and found something that said:


Photography
No commercial or flash photography of any kind is permitted. Camcorders or any other audio/visual equipment is prohibited unless authorized by team/promoter or performer. Specifically, the use of the following equipment is not permitted:

Lenses greater than three-and-one-half inches in length
Telephoto or zoom lenses of any kind
Interchangeable lenses of any kind

I tried to get through with my 70-200 zoom compressed as far as I could but the guy at the metal detector stopped me and waved some old geezer over who measured it with his ID card (ala trdi's experience) and told me that anything longer than 5" couldn't come in. I wanted to tell him that if he thought his ID card was 5", then his wife was getting short-changed... but alas I opted to take the camera back to the car, swap out lenses and enter through a different gate without question.

Just the fact that it says interchangeable lenses should rule out DSLR cameras. The only thing you can do is try. The worst thing that would happen is they make you take it back out.

[rinkrat]

Just got the lens today! Here is my first pic :)

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

Here is my second. My favorite subjects too :)

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

OK, out to the garage..

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


puck in a coffee cup

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

[FBJ]

Sorry, Mikey. But you asked for this:

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/cat%20copy.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/cat%20copy2.jpg
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/cat%20copy3.jpg

:)

[Clich? Guevara]

shots taken a few days ago with my 30D.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/1133569671_ae54d6558d.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1363/1134200324_b37e19dbb4.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1252/1133565257_c98061125a.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1178/766235331_6487859dd2.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/1187214979_ce7f3de20f.jpg

[VF]

Just got the lens today! Here is my first pic :)

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



Look at that nice smooth Bokeh! Aren't you glad you got the f/2.8 now? :grin:

[VF]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1363/1134200324_b37e19dbb4.jpg


I love this pic. With the coloring and composition, it looks like something that would be in a `50s Vogue or something. A little more room on the bottom and it would be perfect.

[Clich? Guevara]

I love this pic. With the coloring and composition, it looks like something that would be in a `50s Vogue or something. A little more room on the bottom and it would be perfect.

Thank you.

At first, I was not a fan of the shot because of the sticking point she becomes but I've gotten used to it. The color is admirable, at least.

She's a tease, though. There are times where she allows me to set up and frame her nicely... and THEN there are times... :fedup:
it's like changing a baby!

[trdi]

Look at that nice smooth Bokeh! Aren't you glad you got the f/2.8 now? :grin:
Yeah, great for portraits. Helps if you have cooperative family members as well. :) Nice lens.

[FBJ]

So yeah. Now that you guys have got fast teles, I need one. Can't let you guys get ahead of me, here.

I'm having a tough time deciding between Nikon's 70-200 VR f/2.8 and Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 Macro. The street price difference is about $500 in favor of the Sigma (about $800 compared to about $1300 for the Nikon), and I'm not sure the vibration reduction is worth that much more.

I've saved almost to the point of being able to afford a longer lens, also. And that new 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 Sigma with optical stabilization (to match Nikon's 80-400 VR) is looking pretty tempting. Imagine that with a 2x teleconverter?

[ImA1032]

So yeah. Now that you guys have got fast teles, I need one. Can't let you guys get ahead of me, here.

I'm having a tough time deciding between Nikon's 70-200 VR f/2.8 and Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 Macro. The street price difference is about $500 in favor of the Sigma (about $800 compared to about $1300 for the Nikon), and I'm not sure the vibration reduction is worth that much more.

I've saved almost to the point of being able to afford a longer lens, also. And that new 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 Sigma with optical stabilization (to match Nikon's 80-400 is looking pretty tempting. Imagine that with a 2x teleconverter?

I just rented the Nikon VR lens for 2 weeks so I've got it for the NASCAR weekend in Fontana. Hopefully I'll be able to get to a Dodger game and/or down to El Segundo to have even more fun with it.

[FBJ]

I just rented the Nikon VR lens for 2 weeks so I've got it for the NASCAR weekend in Fontana. Hopefully I'll be able to get to a Dodger game and/or down to El Segundo to have even more fun with it.

Make sure you post some pictures you take.

I wish I had the ability to try the non-stabilized Sigma next to the stabilized Nikon to compare the two. I'm really torn between the VR and non-stabilized.

[Clich? Guevara]

Has anyone here had any personal experience with sigma lenses?

[FBJ]

I played around with a couple about three months ago at a camera shop in Portland. Impressively built. They get good reviews, as well. I have yet to own one, but wouldn't think twice about buying one if I decide it suits my needs.

[DeaderFan]

I was just checking out dpreview.com and all of a sudden it's like Christmas. Nikon and Canon finally releasing a slew of new cameras! I was saving money for a lens but I might have to think about a new body now. Canon with a full frame sensor at 21 megapixels! And the Nikon D3 going full frame with light sensitivity to iso 25600 and shooting 11fps. Then the D300 going cmos at 12.3mp with live LCD viewing while shooting. And that's with a 3" 922,000 pixel LCD. Nice stuff.

Canon 1Ds MarkIII http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082009canoneos1dsmarkiii.asp

Canon 40D http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082010canoneos40d.asp

Nikon D3 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp

Nikon D300 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp

[trdi]

Damn! Also some new lens, like EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/

Looks like a revolution instead of evolution to me. I want 1Ds MarkIII !!
I must have it! I will get it. Just not right now.

[FBJ]

I was just checking out dpreview.com and all of a sudden it's like Christmas. Nikon and Canon finally releasing a slew of new cameras! I was saving money for a lens but I might have to think about a new body now. Canon with a full frame sensor at 21 megapixels! And the Nikon D3 going full frame with light sensitivity to iso 25600 and shooting 11fps. Then the D300 going cmos at 12.3mp with live LCD viewing while shooting. And that's with a 3" 922,000 pixel LCD. Nice stuff.

Canon 1Ds MarkIII http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082009canoneos1dsmarkiii.asp

Canon 40D http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082010canoneos40d.asp

Nikon D3 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp

Nikon D300 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp

Just when I started thinking my D200 would be the good **** for a while. Oh well. I've been thinking about getting a second camera body eventually. Maybe I'll wait a couple years and upgrade to keep the D200 as the spare.

[DeaderFan]

I shoot sports with the D200 also and love it. I was saving for the 70-200mm 2.8 VR. I have the 80-200 2.8 now but it's the older push-pull zoom so I was hoping to upgrade. Now I dunno. I shoot a lot of hockey and so I have been begging for more light sensitivity. The D300 is also supposed to have noise reduction on the sensor, plus it's CMOS so it should have much less noise at iso 1600 than the D200. The D3 would be awsome for low light but I am getting used to the lens reach I have in the DX format so I'm not sure I want to go back to full frame.

Now I also have a Hasselblad system and I might be tempted to sell it all for that new 1Ds. At 21mp it should give medium format a run for it's money. On the other hand I will have to spend a fortune in glass because the high resolution wil show all the flaws in the cheaper lenses. It's nice to dream though.

[trdi]

Now I also have a Hasselblad system and I might be tempted to sell it all for that new 1Ds. At 21mp it should give medium format a run for it's money. On the other hand I will have to spend a fortune in glass because the high resolution wil show all the flaws in the cheaper lenses. It's nice to dream though.

Even with an older 1Ds that was a problem. What surprised me was, that some of the expensive L glass was found to have problems with the new super resolution. Like 100-400 L or 17-35 2.8 L.

[VF]

I would say hold off on your pre-orders for the 1Ds MKIII as it has the exact same AF system as the 1D MKIII, which is having a few problems right now (about a 80% hit rate for stuff coming directly at the camera) Canon has tried to solve it with new firmware, but it might take them a while to get it worked out. They actually pulled pre-orders for the 1Ds MKIII this morning, so they may be working on it, or they may have seen the prices for the D3 and thought that they need to reduce the price, a lot, but the test frames for it look absolutely stunning. As for the D3 and the D300, I would hold off until you see some test frames to see if Nikon did finally get their noise under control, but as these are two brand new sensors, offered at a great price, it is looking like it is a great time to be a Nikon shooter.

[rinkrat]

The 40D is available at Amazon for pre-order!

Link

[FBJ]

The D-40 is available at Amazon for pre-order!

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=letsgokingsco-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=B000V9CQJI&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr

That'd be the 40D.

