***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

Testing out a new HDR program, Photomatix and I never really got along so well. It is called Dynamic-Photo HDR, and it is certainly a LOT faster with the preview, and I think it does a pretty good job. It had a bit of a problem with alignment, but to be fair it has more fancy manual options that I didn't really play with yet (I was to excited to just spit something out). But I really am liking the results and the interface with the program. I tell you what though, this shot REALLY makes me wish I had a good, wide prime (if Santa is listening, the Carl Zeiss 21mm Distagon now comes in an EF mount ;) )

 
Playing around with star field shots, which I am really bad at. If anyone has experience doing this, I would love to know. Particularly, what is the best way to do this with a digital? Short shutter at high ISO, long shutter with low ISO and then a difference pass with a shot of equal length with the lens cap on? The first of the two is 8 minutes, and the second is two shots at 8 minutes each laid on top of each other in Photoshop. But I'm getting a LOT of noise from these. Also, it is SO dark, how the heck do you frame your shot? I totally guessed as to where I was pointing the camera.

The story behind the rather bland second shot is I went down to the beach where we were staying this weekend (Sea Ranch, northish central coast), got down there and freaked myself out thinking "what was that? Was that a pissed off sea lion? Oh crap, are there mountain lions around here? Am I going to lose my camera in the tide?" So I moved closer to the house to calm my nerves at the expense of an interesting shot.



Sunset shot of the same beach.


 
rinkrat said:
Bitchen star shots
Click to expand...

Thanks! So if anyone is interested, the general consensus seems to be that ISO of about 400, with at around f/4.0, take a ton of 30 second shots (set the camera on continuous drive, manual mode, turn off noise reduction, and hold the shutter with a cable release), layer them in Photoshop using the Lighten layer blending option, or use a more automated program like Startrails to do it for you.

Now if only I lived in a city where I could see the stars to test it out :)
 
Spent the last two days down in Escondido at wife's Mom's house. She's an antiques nut and has a big Steinway grand piano, so I did some more still life practice.

3070049310_704653b393.jpg

Mandolin

3070047644_e2df4920a3.jpg

Old Dixie Recipes (Complete With Stereotypes!)

3069214511_13a5607609.jpg

Appletini (wife and mother-in-law were drinking these...yucko)

3070044978_26e8a08d5d.jpg

Cracker Jack Toys!

3069204833_2fa61ab98f.jpg

Pianist (I'm getting into this "pictures of hands" thing, I think...)

3070044172_d605e144ae.jpg

Steinway Guts

Also tried my hand at some fireside portraits. Holy crap it's hard to make these turn out halfway decent!!

3070050944_7b97e1ff96.jpg


3070050280_3caccb8c14.jpg


3069212329_c7349a3a6b.jpg


The last one is a tad fuzzy...suitable for small prints and such is all, really. But their faces were perfect, expression-wise, so I had to keep it. That was the first pic I took in the series, actually.

Incidentally, firelight white-balances at about 3300k, in case anyone was wondering.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if any of you were able to get in on Amazon's Black Friday deal on Lightroom 2? They had it for $124.99. I missed out on that one, but they relisted it for $134.99 that night, so I still got an amazing deal.

I was on the fence with LR as it was $100 more than Aperture (which I like just fine), but I couldn't pass up a deal that was better than my NBC pricing on Aperture.

Keep an eye on Amazon for Cyber Monday. Word is they're going to have a CS4 deal that cannot be ignored.
 
Love the mandolin, and I think using something a piano as a photo study is a fantastic idea, there are a lot of great photos hiding in that piano that you found.

To unfiltered, I'll have to keep an eye an Adobe, I've been looking to upgrade to CS4, thanks for the heads up.
 
D3x announced today. Looks pretty nice, 24.5mp at 5fps or 7fps at 10mp. It sounds like it will start out at $8K, but it can't stay there for long. This might start a nice price war between the D3x and the 1Ds MkIII (lets hope ;) )
 
Last edited:
Ah...the portrait version of the D3.

No thanks. I like the fps of the standard D3.

Only thing that's bent me about it is the tiny buffer that they're charging $500 to increase. That should be a recall item, IMO.
 
nikon_d3x_50_front.jpg


What are the two buttons that both look like the depth of field preview buttons on the left (in this view) of the lens mount?
 
They can be programmed however you like. I have mine programmed with the first one as exposure lock and the second one activates the in-viewfinder "artificial horizon."
 
$8k would buy me the 300mm f/2.8 and a sweet studio lighting setup.

Or it could pay off a credit card.

No more gear for me for a good while.
 
FlyBoeingJets said:
They can be programmed however you like. I have mine programmed with the first one as exposure lock and the second one activates the in-viewfinder "artificial horizon."
Click to expand...

OK, that is pretty hot. Both the multiple programmable buttons and the artificial horizon. The only thing I have in my viewfinder is dust ;)
 
HeShootsNScores said:
$8k!

wow... the things I would do with $8K....
Click to expand...

There is no question it is expensive, but to keep it in perspective, the only cameras before this and the 1Ds MkIII that were at all comparable in terms of resolution and image quality were $18,000 645 digital backs, and the only "features" of those bodies are auto focus. And it isn't frames per second, it is seconds per frame :) So while a $8K 35mm SLR body is ridiculously expensive, an $8k digital back is ridiculously cheap. I know that the pixels are a lot smaller on the 35mm than the 645, but the bodies themselves are a lot more versatile.

Also, I don't think that $8k price ($7K for the Canon equivalent) will hold for very long. Currently the difference between the 1D MkIII (which is the same body as the 1Ds but with a 1.3x crop sensor) and the 1Ds MkIII is around $3K, which is more than the whole cost of the 5d MkII, which has the same size but updated version of the 1Ds sensor. Certainly there will be people who need the features and the sensor of the 1Ds MkIII (or the D3x) and are going to be willing to pay the price, but when you can get the same body or the same (even better) sensor for $3K to $5K less, that is going to put a serious dent in the number of bodies you can move for $8K. Once the 5D MkII really starts shipping, look for the price of the 1Ds MkIII to fall, that might drive down the cost of the D3x.

Then what ever comes out next will be at the $8K price point again ;)
 
I agree that it is pretty impressive but it doesn't get me real excited the way the introduction of the D3 did. Once you start getting upward of 12 mega pixels, I'm pretty happy with resolution. When you get to 24 mp I think you need expensive glass to get real value from it, and the workflow with such huge files means a whole new system.

With the D3 they went after Canon in photo journalism and sports photography. Now they are countering Canon in the commercial/fashion niche.

I will be very interested to see some images taken with this camera. My understanding is that this uses the same sensor as the new Sony A900 which sells for just $3K. The rumors I heard were that they would package that sensor in a midrange D800/D900 model rather than the pro level D line. So if it is the same Sony-built sensor as in the Alpha, what makes this camera worth $5K more?

It was the D3's ground breaking high ISO performance that really got me going last year. That and the Fx format. Because the D3 uses a home-grown Nikon sensor, there is nothing out there quite like it. The only thing I didn't like was the size and cost. Fortunately, now there's the D700. That would be my next purchase if I had the money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

Share this page

Back
Top