Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
zepps_apprentice

Photography

Recommended Posts

redrum   

Post pics, discuss cameras.. etc etc.

Here's some of mine. :)

298063_2377552761186_1321647163_2858512_3521620_n.jpg

252574_2188105705128_1321647163_2635004_7184963_n.jpg

These are my 2 faves. I love detail shots.

I just got a Fuji Finepix S4000 camera at COSTCO for $200. It has 12 megapixels and a super zoom (35mm equivalent of 24mm to 730mm) plus super macro.

With the pics I've taken so far and with editing for color and all that, they look about as good as any Kodachome slide I've ever taken.

Now I have to figure out how to post them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redrum   

A recent one from the Carbon River Rain Forest at the entrance to Mt. Rainier.

My friend Judy takes a pic.

post-503-0-56708300-1314227593_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent one from the Carbon River Rain Forest at the entrance to Mt. Rainier.

My friend Judy takes a pic.

post-503-0-56708300-1314227593_thumb.jpg

I like that.

I'm about to buy this camera.

SLTA35K.png

16.2 Megapixels

1080i/p Video Quality

AutoHDR

3D Panorama

7 FPS

Edited by zepps_apprentice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TypeO   

Shot these at work this evening.

Once a month they host Morale Call for active duty and employees - 3 hours of free finger food, music, dancing and door prizes.

No admission charge, but they have to pay for their own drinks.

Camera:

Canon 5D Mk II

ISO 3200

1/100 sec

with Flash

Decent shot...

IMG_4523.jpg

but much better after darkening the background and adding faux depth of field.

IMG_4523_EDIT.jpg

This is cool because I shot it from across the room with my 70-300 zoom. Papparazi-style close-up!

IMG_4556.jpg

Playing with the wide-angle lens.

IMG_4587.jpg

The sun was blowing out the left side of the photo, so I duped the smart object and lowered the brightness and exposure, then masked it in for a more evenly-lit shot.

Before...

IMG_4588.jpg

After...

IMG_4588_EDIT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shot these at work this evening.

Once a month they host Morale Call for active duty and employees - 3 hours of free finger food, music, dancing and door prizes.

No admission charge, but they have to pay for their own drinks.

Camera:

Canon 5D Mk II

ISO 3200

1/100 sec

with Flash

Decent shot...

but much better after darkening the background and adding faux depth of field.

IMG_4523_EDIT.jpg

Did you do that with your camera or Photoshop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TypeO   

TypeO is that wide angle lens a EF 14mm f/2.8L II?

Canon Fisheye Lens EF 15mm 1:2.8

Did you do that with your camera or Photoshop?

Darkening background and faux depth-of-field done in Photoshop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redrum   

I like that.

I'm about to buy this camera.

SLTA35K.png

16.2 Megapixels

1080i/p Video Quality

AutoHDR

3D Panorama

7 FPS

Thanks! :)

I wonder if that Sony camera has a boom mic connection for movies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greenman   

I like that.

I'm about to buy this camera.

SLTA35K.png

16.2 Megapixels

1080i/p Video Quality

AutoHDR

3D Panorama

7 FPS

The main thing difference to other SLR style(it isnt one really) is that the Sony's viewfinder is electronic not real as you'll get from Canon, Nikon or Pentax. Whether thats a disadvanatge or an adbvanatge depends on personal prefference I spose but personally I like the option of both composing electronically on the back screen and normally though the veiwfinder.

The biggest choice with any camera these days though is IMHO not the body itself(all the big makers produce quality ones) but the lenses your going to buy to go with it, Sony does offer a decent selection but not nearly as much depth as Canon or Nikon. Not too much of a problem is you don't want more specalized lenses but it does mean its harder to pick up stuff used, less of it around and prices are higher because demand outstrips supply.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing difference to other SLR style(it isnt one really) is that the Sony's viewfinder is electronic not real as you'll get from Canon, Nikon or Pentax. Whether thats a disadvanatge or an adbvanatge depends on personal prefference I spose but personally I like the option of both composing electronically on the back screen and normally though the veiwfinder.