The D40 is a Nikon (and therefore much superior) product.

;)

[rinkrat]

oops fixed :)

[VF]

I think one of the more interesting things about the 40D is that they have added some weather sealing, which has always been a hallmark reserved for the 1D lines. It is no were near as water tight as the 1D, but if you slap an L on it, you can certainly feel better about blowing sand or light drizzle.

[DeaderFan]

I think one of the more interesting things about the 40D is that they have added some weather sealing, which has always been a hallmark reserved for the 1D lines. It is no were near as water tight as the 1D, but if you slap an L on it, you can certainly feel better about blowing sand or light drizzle.

It seems to me that both Nikon and Canon have addressed their respective failings. The knock on Canon's lower end and midrange SLRs has been build quality and complaints of a "plastic feel." With Nikon it has been image noise in low light situations requiring significant NR processing.

Better sealing sounds like 40D will be better built. And Nikon's D300 switching to the new Sony 12 megapixel CMOS sensor makes it sound like they will be able to provide better low-light performance. We'll soon find out when these new bodies hit the market.

[FBJ]

Argh. I'm going to want a D300.

[VF]

Argh. I'm going to want a D300.

Oh come on, you know you're going to want a D3. Even I kind of do :grin: About the resolution of the 5D, and has a FPS rate and AF very close to that of the 1D MkIII, but it is full frame, for a bit less than the 1D. I am glad that Nikon has finally started to put the hurt on Canon in terms of who has the best offerings in specific markets. Nikon has, I think, clearly taken the lead in prosumer and pro sport bodies, you might start seeing a few more black lenses down on the sidelines soon. Canon still has the edge on portraiture bodies, namely the 5D and the 1Ds MKIII, but the fact that they are no longer the default leader in sensor size and ISO noise means they can no longer rest on their laurels and continue to roll out only moderate upgrades. Right now is a great time to be a Nikon shooter because you have cutting edge bodies in the offering, and a good time to be a Canon shooter as this can only lead to better bodies at lower prices.

[FBJ]

Oh come on, you know you're going to want a D3. Even I kind of do :grin: About the resolution of the 5D, and has a FPS rate and AF very close to that of the 1D MkIII, but it is full frame, for a bit less than the 1D. I am glad that Nikon has finally started to put the hurt on Canon in terms of who has the best offerings in specific markets, here Nikon has, I think, clearly taken the lead in prosumer and pro sport bodies, you might start seeing a few more black lenses down on the sidelines soon. Canon still has the edge on portraiture bodies, namely the 5D and the 1Ds MKIII, but the fact that they are no longer the default leader in sensor size and ISO noise means they can no longer rest on their laurels and continue to roll out only moderate upgrades. Right now is a great time to be a Nikon shooter because you have cutting edge bodies in the offering, and a good time to be a Canon shooter as this can only lead to better bodies at lower prices.

Yeah. Okay. A D3 would be great. But the difference in price is staggering. Ritz has the D3 pre-orderable at $4,999. The D300 is only $1799. It kinda comes down to the fact that, underneath all the aspirations I have, I'm still in the pro-sumer category.

I don't really plan on upgrading from my D200 anytime soon, anyhow.

[FBJ]

So yeah. Now that you guys have got fast teles, I need one. Can't let you guys get ahead of me, here.

I'm having a tough time deciding between Nikon's 70-200 VR f/2.8 and Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 Macro. The street price difference is about $500 in favor of the Sigma (about $800 compared to about $1300 for the Nikon), and I'm not sure the vibration reduction is worth that much more.

I've saved almost to the point of being able to afford a longer lens, also. And that new 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 Sigma with optical stabilization (to match Nikon's 80-400 VR) is looking pretty tempting. Imagine that with a 2x teleconverter?


I played around with a couple about three months ago at a camera shop in Portland. Impressively built. They get good reviews, as well. I have yet to own one, but wouldn't think twice about buying one if I decide it suits my needs.

I hereby retract the second statement.

I finally had the opportunity to play around with the Sigma lenses side-by-side with the Nikon lenses. I went to Canoga Camera this morning and tried out both of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses and both of the 80-400 lenses. Let me just say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARING the brands. Nikon's lenses focused TWICE as fast on my D200 than Sigma's lenses did. Nikon's silent-wave-motor was absolutely silent (to the point where the only way I could tell it was focused was when I heard it 'beep'), and the Sigma's sounded like a cheap autofocus.

So in terms of telephoto lenses, I'm sticking to Nikon.

I did try out a 50mm f2.8 macro lens from Sigma that seemed to work quite well, though. I also looked at Sigma's teleconverters and they didn't seem so bad. Nikon's are supposed to have much clearer optics, though, so I'll probably stick to those as well.

I think in a month or two, I'll cash in some company stock and buy the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and a 2.0x teleconverter.

[FBJ]

Look at that nice smooth Bokeh! Aren't you glad you got the f/2.8 now? :grin:

HAH! I just learned what bokeh means (the visual quality of out of focus areas).

All this time I thought it was a funny name for a dog!

[FBJ]

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/MantisSmall.jpg

Boo, mother****ers!

Mantissesesess are teh coolz insext.

I wish I had a long lens that focused closer. This old 18-200 does okay, but I've still got to be a yard-and-a-half or so away from the subject.

[VF]

FBJ is owning this tread as of late ;) Nice shot of the mantissesesessi.

So in a splurge, I purchased my first studio strobe, an Alien Bees B800 (http://www.alienbees.com/b800.html), stand, 60" shoot through umbrella, and a couple of the ebay radio slaves. This will compliment my 580ex which I have done the PC port mod on so I can use it with the radio slaves. I was really leaning toward going all the Strobist (http://strobist.blogspot.com/) route and making my whole lighting kit with all hot shoe flashes, but I have found I don't travel around much with my flashes and most of the time when I need them I know I have to set up the whole kit anyway, so I opted for the bigger flash which will let me light the bigger umbrella.

Getting into lighting feels like a very slippery slope, when I was first starting, it was all about scrounging money for the next lens, now I find myself thinking about the next light modifier.

I'll let you guys know how the Alien Bee does, they are supposed to be pretty good for the very low cost, the biggest strike I see against it is it only has 5 stops of power adjustment (so only down to 1/32 power), hopefully that won't kill me.

[FBJ]

Lighting is like Greek to me. That's something I'd really like to take a class on. One that specifically delves into using the hotshoe flash on your camera.

I do okay by playing with flash compensation values and bouncing the flash off ceilings or walls (which is how I shot the mantis above), but I'd really like to be given some instruction on how to light more dynamic scenes with my speedlight and maybe one other set up remotely as a slave.

[VF]

I do okay by playing with flash compensation values and bouncing the flash off ceilings or walls (which is how I shot the mantis above), but I'd really like to be given some instruction on how to light more dynamic scenes with my speedlight and maybe one other set up remotely as a slave.

Bouncing is a good start. I know I have gone on and on about this Strobist guy, but I really learned a LOT from reading through his stuff and trying out the challenges he lays out in his lighting 101 (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html) and lighting 102 (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-introduction.html). It's main focus is off camera lighting, but I think it getting cool looking shots is a lot easier with off camera than with on camera, and once you start to understand off camera, it makes getting cool looking on camera shots a lot easier.

One of the things that really helped me with my on camera shots was something like this Better Bounce Card (http://www.abetterbouncecard.com/). There are a lot of variations out there, but this is super cheap, you can make it yourself, it is very flexible in the quality of light you can get from it, and it is pretty unobtrusive. I would suggest not really watching his videos as they can be really long a boring, and not very informative, but they do at least show you how to use and make your own bounce card.

[FBJ]

The SB-800 has a built-in bounce card that can be extended and retracted. It's not very big, though. I was thinking of getting a better diffuser for it for indoor shots.

Thing is, I don't do a whole lot of indoor stuff to begin with, but I would like to learn how to use the flash properly.

[VF]

Here is something for FBJ because you like planes and cameras. This is the Zenfolio site (http://boyd.zenfolio.com/) of a KC-135 pilot who takes a lot of pics while he is flying. He has some gorgeous shots, I would say you should try taking some along this line but I imagine SWA probably wouldn't take so kindly to you whipping out your D200 during rotation ;)

[FBJ]

http://www.shopcartusa.com/P_Nikon%A0Zoom_Telephoto_AF_VR_(Vibration_Reductio n)_Nikkor_70-200_2139/PT_Y/?ic_campID=98

Holy SHART! $1039 for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikon?

