Photography related discussions

[mike c]

on a happy note ...

i'll be buying the 100 2.8L IS macro (for use with portraiture) OR a canon 7D ... before the year ends
(or actually, i have to buy SOMETHING before the year ends)

it's a disease i tell you. "confessions of a shopaholic" seems to be a good fit ... my wife made me watch it the other day (hi-def at least) and i was somewhat entertained.

 

[Sheep]

you seriously need to deal with more people. (without the use of fists)

your own opinion is not always the right thing.

does it look like mazer has an SLR?

Are you suggesting that in this specific case, I am wrong, and you are right? I can back up ALL of my claims.

SheepStar

 

[Sheep]

on a happy note ...

i'll be buying the 100 2.8L IS OR a canon 7D ... before the year ends

Is that the macro? DP review just but up their thoughts.

SheepStar

 

[mike c]

Is that the macro? DP review just but up their thoughts.

SheepStar

yes it is, i was editing the post above. the 135 is the better portrait lens, but i feel it's rife to be replaced with something with IS. (plus it's a bit long for casual use, even on FF)

hopefully, next year, i'll get one of the 70-200 variations. (f2.8 IS II)

 

[mazersteven]

Canon EOS 500D vs. EOS Rebel XSi

Whats the difference?

And I don't see the 500D on the Canon website?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos500d.asp

 

[droht]

QUOTE=mazersteven;662167]Canon EOS 500D vs. EOS Rebel XSi

Whats the difference?

And I don't see the 500D on the Canon website?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos500d.asp[/QUOTE]

The 500D is also known as T1i, and the XSi as the 450D, which is vey annoying iyam.

The biggest difference is HD video capability with the T1i; no vid with the XSi. If you don't
care at all about that, and are just a casual photographer, I thnk the XSi is probably sufficient.

Here is a side-by-side: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos500d,canon_eos450d&show=all

 

[mike c]

QUOTE=mazersteven;662167]Canon EOS 500D vs. EOS Rebel XSi

Whats the difference?

And I don't see the 500D on the Canon website?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos500d.asp

The 500D is also known as T1i, and the XSi as the 450D, which is vey annoying iyam.

The biggest difference is HD video capability with the T1i; no vid with the XSi. If you don't
care at all about that, and are just a casual photographer, I thnk the XSi is probably sufficient.

Here is a side-by-side: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos500d,canon_eos450d&show=all

the t1i or 500d also has the better LCD screen (more resolution)

 

[mazersteven]

Very Interesting. But I guess if you want to get involved with different lens a conventional SLR would be better.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1

 

[Sheep]

the t1i or 500d also has the better LCD screen (more resolution)

And a larger ISO range.

SheepStar

 

[Sheep]

Very Interesting. But I guess if you want to get involved with different lens a conventional SLR would be better.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1

4/3s format. More compact, but less detail. Noise is a big problem in the upper range too.

SheepStar

 

[mazersteven]

Noise is a big problem in the upper range too.
SheepStar

Noise

 

[mazersteven]

I thought he was messing with me with his "noise" comment being this is a Audio forum. But Noooooooooooooo.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Noise_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Noise_Reduction_01.htm

 

[Highlander]

...what do anybody here think of Ken Rockwell?

He's not called Ken Crockwell for no reason. Avoid. He has been known to write reviews about camera gear and then freely admit that he hasn't tried/tested it himself.

...Body only camera's are for people that are UPGRADING (you, of all people, should know what this is) their body.

This is not true. I bought my current (first) body and lens separately because the lens in question was not offered as part of a 'kit'.

No need for a kit lens if you have a slew of others already.

Again, not true. You yourself have previously noted that 'kit lenses are not that bad'. In fact some lenses offered as part of a 'kit' are very good. Therefore, given the potential saving to be made by buying a body and lens together as part of an upgrade, a lens kit could conceivably be a great deal for a photographer that posesses 'a slew of other' lenses.

...all lenses have sweet spots (macro being the exception, extremely sharp in almost all settings). You need to learn where your lens performs best to get the most out of it.

To what end? Just because a lens delivers maximum sharpness at an aperature of, say, f/8, doesn't mean that you'll forevermore use f/8 when taking a photo...or are you suggesting that you would?

 

[GirgleMirt]

To what end?

To get the best performance dummy! Knowing for example that your lens is abyssimal from 50mm to 100mm but sharpens up nicely at 125mm might make you be careful to try to shoot at 35mm as opposed to 50mm or 125mm as opposed to 100... Again, relatively the same as knowing that if you're shooting with a 200mm you'd be better off having a shutter speed of 1/250 as opposed to 1/60 to try to reduce camera shake, and if that takes going from f8, f5.6, f4 or f2.8, then it might well be worth it. Same if you know that at max aperture it's much softer than 1-2 stops above, you might want to consider this for your shot. It's just knowing your gear and its limitations. The rule isn't set in stone; shoot at 50mm because it's 7.2% sharper than 70mm...