I call bull****! It's GOT to be either a fake or a refurb. That's a full $600 less than it normally streets for.

[VF]

Yeah, the Best Price Camera guys who are selling it for that price got a 0.51 out of 10 rating on resellerrating.com (http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Best_Price_Cameras_6). Of all the guys on that list, Abe's of Maine is the only one I would even think about buying something from, and they are kind of a pain to deal with. For comparison shopping I would stick to either resellerratings.com or pricegrabber.com, and in the end after all the searching I seem to always end up just buying from B&H or Adorama (through Amazon to throw the wife off the track ;) )

[FBJ]

I just ordered the TC-20E 2x teleconverter from B&H for a GREAT price of $299.

I can't find anything that will tell me the difference between teh TC-20E and the TC-20E II teleconverters, though. One is a newer model (the II) but I can't figure out the difference, spec wise. Price-wise, it's about $150, though.

EDIT: Found this:

http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_tc-20e.html

"There is no optical difference between the TC-20E and the TC-20E II."

It says in that review that I'll lose some sharpness and contrast. I've not heard that before, though I can imagine this might be true since you're sending the light through seven more elements with the teleconverter installed.

Either way, I'll have the 70-200 f/2.8 VR or the 70-200 f/2.8 VR + 2x teleconverter (equaling 140-400 f/5.6). That's a digital equivalent of 105-300mm or 210-600mm!!

By buying the 70-200 lens and the teleconverter, I figure I've got more flexibility than if I were to buy the 80-400 lens by itself. The 70-200 will give me a consistent aperture throughout its focal lengths (instead of ranging from f/4.5-5.6 as the 80-400 will) and I've still got the vibration reduction.

[FBJ]

So...

I bought it. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

It's awesome!

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/_GCC0016small.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/_GCC0062small.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/_GCC0073small.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/_GCC0074small.jpg

[FBJ]

The 2x teleconverter arrived this morning and after I got the kid down for her nap, I played with it a bit.

Of course, the bare lens has the f/2.8 as its largest aperture, the 2x teleconverter necks that down to f/5.6, which of course is two full stops and was as-advertised.

Here's a couple images:

First, the pic I took with just the bare lens (200mm at f/2.8 and 1/1000th):

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/_without2xteleconverter.jpg

Then, the one with the Nikon TC-20E 2x teleconverter installed (400mm at f/5.6 and 1/250th):

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/_with2xteleconverter.jpg

Both of these images were taken within minutes of each other at just after 1pm. The camera itself was in shade. I very much expected a noticeable difference in sharpness and contrast between the two pictures, but there doesn't seem to be any significant difference that I can see...at least not that can't be fixed in PS very quickly. In terms of brightness, there's a definite difference, but again, easily fixable.

I'm freakin' stoked with this new setup. Can't wait to try it out tonight at the Dodger game and Thursday at TSC. Oh and it's gonna be killer when me and Valleyfan head down to San Diego for Red Bull!

[FBJ]

Here is something for FBJ because you like planes and cameras. This is the Zenfolio site (http://boyd.zenfolio.com/) of a KC-135 pilot who takes a lot of pics while he is flying. He has some gorgeous shots, I would say you should try taking some along this line but I imagine SWA probably wouldn't take so kindly to you whipping out your D200 during rotation ;)

Heh...just saw this post. Thanks for sharing that!

I've actually had the camera along with me a couple times, though not as often as I'd like due to its size. There's some stuff on my flickr site. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/) I have a lot more aviation-related stuff than is seen there, but because it has identifiable people in it, I've chosen to leave them off the internet.

[DeaderFan]

So...

I bought it. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

It's awesome!



Where did you get it? I made up my mind today to get one too, but all the decent mail order places are sold out. Anyone around town have them?

I did manage to pre-order a D300 though :)

[FBJ]

Bought my lens at Hooper Camera in Chatsworth.

Sadly (for my pocketbook), I don't believe that I will be able to avoid the temptation of the D300. It'll just be a matter of when.

[VF]

Man, I was off holding judgment on the D3 until I saw some pics from it to see if Nikon really did get their noise under control, and holy cow are they amazing! Canon is going to get absolutely spanked by this camera. Check out the 3200 and the 6400 iso shots, absolutely incredible. For Canons sake, the Ds MK III better have noise similar to this, and cost less than the $8K they want to charge for it.

Here is the link for the images (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3/sample.htm)

[FBJ]

Oh my gatos! That pic at 6400 ISO looks like pics from my D200 at 400 ISO.

I wonder how the D300 will be?

[DeaderFan]

That's incredible! I preordered the the D300 because like the D200 you seem to get 90% of what the top of the line camera offers for a third the price. This is different. That ISO 6400 shot is amazing! I may have to seriously think about the D3. $5K is still a big pill to swallow though. Finally some relief from Canon-envy for us Nikon fans.

[DeaderFan]

So...

I bought it. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

It's awesome!



You convinced me. I ordered one from B&H yesterday and can hardly wait! I've had the older 80-200 since my film days and thought I was happy with it. However, the faster and more accurate focusing of the 70-200 along with the ability to autofocus with teleconverters is too much to pass up.

[FBJ]

You convinced me. I ordered one from B&H yesterday and can hardly wait! I've had the older 80-200 since my film days and thought I was happy with it. However, the faster and more accurate focusing of the 70-200 along with the ability to autofocus with teleconverters is too much to pass up.

You're going to LOVE it.

In case you didn't see them already, here's a link to the album that has pics I took with the lens at TSC last week. With the aperture at f/2.8, I could use a MUCH lower ISO (600) compared to my old 80-200.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157601993631298/

[DeaderFan]

You're going to LOVE it.

In case you didn't see them already, here's a link to the album that has pics I took with the lens at TSC last week. With the aperture at f/2.8, I could use a MUCH lower ISO (600) compared to my old 80-200.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157601993631298/

Your pictures look great. Good exposure and nice neutral white balance. I sometimes have color cast problems with those vapor lights when shooting at high ISO. Sometimes when I preset my white balance for one area of the ice I get a slight pink cast on in other areas. Still the brightness and color consistnecy at TSC is much better than most other rinks around town. Anaheim Ice is at least one stop darker, if not more. On the other hand, Staples is a dream. Probably a stop and a half brighter than TSC.

[FBJ]

Your pictures look great. Good exposure and nice neutral white balance. I sometimes have color cast problems with those vapor lights when shooting at high ISO. Sometimes when I preset my white balance for one area of the ice I get a slight pink cast on in other areas. Still the brightness and color consistnecy at TSC is much better than most other rinks around town. Anaheim Ice is at least one stop darker, if not more. On the other hand, Staples is a dream. Probably a stop and a half brighter than TSC.

Yeah but good luck getting the 70-200 into Staples. If you do manage to do it, though I want to know how. Names, man. I need NAMES!

And I made the mistake of going with the continuous focusing in a many of the shots. That doesn't work so slick when you're shooting from behind glass. The focus-range limiter on the lens helped, but not enough. Some pics just turned out a tad blurry because of that.

[VF]

Stupid Sammy's. Rude as always, and when I went to go pick up my rental ef 300 f/2.8 IS today, and they forgot the 2.0x converter, so the longest reach I'm going to have for tomorrow is 420mm. :( But I immediately went to the back yard to try and practice tracking planes:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage-3035.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage-3010.jpg

I like the lens so far, pretty heavy, and a bit of a battery hog with the IS on, but I'm learning to work with it. I better not like it too much at $4k ;)

[FBJ]

I like the second picture better. :)

[VF]

Interesting, the SWA was shot with the 1.4 tele-converter, and the UA was show without, and although the SWA shot is a bit out of focus, there isn't a huge sacrifice in local contrast, or really sharpness (although this probably isn't a very good test)http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/crops.jpg

[DeaderFan]

Yeah but good luck getting the 70-200 into Staples. If you do manage to do it, though I want to know how. Names, man. I need NAMES!



I shoot my kid's hockey games so I shoot in a lot of rinks. Since he is on the Jr. Kings we have occasionally been able to play at Staples, and in that circumstance they let me bring in whatever equipment I want. I know better than to try to bring in a big lens for an NHL game without credential--although I know people have asked for and gotten a credential when their kid was playing between periods.

Hey which teleconverter are you using? I see there is a TC-20E and a TC-20E II for a $150 more. Any idea what the diference is? They say they both work with the 70-200.

[FBJ]

I just ordered the TC-20E 2x teleconverter from B&H for a GREAT price of $299.

I can't find anything that will tell me the difference between teh TC-20E and the TC-20E II teleconverters, though. One is a newer model (the II) but I can't figure out the difference, spec wise. Price-wise, it's about $150, though.

EDIT: Found this:

http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_tc-20e.html

"There is no optical difference between the TC-20E and the TC-20E II."

It says in that review that I'll lose some sharpness and contrast. I've not heard that before, though I can imagine this might be true since you're sending the light through seven more elements with the teleconverter installed.

Either way, I'll have the 70-200 f/2.8 VR or the 70-200 f/2.8 VR + 2x teleconverter (equaling 140-400 f/5.6). That's a digital equivalent of 105-300mm or 210-600mm!!

By buying the 70-200 lens and the teleconverter, I figure I've got more flexibility than if I were to buy the 80-400 lens by itself. The 70-200 will give me a consistent aperture throughout its focal lengths (instead of ranging from f/4.5-5.6 as the 80-400 will) and I've still got the vibration reduction.

I couldn't find any optical difference between the TC-20E and the TC-20E II. Go with the cheaper of the two, which is what I did.

[VF]

More high ISO D3 shots (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8743-9108) for you Nikon-ers to drool at :)

[FBJ]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/1454661712_b851c96e6a_b.jpg

Hand-held, bitches! :) One of the best low-light pics I've taken.

[VF]

Very nice, did you have a good time?

Also, I don't know if you saw them, Red Bull pics are here (http://www.sampage.net/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1658&g2_enterAlbum=1).

[FBJ]

Heh...I was just checking them out and posting in the thread.

Is your gallery a Lightroom creation?

[FBJ]

I shoot my kid's hockey games so I shoot in a lot of rinks. Since he is on the Jr. Kings we have occasionally been able to play at Staples, and in that circumstance they let me bring in whatever equipment I want. I know better than to try to bring in a big lens for an NHL game without credential--although I know people have asked for and gotten a credential when their kid was playing between periods.

Hey which teleconverter are you using? I see there is a TC-20E and a TC-20E II for a $150 more. Any idea what the diference is? They say they both work with the 70-200.

Well??? Did you get it yet??? Where are the pics, man!

[VF]

Is your gallery a Lightroom creation?

The gallery is a open source application that you upload to your hosting server, which is here (http://gallery.menalto.com/). The really nice thing about it is that really it does all the work, so I basically just drag and drop a bunch of pics, add captions, and say go, and it does everything else. Because it is open source, there are a bunch of different skins and whatnot for it, and it is very customizable, but it can be a little confusing to set up. The thing I like about it over Photoshop created web galleries (I haven't used Lightroom's yet) is that if I want to add or delete pictures, I don't have to rebuild the whole page, I just add or delete and the gallery software rebuilds stuff as needed. I really really like it.

[DeaderFan]

Well??? Did you get it yet??? Where are the pics, man!


I did get it and I was pretty excited. I had been on the B&H website many times and it was always listed as out of stock. Then one day there it was. "In stock" for about a day. So I ordered and got it. As soon as I got it I also got a big project at work so I have had no time to put it to the test yet. Very frustrating! Anyway right now I am just happy to have it in my hands. A very nice lens. Great workmanship. As soon as I get some pics I will post something.

Love the picture of the ship BTW.

[FBJ]

Couple of B&Ws I took in Monterey last week that I'm kinda proud of.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1082/1491269609_7b11b3ed54.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1173/1491257197_24e745bad6.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1038/1492104602_91d4ec4148.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/1491246113_967e64200c.jpg

A boatload more pics of the trip (B&W and otherwise) are up on my flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157602281523269/) page.

Sam: I like the gallery software a lot. I've got to get some website stuff ironed out, then I'll probably create a gallery page of my own that looks a little more "professional" than flickr.

[VF]

Couple of B&Ws I took in Monterey last week that I'm kinda proud of.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/1491246113_967e64200c.jpg

Sam: I like the gallery software a lot. I've got to get some website stuff ironed out, then I'll probably create a gallery page of my own that looks a little more "professional" than flickr.

Hey, that's my place ;)

Wow, really nice shots and nice conversions. I like `em a lot. Makes me want to get out and take more pics, but I have been so couped up with work.

The Gallery is really nice, but it does take a good chunk of time to get it all installed and configured the first time, but once it is up, and set up the way you want it, I have found it to be super easy.

[Unfiltered]

I've been using my Canon D10 for a few years and I've decided to upgrade. Not only have I decided to upgrade, I am changing makes. I'm switching to a Nikon D300.
I shot with my buddy's D200 quite a bit to know that's the direction I wanted to go. With the D300 due in November, I decided to wait. If I had the disposable income, I'd get a D3. But that's a lot of extra money I can spend on some new glass instead. :)

I've been rummaging through the thread and you guys have some really nice shots. I look forward to sharing with y'all.

Heck, maybe I'll try and work my silly press connections a bit and see if we can get down to ice level during a game at Staples. No promises, but I'll try.

[FBJ]

Heck, maybe I'll try and work my silly press connections a bit and see if we can get down to ice level during a game at Staples. No promises, but I'll try.

You, sir, would become a true hero to this amateur photographer were you able to do this (or hell, get me down into the photog's box at a Dodger game).

But doesn't Getty Images have all the NHL stuff sewn up tighter than a gnat's ass?

[FBJ]

I've been using my Canon D10 for a few years and I've decided to upgrade. Not only have I decided to upgrade, I am changing makes. I'm switching to a Nikon D300.
I shot with my buddy's D200 quite a bit to know that's the direction I wanted to go. With the D300 due in November, I decided to wait. If I had the disposable income, I'd get a D3. But that's a lot of extra money I can spend on some new glass instead. :)

I've been rummaging through the thread and you guys have some really nice shots. I look forward to sharing with y'all.

Heck, maybe I'll try and work my silly press connections a bit and see if we can get down to ice level during a game at Staples. No promises, but I'll try.

I've decided that I'll be upgrading to a D300 some time early next year. I think I'm going to try and save enough to buy it so that I don't have to sell the D200. That way I can be all cool and pro-like with a backup camera.

[Unfiltered]

You, sir, would become a true hero to this amateur photographer were you able to do this (or hell, get me down into the photog's box at a Dodger game).

But doesn't Getty Images have all the NHL stuff sewn up tighter than a gnat's ass?

As far as Getty Images go, I'm not sure. But my press creds would come via NBC, so that my not be an issue. Again, I haven't looked into it.

When the 08' season starts, I'll see what I can do at the Ravine. :)

[Unfiltered]

Bought my lens at Hooper Camera in Chatsworth.

Sadly (for my pocketbook), I don't believe that I will be able to avoid the temptation of the D300. It'll just be a matter of when.

For the $1619 they're selling it for now?

[FBJ]

If you're talking about the lens, I paid a little less than that. I've bought two compact cameras, two DSLR bodies, three lenses, and a TON of accessories from them over the last four years, so they cut me a slightly better deal than their advertised price. At any rate, $1619 is a pretty good deal among brick-and-mortar stores (which I prefer over online buying for big purchases). IIRC, Canoga Camera had it for the same price (but didn't have it in stock when I called), and Ritz had it for $1799. It can be had for somewhat less through several places online (B&H for $1590 imported - as in gray market with no US warranty, or $1615 USA warranty), but as I said, I prefer being able to go into a shop that can exchange immediately (or close to it) if there's a problem.

I don't know what they'll charge for the D300. I imagine it'll be around $1800.