"Kit lenses" are usually the cheapest lenses which comes with cheap bodies. If you have purchased lenses, you should have a superior lens to the kit... The kit does designate a cheap, if not the cheapest, lens after all... I've seen for example a Canon 5D selling with 24-105mm f/4L IS, that's not a kit lens... The Canon kit lens is the 18-55mm lens, it's not too bad, but it's cheap, plastic, 150$ lens, poor max aperture, contrast, etc. you can do better... Hell, my std zoom costs the same as the kit lens... Well the kit plus a body (450$)... I'd see absolutely no advantage to carrying a 2nd, inferior zoom... So yeah, if you purchased a decent lens, the kit shouldn't be useful at all... If you purchased a bad lens, then that's another story...

 

[Highlander]

To get the best performance dummy!

Nicely put.

...knowing that if you're shooting with a 200mm you'd be better off having a shutter speed of 1/250 as opposed to 1/60 to try to reduce camera shake, and if that takes going from f8, f5.6, f4 or f2.8, then it might well be worth it.

What you describe is compromise. It is not 'learn[ing] where your lens performs best to get the most out of it. If camera shake is an issue the ideal solution is to mount the camera on a tripod. Opening up the aperature and thus impacting, possibly negatively, on depth of field is an inferior way of resolving the issue. Increasing ISO will increase noise, possibly imperceptibly, possibly not. Either way, this too is an inferior way of resolving the issue.

 

[mike c]

i've been missing your killer landscape photos highlander

what gear are you using?

 

[Sheep]

This is not true. I bought my current (first) body and lens separately because the lens in question was not offered as part of a 'kit'.

I understand that. I was merely stating you have the option to buy a body separately if you don't need any additional glass (If you have a kit lens in your selection, why would you want to spend more for another?).

Again, not true. You yourself have previously noted that 'kit lenses are not that bad'. In fact some lenses offered as part of a 'kit' are very good. Therefore, given the potential saving to be made by buying a body and lens together as part of an upgrade, a lens kit could conceivably be a great deal for a photographer that posesses 'a slew of other' lenses.

I said SOME. Read carefully. I've seen measurements on all the kits lenses, and they all have similar short comings (Distortion, Chromatic Aberration, Corner Sharpness). My 18-70 is a bit better (sharper), but it's also $450 Canadian, more then double the price of the 18-55.

Possibly, but real photographers that have been around won't be interested in Kits. You yourself have a 4500 dollar fixed 200mm F2. Care to trade for a 55-200? Didn't think so.

To what end? Just because a lens delivers maximum sharpness at an aperature of, say, f/8, doesn't mean that you'll forevermore use f/8 when taking a photo...or are you suggesting that you would?

Let me get this straight.. you would rather not put in the effort to use your lens in it's best settings? If you're going for heavily blurred DOF, of course F8 wouldn't be the best setting. But if you want a sharp photograph, you better know where to get it.

Let me explain my take on photography, it should help you understand my viewpoint. Photography is a hobby that combines Scientific facts, and art. It's like music. You have the guitar and amp and speaker that produce the sounds, and the player that writes the song. BOTH of these elements need to be respected, in order to get the best possible result. An amazing musician that doesn't understand his amp and effects, will struggle getting the sounds he wants, and keeping that sound consistent. Same with photography. You need to know the short comings of your gear, and where it really performs if you are to make the most of it, in any of it's possible configurations. This is why I face-palm every time someone decides to gloss over the facts behind the equipment we use. These devices have setting and parameters that dictate how they will act. It's not magic. Understanding these settings is one of the first things you should do.

I also face-palm at people that are afraid of Higher ISO numbers. One of the reasons I chose Nikon, High ISO can really add another element to the photo.

I'll be waiting,
SheepStar

 

[MinusTheBear]

I like your analogy SheepStar.

 

[Highlander]

Hey Mike,

what gear are you using?

Body

Nikon D300

Lenses

Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 (FX)
Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 (DX) - bought with body
Nikkor 200mm f/2 (FX)

Software

Capture NX2
Photomatix Pro
PT Gui
Autopano Pro (never used now; PT Gui is superior)
Photoshop (only used to remove alpha channels from stitched panoramas so that Capture NX2 can open files)

Everything else

Markin M10 Ball Head
360 Precision Giga Panoramic Head
Nikon CPL II Polarizer
Nikon CPL-3L Polarizer for 200 f/2
Singh Ray ND, Grad and Reverse Grad filters (2 and 3 stop)

I remember seeing your 5D in the other 'Cool Photos' thread. Impressive bit of kit. I could do with your resolution.

 

[mike c]

Hey Mike,



Body

Nikon D300

Lenses

Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 (FX)
Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 (DX) - bought with body
Nikkor 200mm f/2 (FX)

Software

Capture NX2
Photomatix Pro
PT Gui
Autopano Pro (never used now; PT Gui is superior)
Photoshop (only used to remove alpha channels from stitched panoramas so that Capture NX2 can open files)

Everything else

Markin M10 Ball Head
360 Precision Giga Panoramic Head
Nikon CPL II Polarizer
Nikon CPL-3L Polarizer for 200 f/2
Singh Ray ND, Grad and Reverse Grad filters (2 and 3 stop)

I remember seeing your 5D in the other 'Cool Photos' thread. Impressive bit of kit. I could do with your resolution.

whoa! 200 f2! what does the nikon 200 f2 look like?

one day, the 200 f2 IS of canon will be mine.