[Unfiltered]

If you're talking about the lens, I paid a little less than that. I've bought two compact cameras, two DSLR bodies, three lenses, and a TON of accessories from them over the last four years, so they cut me a slightly better deal than their advertised price. At any rate, $1619 is a pretty good deal among brick-and-mortar stores (which I prefer over online buying for big purchases). IIRC, Canoga Camera had it for the same price (but didn't have it in stock when I called), and Ritz had it for $1799. It can be had for somewhat less through several places online (B&H for $1590 imported - as in gray market with no US warranty, or $1615 USA warranty), but as I said, I prefer being able to go into a shop that can exchange immediately (or close to it) if there's a problem.

I don't know what they'll charge for the D300. I imagine it'll be around $1800.

Yeah, I meant the lens. I agree with you about buying things like this via "brick and mortar" stores. (Oh, and EFF B&H and their damned grey market crap!)

When I get my D300, I'm going to try out a few lenses before I buy. I want to get some glass that I'll use a lot, and I'm not afraid of plunking down the cash. I just need to do it smartly. :)

[FBJ]

Well, there is no substitute for quality in terms of lenses. Quality costs money. That's just the way it is.

I think I'm going to be getting my first prime lens here pretty quick. I'm thinking it'll be the 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.hoopercamerasales.com/product.asp?pf_id=24674) that Nikon puts out. It's supposed to be one of the best lenses they make in terms of sharpness, and that's what i want. What I've got planned for it includes a set of extension tubes (http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=7698) for some true macro-type photography.

[VF]

Me luvs primes. Fast, small, light, cheap, and amazing IQ. Every time I put one on the camera it makes me slightly question my one zoom (but only for a second). That 50mm is going to be a great wide portraiture length on the D200.

It always amazes me how much extension tubes cost considering they are just tubes with nothing in them (yeah yeah, I know, all the contacts and stuff, but still) ;) I haven't tried one yet, if someone gets one or a set I would love to see the result.

[FBJ]

I think I'll probably wait on them, giving the list of stuff to my wife for Christmas gift ideas.

But when I do get them, I'll play around with them right away of course. I need a better tripod with a good ball head, and a slide rail. From what I've read, those two items make true macro photography infinitely easier and more rewarding.

[Unfiltered]

For the Nikonians -

What software are you using with your images? Capture NX? Photoshop? iPhoto? All of the above?

I'm interested in hearing your workflows from extraction from your cards, through processing, to a completed, "ready-to-print" image.

Thanks!

Corey

[VF]

For the Nikonians -

What software are you using with your images? Capture NX? Photoshop? iPhoto? All of the above?

I'm interested in hearing your workflows from extraction from your cards, through processing, to a completed, "ready-to-print" image.

Thanks!

Corey

I'm not a Nikonian, but I think for any RAW workflow, Lightroom is simply unbeatable.
The photo importer that comes with it is really nice, allowing you to keyword on import, and custom name files using many different attributes, most importantly to me, custom string (my name), shoot date (YYYYMMDD so it all sorts properly), and original image number. Then once in Lightroom, rating, marking picks and rejects, and further keywording is really easy. You can sort photos by any piece of metadata (date shot, lens used, body used, ISO used, etc.), by folder they are stored in, by keyword, by ranking, by flag (pick or reject), or any combination of the above. You can also "stack" photos, so say you spent half an hour trying to get a shot, and you have 20 OK ones and 1 really good one, you can mark that good one as a pick, then stack all the not so good ones underneath it, so if you need then they are still there, but they are stored out of the way.

Next up is the developing area of Lightroom, where you can tweak around with exposure as a whole, or different ranges (Lights, highlight recovery, shadows, fill light), contrast, saturation, and a nifty one called clarity (I think, I'm not sitting in front of it) which gives the image a little extra punch by increasing only local contrast. You can play with curves (it has a nice option where you have a tool where you can just click on a value you want to change and drag up and down), sharpening (which has a really nice masking feature, so you can sharpen just edges, not say the pores on someones face), Hue, saturation, balance, as well as camera calibration. This one is key because say you REALLY like the way Capture One is developing your photos, and you just aren't getting the same punch from Lightroom. Well, just shoot a ColorChecker chart, and develop in Capture One, then open the result in Lightroom and with the color picker, you can see the values of each square. You now import the raw version of that file into Lightroom and change the camera calibration until you get the same values, an now you have a profile that will develop with the same flavor as your favorite RAW developer. Lightroom also has a really nice B + W converter which has the same tool as curves where you can click on a value and drag up and down to change its saturation in the B+W conversion. You can also do split toning on B+W (see here (http://www.sampage.net/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1952), these have some split toning in them)

Lightroom also has a Print and Web tab. The print tab I have used a few times, but really not enough to comment, and I have never used the web tab, as my web software does all the image ingestion for me.

One of the things I have been really using is some of the export options. One of the nice ones is an Edit in Photoshop (you just right click on the image), it converts the image to jpg (or whatever you choose) opens it in Photoshop, you do whatever heavy editing you need to do, then save and close in Photoshop, and when you return to lightroom, you see your Photoshop edit, and stacked underneath your edit is the original file. Really sexy. You can also make custom export settings, some of the precanned ones include send to email, burn full size to disk, etc. but you can always make your own (including where it is stored).

The one negative thing I will say about it is it isn't super snappy in terms of speed. It isn't slow, but you notice you click on a collapsed item, it takes a half second or so to expand. My machine is a little old, but Photoshop seems a little snappier.

[FBJ]

For the Nikonians -

What software are you using with your images? Capture NX? Photoshop? iPhoto? All of the above?

I'm interested in hearing your workflows from extraction from your cards, through processing, to a completed, "ready-to-print" image.

Thanks!

Corey

I shoot RAW and process in Lightroom.

As for my workflow, it's a freakin' mess. I'm reading up on it and trying to streamline things. If you want some good examples of workflows in Lightroom, check out Ken Milburn's stuff from O'Reilly Digital Media:

First of a three-part article by Ken Milburn. (http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/processing_my_way_101_in_light.html)
Part 2 (http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/lightroom_workflow_11_part_ii.html)
Part 3 (http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/lightroom_workflow_part_iii_sp_1.html)

[nocturn]

Wow.
This thread has taken on a life of its own. Cool.

Glenn, I never got to see the observatory series you posted. Is it still being hosted somewhere?

Here a few random shot I've taken over tha past 6 months. Only the bluebird shot had been processed. I coppered the backround making the natural blue "pop" a little more.

Enjoy:
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/BluebirdAbstract.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/Dock1.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/goose.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/maliastairs.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/maliastars2.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/maymount.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/redear.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/Riversunset.jpg

Looking at the last shot, its amazing how much red and purple light is reflected by the muddy river water. Overpowers any blue reflection. Pretty cool.

[nocturn]

Hey Mike, That little girl is what Mrs Nocturn and I made when you and Mrs Rat were in Makakilo...Time flies eh brah?

[Unfiltered]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f36/rdnelan/BluebirdAbstract.jpg


Gorgeous, nocturn!

[nocturn]

Gorgeous, nocturn!

Thats actually my desktop backround...thanks...

[FBJ]

I hate you, Nocturn.

Seriously. Your pics are too good.

My observatory series is still up on my Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157602611819544/) site.

[nocturn]

Thanks Glenn.

And to answer your question about sharpen/vibrance, I dont use it. In fact, all but the Blue Bird pic were shot in 100% manual. I do however go into Auto when shooting birds. They are just too fast to go manual. Although the Goose was manual...but then again, it is a goose.

All were shot in Jpeg. I just cant find time to process any RAW images. Heck, yesterday was the first time I read this thread in like 5 months.

I have 4 2gig SD cards full of stuff I havent had time to look at.

I think a big plus for me is that Virginia has a ton of natural beauty to be looked at. A good portion of it is right outside my backyard with the Appomattox River and all. Water attracts and makes for awesome subject matter.

[FBJ]

Yay! Mine!

http://ndbs.hp.infoseek.co.jp/camera/nikon/images/aiaf5014d/af5014d-f2.jpghttp://ndbs.hp.infoseek.co.jp/camera/nikon/images/aiaf5014d/af5014d-r.jpg

[Unfiltered]

Yay! Mine!

http://ndbs.hp.infoseek.co.jp/camera/nikon/images/aiaf5014d/af5014d-f2.jpghttp://ndbs.hp.infoseek.co.jp/camera/nikon/images/aiaf5014d/af5014d-r.jpg

Sweet! I can't wait to see some pics!

[FBJ]

I'm goin' PRIME TIME, baby!

[FBJ]

I don't think I like it, actually.

[VF]

I don't think I like it, actually.

:( That's no good. What about it, the IQ, focus, or just it being a prime?

[Unfiltered]

I don't think I like it, actually.

Suck!


:( That's no good. What about it, the IQ, focus, or just it being a prime?

Yeah. What's your damage on it?

[FBJ]

:( That's no good. What about it, the IQ, focus, or just it being a prime?

Well...I don't know about it.

Image quality is fine. Very sharp. AF hunts a little bit sometimes. HUGE flare issue when its wide open (understandably), but that dissipates at f's tighter than 2.2 or so.

I think it may just be that I'm so used to a more versatile arrangement of glass hanging off the front of the camera that I feel a little bit restricted. The digital conversion means this is essentially a 75mm lens, and is therefore not as wide as I remember a 50mm lens being.

It'll be a good portrait lens. It'll also do well with a stack of extension tubes behind it for macro stuff...especially in bright lighting.

Here's one of the first pics I shot:

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/GCC_0018again.jpg

[FBJ]

Incidentally...

I'm back to having problems with Lightroom. When I export a DNG to JPG, they're turning out MUCH darker than the image looks in Lightroom.

A few weeks back, ValleyFan told me to switch to sRGB colorspace for the export. That fixed the problem. But now, its happening again even though I export in sRGB.

The only thing I can think of that might be happening is that a change in the camera might be causing it. Would it be possible that the camera shooting in sRGB (instead of Adobe RGB as I had it before) could be causing the issue?

It's pissing me off, majorly.

EDIT: I just shot two identical photos, one with in-camera settings of sRGB and the other with aRGB. They both exported from lightroom identically. Both significantly darker than the version in lightroom.

[FBJ]

Here's a handy little exif-viewer program:

http://www.amarra.de/exif_uk.htm

[VF]

Incidentally...

I'm back to having problems with Lightroom. When I export a DNG to JPG, they're turning out MUCH darker than the image looks in Lightroom.

A few weeks back, ValleyFan told me to switch to sRGB colorspace for the export. That fixed the problem. But now, its happening again even though I export in sRGB.


Do you have Photoshop? If you do, try opening the file that you exported from Lightroom that looks to dark, see if it still looks dark in Photoshop. If it looks good in Photoshp, then the image is getting assigned the right color profile, and what you are viewing it in is not color aware (doesn't solve the problem, but narrows down where it is). If it is too dark in Photoshop, go to Edit -> Assign Profile, see what the current profile it (it is what it will say next to the Working RGB: radio button). With that dialog still open, change it from the working RGB setting to Profile: and try pulling that down to some of the wider color spaces (Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB) to see if in the preview it looks like you are seeing in Lightroom. If this works, then it is somehow getting the wrong color space tag coming out of Lightroom, if it doesn't then we have an even deeper problem (at which point perhaps you could send me the RAW / DNG as well as the jpeg export)

[FBJ]

The .jpg looks fine in Photoshop CS. It looks like crap in the .jpg viewer on this system (windows picture and fax viewer) as well as internet browsers, etc.

For a while since you gave me that first bit of advice, the windows pic viewer would display identical to Lightroom and PS. I don't know what the deal is.

Can you maybe suggest a better .jpg viewer?

I'll upload the .dng and the "clean" .jpg export and send you the links.

EDIT:

Here's the .dng: LINK (http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/GCC_0018.dng)
Here's the exported .jpg: LINK (http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/GCC_0018-3.jpg)

[VF]

The .jpg looks fine in Photoshop CS. It looks like crap in the .jpg viewer on this system (windows picture and fax viewer) as well as internet browsers, etc.

For a while since you gave me that first bit of advice, the windows pic viewer would display identical to Lightroom and PS. I don't know what the deal is.

Can you maybe suggest a better .jpg viewer?

Sweet, so that is good, no mismatched profiles. There are better, color aware jpeg viewers (ACDSee and others) but really you want to get it coming out of Lightroom in the correct profile, because you still won't be able to post a correct looking image on the web if it isn't in sRGB (most web browsers are not color aware).

Are all your export styles exporting the jacked up jpeg? If you right click on an image in Lightroom -> Export... and select the top export in that menu, be sure that under the image settings that the Color Space is set to sRGB. Check the resulting jpeg. Then do the same thing, but now when you have the export dialog open, pull down the Preset menu at the top of the dialog, and set it to the one that is giving you problems, and be sure that is still set to sRGB.

----

EDIT - I see what you are seeing, and it looks like it is a profile mismatch, give me a second to take a look.

Wow, that is weird, it seems that Photoshop and Lightroom have a different interpretation of sRGB than everyone else. I save it Adobe RGB and it looks great in something like firefox, I save in sRGB, every thing but lightroom and photoshop are to dark. I'm wondering if they have a different sRGB standard. Still looking.

[FBJ]

I've been using only one export style, a custom export preset to send it to a .jpeg at 100% quality in sRGB at 600 pixels per inch. I looked through the other presets, and are all set to sRGB.

[FBJ]

Just downloaded ACDSee and it displays dark there, also.

EDIT: So I played around a bit with ACDSee. I exported the same DNG (the one I linked to above) in all three color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB, and ProPhoto RGB) and found the Adobe RGB to be the brightest and closest to the pic displayed in Lightroom. The sRGB was darkest, with the ProPhoto almost identical to the AdobeRGB.

With a completely different DNG, I exported to .jpg in all three color spaces and found that sRGB was the brightest and matched the display in Lightroom exactly.

WTF!?!?

sRGB/Adobe/ProPhoto
http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Samples/GCC_0018.jpghttp://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Samples/GCC_0018-2.jpghttp://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Samples/GCC_0018-3.jpg

http://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Samples/_GCC0092.jpghttp://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Samples/_GCC0092-2.jpghttp://www.help-to-comply.com/files/Samples/_GCC0092-3.jpg

[FBJ]

With the afternoon to kill, I took a short drive over to Cal State Northridge to photograph their Men's Soccer match vs. Cal State Fullerton. I went with merely the hope to hone my sports-photo skills. Here's a couple:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2206/1735941232_1d83b9797a.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2293/1735095771_a2f8a020b3.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2098/1736016500_36e695cfba.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2198/1735173997_992fcc38f7.jpg?v=0

In my opinion, sports photography is so much less about technical knowledge than it is about knowing the sport you're photographing. Where's the action going to be and when?

Soccer sucks (:P) but I had a good time taking pictures.

[nocturn]

2&3 are great action shots Glenn.

Did you burst for them or was it 1 for 1?

[VF]

EDIT: So I played around a bit with ACDSee. I exported the same DNG (the one I linked to above) in all three color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB, and ProPhoto RGB) and found the Adobe RGB to be the brightest and closest to the pic displayed in Lightroom. The sRGB was darkest, with the ProPhoto almost identical to the AdobeRGB.

With a completely different DNG, I exported to .jpg in all three color spaces and found that sRGB was the brightest and matched the display in Lightroom exactly.

WTF!?!?

sRGB/Adobe/ProPhoto


OK, it is a gamma issue (with the cat pic). Here is what is up. Standard Windows gamma is 2.5, sRGB gamma is 2.2 (and for reference, standard Mac gamma is called 1.8 but it is actually 1.72, but that doesn't matter right now). I think what is happening is because we are both working on calibrated monitors (with gamma set at 2.2), Photoshop and Lightroom see that the monitor is calibrated down from 2.5 and boost the gamma slightly to compensate when viewing on the calibrated monitor. Windows (and most other applications) don't compare the gamma that is dictated in the profile with that of the monitor, so you are viewing a 2.2 gamma image in what Windows thinks is a 2.5 gamma space, and therefor looks dark. You notice this most in the cat picture because it is already dark to begin with.

With the candies, because they are pretty bright and colorful, you won't notice the gamma issue as much. So when you exported sRGB (which is the only color space that Windows picture viewer displays correctly in), the candies will look correct in sRGB, the colors will be right on, they might be just a touch darker, but right on color ratio wise.

When you export the candies as ProPhoto or Adobe RGB, they are going to look pale and washed out (this is happening with the cat as well, but since there isn't much color in that shot, it just looks lighter). The reason for this is that each of these color spaces can only define a color between 0 and 255. So in all spaces 255, 0, 0 is going to be red, but there is no common agreement on what color red is, or how red is red. So while a given shade of red might be defined as 255, 0, 0 in sRGB, Adobe RGB has a still deeper, more vibrant red because it has a bigger gamut, so it might define what sRGB considers the most possible red as 220, 0, 0 (as opposed to sRGB's definition of that shade as 255, 0, 0) because it needs more room to define that deeper more vibrant red. Now in your file you converted to Adobe RGB, you are calling out that color as 220, 0, 0, which is fine if the application displaying the image knows that Adobe RGB 220, 0, 0 is the same red as sRGB 255, 0, 0. Now if we simply drop the Adobe RGB tag and replace it with the sRGB tag but keep the numbers the same, we are now asking for an sRGB color which is 220, 0, 0 - a red which is a lot less saturated than the 255, 0, 0 red that we really wanted. This is what happens when you view a non sRGB image in a non color aware application, it just throws out the color space tag and assigns it to sRGB.

That was a lot of gabbing, but none of it solves the issue that we are seeing in the cat pic (and really all pics, but it will be more noticeable in the darker pics). I don't have an answer yet, but at least we know what is going on. I want to look at that cat pic on an uncalibrated PC monitor and a Mac monitor tonight to see what it does.

---Edit---
Hmmm, so on an uncalibrated monitor, the sRGB cat looks pretty good, and the dark tones in the ProPhoto image look posterized (which is slightly expected on this crappy monitor). Now I need to wait for the wife's Mac to come home. I'm glad you posed this, gamma is something I haven't given much thought to. Now we just need to figure out how to solve it :)

[VF]

2&3 are great action shots Glenn.

Those are great shots!

[FBJ]

2&3 are great action shots Glenn.

Did you burst for them or was it 1 for 1?

I concentrated on shutter control and was shooting in single frame mode today.

Thanks for the compliments.

More here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157602679148710/).

[nocturn]

Great timing then.

[Unfiltered]

I concentrated on shutter control and was shooting in single frame mode today.

Thanks for the compliments.

More here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/sets/72157602679148710/).

Which lens were you using, Glenn?

Corey

[Unfiltered]

Okay. After seeing dpreview.com's Canon 40D review, I've decided to wait until the D300 is released and I can get my hands on both before making my decision.

Coming from a Canon, and 3 lenses, I need a substantial reason to spend $500 more on a camera body and the unknown dollar amount for new lenses.

[FBJ]

Great timing then.

Well, it took a little bit for me to learn enough about the flow of a soccer game and where the up-and-down action would be before my timing got good enough to capture some good stuff. 23 "okay" photos and maybe four really good ones from 450 frames shot.


Which lens were you using, Glenn?

Corey

That was with the 70-200 f/2.8.

[VF]

OK Glenn, as far as I can seem to tell, it is a limitation of the sRGB gamut and we are only seeing the difference between the two because the high quality calibrated monitor is good enough to reproduce tones which are outside of sRGB. Basically, if you had a crappier monitor, you wouldn't see the difference between the Lightroom version and the sRBG version, but because you have a monitor with a nice wide gamut, the difference between the two is very apparent.

Reading up on it, it seems that the closer your monitor is to the sRGB color space, the better sRGB works, the more colors and tones your monitor can display, the worse it looks. So it is really a limitation of sRGB. In Photoshop you can soft proof the output by going to View -> Proof setup -> Monitor Color (Then Ctrl + Y to toggle back and forth) which would let you fine tune your output for sRGB, but I'm not sure yet what the best way to do this is in Lightroom. I have read that some people are having better luck with Lightroom 1.0 as opposed to 1.1, so perhaps they have changed the way they were dealing with gamma correction on export?

[FBJ]

Okay. So I've got to go out and get a crappier monitor.

:P

Does any of this affect the way things print when I send the images out to be professionally printed? It seems that my prints came back very dark last time I did that, but then again, that was before I started exporting in sRGB (the .jpg's the prints were made from were exported in Adobe RGB).

[VF]

Does any of this affect the way things print when I send the images out to be professionally printed? It seems that my prints came back very dark last time I did that...

This I think is the biggest shortcoming of Lightroom, no soft proofing. Normaly, professional printer will supply you with a printer profile (I use White House Custom Color and you actually have to proof 5 shots with them using their profile before you can open an account). So in Photoshop you can load that profile into the View -> Proof Setup, and that way you can see what it will look like when printed, and usually those pro printers are serious, so that profile is dead balls on when viewing on a calibrated monitor, it is very satisfying, what you see is what you get. And because you are looking at what it will look like from the printer, you can make any adjustments you need to make that version look good. If Lightroom had soft proofing, it would be even better because you wouldn't need a print copy and an original copy, you could make you changes in the development module and just save it as a virtual copy. So this is one of the very very few cases where I say "Boo Lightroom" - and if Lightroom did have soft proofing, it would solve the issue that we are seeing because you could soft proof in sRGB so you could make any adjustments you need. I have seen a lot of requests to get this in Lightroom (and as soon as I'm done with this, I'm heading over to Adobe to ask for it again ;) )

Once you make those adjustments, most printers want the file tagged sRGB, but more and more are down with the Adobe RGB.

[FBJ]

This I think is the biggest shortcoming of Lightroom, no soft proofing. Normaly, professional printer will supply you with a printer profile (I use White House Custom Color and you actually have to proof 5 shots with them using their profile before you can open an account). So in Photoshop you can load that profile into the View -> Proof Setup, and that way you can see what it will look like when printed, and usually those pro printers are serious, so that profile is dead balls on when viewing on a calibrated monitor, it is very satisfying, what you see is what you get. And because you are looking at what it will look like from the printer, you can make any adjustments you need to make that version look good. If Lightroom had soft proofing, it would be even better because you wouldn't need a print copy and an original copy, you could make you changes in the development module and just save it as a virtual copy. So this is one of the very very few cases where I say "Boo Lightroom" - and if Lightroom did have soft proofing, it would solve the issue that we are seeing because you could soft proof in sRGB so you could make any adjustments you need. I have seen a lot of requests to get this in Lightroom (and as soon as I'm done with this, I'm heading over to Adobe to ask for it again ;) )

Once you make those adjustments, most printers want the file tagged sRGB, but more and more are down with the Adobe RGB.

White House sure is proud of their prints, eh? CHA-CHING!

[VF]

White House sure is proud of their prints, eh? CHA-CHING!

Actually, the reason I got into them is their 5x7 price. They are pretty much more expensive on every other size, but 5x7 they are a very reasonable $0.39 with a $12 minimum (and they have all the artsy fartsy sizes and papers ;) as well as nice volume tools like ftp upload)

[Unfiltered]

Actually, the reason I got into them is their 5x7 price. They are pretty much more expensive on every other size, but 5x7 they are a very reasonable $0.39 with a $12 minimum (and they have all the artsy fartsy sizes and papers ;) as well as nice volume tools like ftp upload)

You wrote "fartsy." huh-huh-huh

[No One]

This is a great thread. Now I want a camera!!!

I need another hobby other than golf, especially with the kid off to college. With that in mind, maybe I can find a 1 MP Point and Shoot!!!! :)

XMAS List, hmmmm....

[Unfiltered]

With that in mind, maybe I can find a 1 MP Point and Shoot!!!! :)


It's already in your pocket and you make calls with it. ;)

[FBJ]

This is a great thread. Now I want a camera!!!

I need another hobby other than golf, especially with the kid off to college. With that in mind, maybe I can find a 1 MP Point and Shoot!!!! :)

XMAS List, hmmmm....

LOL you can probably find a 1mp point-and-shoot and any garage sale. ;)

[FBJ]

A couple from my work day (and my overnight in Spokane, WA) yesterday.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2183/1801984029_9e293be840.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2359/1802113645_3cce1fdf85.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2291/1802021925_eed15919ca.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2303/1802855296_78ac9c33a6.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2347/1802916660_cc18ac6ca9.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2362/1802113143_795a344b33.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/1802108321_074b7f89c8.jpg

Heavy use of the fisheye, I know. But it works, right?

EDIT: Flipped pic #2 180 degrees. It was accidentally upside-down! Whoops!

[VF]

Really like looking down the tree trunk!

[FBJ]

Really like looking down the tree trunk!

That was a tough shot to get!! I held the camera right against the tree trunk about six feet off the ground. That was about the fifth image I took. Every other one, you could see a part of me in the image. I literally had to make love to that tree in order to get out of the image.

[VF]

Is the mallard on the 70-200 (judging by the sharpness)?

From apple picking weekend:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071021_4066.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071021_4032.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071020_3863.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071021_4005.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071021_3966.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071021_4011.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071020_3872.jpg

[VF]

Not mine, but I thought is was awesome. What happens when you stick a high powered strobe in your mouth:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2007/1763156358_ffd304baf2.jpg?v=0

[FBJ]

That one above is FREAKY! Wonder if he cooked his tonsils?

As for yours, Sam, I like the abstractness of the Halloween garland against the blue sky.


Is the mallard on the 70-200 (judging by the sharpness)?

Nope. The 70-200 is a bit too big for me to pack easily when I work. That was taken with the Nikkor ED 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G lens that I've had forever. It's only four inches long when at 28mm and it weighs about a quarter of what the big lens does. It's okay for bright stuff, and its a sharp-enough lens (not bad DOF for f/5.6, eh?). I'll eventually replace it with the 18-200 VR, though.

Oh, and that pic, though it was pretty sharp as-shot, was detail-sharpened a tad in Lightroom.

[HeShootsNScores]

keep this thread going... I'm a lurker, only because I love photography, and with every day I'm getting more and more into it. Through work and stuff I've actually gained lots of experience with photoshop and a bit with lightroom...

yet... I can't afford to buy a DSLR yet. I've been looking at the Nikon D80 for weeks now... (I'm a Nikon guy, the Canon just doesn't sit right in my hands)...

any ideas where I can find an affordable kit?

[FBJ]

Best Buy has it packaged with the 18-135 kit lens (POS) for $1300.

B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/484235-REG/Nikon_9425_D80_SLR_Digital_Camera.html) has it packaged with the 18-55 lens (GREAT lens) for about $980.

[nocturn]

If you can hold out, hold out until Black Friday. Ritz/Wolf always has killer bundle sales.

[nocturn]

Best Buy has it packaged with the 18-135 kit lens (POS) for $1300.

B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/484235-REG/Nikon_9425_D80_SLR_Digital_Camera.html) has it packaged with the 18-55 lens (GREAT lens) for about $980.

I can vouch for this statement. It is a PHENOMINAL lens for the price.

Once I sell my other boat I'm going big time and getting the new AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR It will be mine this christmas....kc:

I heart VRII.

[HeShootsNScores]

If you can hold out, hold out until Black Friday. Ritz/Wolf always has killer bundle sales.

thats kinda my goal... I'm hoping I can get one by then. Viewing this thread doesn't help... hahaha... everytime I open it I want my camera more and more!

[FBJ]

Anyone got any suggestions for an excellent quality photo printer that will do big stuff? Maybe 11" x14" borderless?

I'm looking (so far) at the Epson Stylus Photo R2400 (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540920).

[Unfiltered]

Anyone got any suggestions for an excellent quality photo printer that will do big stuff? Maybe 11" x14" borderless?

I'm looking (so far) at the Epson Stylus Photo R2400 (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540920).

A buddy of mine has the 2400 and it does make some nice 11x14s. But nothing any better than you can get printed at Costco or Sam's Club. It always been more economical to get reprints and enlargements at those two places than paying the dough it takes to get a worthwhile photo printer.

[FBJ]

I guess that's true. The problem is that anything I've ever sent out for printing has come back WAY darker than the image as I've processed it. I'm not sure if that is because of the issues that ValleyFan and I were discussing with color gamuts and such, and I haven't tried printing from image files exported under sRGB. Experimenting to get the prints to look like they should could cost major dough and time. Having my own printer here on my desk would at least save me the time factor.

There's got to be a point of diminishing returns with store-made prints after which it makes sense to own your own printer.

[FBJ]

Incidentally...

I'm getting rid of my old Nikkor 70-300 f4-5.6 G (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1928) lens. This lens is the low-end lens that Nikon produces, but it would be a good starter in terms of high-powered telephotos.

Any LGK user who's got Nikon gear could make me a fair offer for this slightly-used lens and they'd get it at a steal. Lens is complete, with original box and documentation, along with a Promaster UV filter. Not trying to make money, just trying to get it the hell off my desk.

[Unfiltered]

There's got to be a point of diminishing returns with store-made prints after which it makes sense to own your own printer.


I agree with that if you're talking about mostly 5x7s, with the occasional 8x10. But with frequent 11x14s, I have to think it would cost more via paper and ink purchases. (Of course, the cost of the printer.)

[FBJ]

Finally got my domain registered and a preliminary gallery site up:

Checkitout (http://www.gcalvin.com).

EDIT: Lightroom's web gallery is wholly inadequate. I am unable to create sets/groups/compilations. Also, you can't individually caption each image. I'm DLing Gallery right now and I'm going to give that a go.

[Unfiltered]

Finally got my domain registered and a preliminary gallery site up:

Checkitout (http://www.gcalvin.com).

EDIT: Lightroom's web gallery is wholly inadequate. I am unable to create sets/groups/compilations. Also, you can't individually caption each image. I'm DLing Gallery right now and I'm going to give that a go.

Very nice images, Glenn! The observatory is such a great subject.

And was that shot of the little one and the merry-go-round at Valencia Town Center?

[FBJ]

Very nice images, Glenn! The observatory is such a great subject.

And was that shot of the little one and the merry-go-round at Valencia Town Center?

Nope. Topanga Plaza.

[Unfiltered]

Nope. Topanga Plaza.

Ah.

So they both have two-story carousels. Which makes sense since a lot of your pics are in the valley. :)

[BleedingPurple]

Finally got my domain registered and a preliminary gallery site up:

Checkitout (http://www.gcalvin.com).

EDIT: Lightroom's web gallery is wholly inadequate. I am unable to create sets/groups/compilations. Also, you can't individually caption each image. I'm DLing Gallery right now and I'm going to give that a go.

Nice Site, Glenn!

[DeaderFan]

I like it! How hard was it to set up the site?


And by the way, you mentioned a while back that you wanted to get the 18-200 VR lens. As a person who has used it for more than a year now I have to say it is versatile but not perfect. You won't find it to be as sharp as your 28-200. You will also get noticeable chromatic aberration at 18mm. I would still buy it again just because when you can only throw one lens in the bag, it's the best choice.

[VF]

Finally got my domain registered and a preliminary gallery site up:

Checkitout (http://www.gcalvin.com).

EDIT: Lightroom's web gallery is wholly inadequate. I am unable to create sets/groups/compilations. Also, you can't individually caption each image. I'm DLing Gallery right now and I'm going to give that a go.

I have to say, it at least looks good even if it currently falls short of your needs. Gallery is cool, it's biggest drawback (if you can call it that) is that it is open source, and there are about a billion different little ways to customize it, so getting it exactly the way you want it can take some time (there is a LOT of "oh, that is cool, not what I was looking for, but cool"). I would keep the lightroom gallery up, and make a new directory where you can play with Gallery for a while. Give it a few days to work out the kinks.

[FBJ]

Wow. The installation instructions for Gallery are DAUNTING to me. I'm not sure this one will be easy enough for me to deal with.

EDIT: Well it appears I've gotten through most of the installation (with some help creating a MySQL database from my web-hosting company). Now my ftp program is setting up permissions on all the folders associated with Gallery. Taking forever.

EDIT 2: ARGH! The Gallery installer suggested I change CHMOD permissions to 755, and now I can't even view my own damned website! :( Changing it back.

EDIT 3: DOUBLE ARGH!! The permissions were so badly screwed up that I had to restore the server to a previously-saved state!

EDIT 4: TRIPLE ARGH!!! After going through all that crapola, I find out that Gallery is one of the optional uploads to my site that can AUTOMATICALLY be done by my hosting provider!!!

Teh Interwebz...I hateses it.