The biggest choice with any camera these days though is IMHO not the body itself(all the big makers produce quality ones) but the lenses your going to buy to go with it, Sony does offer a decent selection but not nearly as much depth as Canon or Nikon. Not too much of a problem is you don't want more specalized lenses but it does mean its harder to pick up stuff used, less of it around and prices are higher because demand outstrips supply.

I agree, but it's not too much of a deal breaker for me.

Sony's lenses are provided by Carl Zeiss mostly. This particular camera comes with a 18-55 zoom lens and I'm probably gonna buy either a macro or fixed focus point lens after buying as well. Thanks for the info though! :D

Thanks! :)

I wonder if that Sony camera has a boom mic connection for movies?

It does have a mic connection jack :D

Edited by zepps_apprentice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greenman   

I agree, but it's not too much of a deal breaker for me.

Sony's lenses are provided by Carl Zeiss mostly. This particular camera comes with a 18-55 zoom lens and I'm probably gonna buy either a macro or fixed focus point lens after buying as well. Thanks for the info though! :D

Zeiss do a few of the more expensive lenses(mostly aimed at the full frame alpha system not that crop camera though) but most of them are either Sony in house designs, or rebranded versions of Tamron or old Minota lenses, Sony bought out the latter and used their lens mount for the new alpha system.

All the 18-55 kit lenses are actually pretty sharp these days although the build quality/focusing isnt great(espeically hard to use filters like a polarizer of a grad since the front rotates) and the appature isnt that small. The 50mm 1.8 does look like good value for money aswell, the reviews I'v seen say its pretty sharp at 1.8.

You can get Sony versions of most Tamron and Sigma lenses aswell, the Tamron 17-50 2.8(not the VC stabalised version) has a very good rep for sharpness and a large constant max appature at a relatively low price, plus you can use filters on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeiss do a few of the more expensive lenses(mostly aimed at the full frame alpha system not that crop camera though) but most of them are either Sony in house designs, or rebranded versions of Tamron or old Minota lenses, Sony bought out the latter and used their lens mount for the new alpha system.

All the 18-55 kit lenses are actually pretty sharp these days although the build quality/focusing isnt great(espeically hard to use filters like a polarizer of a grad since the front rotates) and the appature isnt that small. The 50mm 1.8 does look like good value for money aswell, the reviews I'v seen say its pretty sharp at 1.8.

You can get Sony versions of most Tamron and Sigma lenses aswell, the Tamron 17-50 2.8(not the VC stabalised version) has a very good rep for sharpness and a large constant max appature at a relatively low price, plus you can use filters on it.

So would you agree that Tamron is overall better than Sigma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greenman   

So would you agree that Tamron is overall better than Sigma?

I'm only going from the reviews I'v read since I'v stuck to only Canon lenses myself but it depends what you mean by "better". If you mean who produces overall the higher quality range of of lenses then I'd say Sigma is better than Tamron. However Tamron lenses are generally cheaper than Sigma and some of them like the 17-50 2.8(£270 last time I checked which is cheap for a constant 2.8 appature zoom, the Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS costs over £700) are both cheaper AND as good or better than Sigma.

What I learnt pretty quickly was that there is no "best lens", they all have compromises and you have to pickout the one that best suits your shooting style(and budget :D ). A large appature(the lower the number the larger the appature) for example is good for taking pics of moving people in low light since it lets to keep a fast shutter speed aswell as having a narrow depth of field so the subject is isolated by casting the background a bit out of focus. If your taking landscape shots though you generally want to use a small appature for maximum depth of field so image stabalisation is more useful for the longer shutter speeds that creates.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going from the reviews I'v read since I'v stuck to only Canon lenses myself but it depends what you mean by "better". If you mean who produces overall the higher quality range of of lenses then I'd say Sigma is better than Tamron. However Tamron lenses are generally cheaper than Sigma and some of them like the 17-50 2.8(£270 last time I checked which is cheap for a constant 2.8 appature zoom, the Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS costs over £700) are both cheaper AND as good or better than Sigma.

What I learnt pretty quickly was that there is no "best lens", they all have compromises and you have to pickout the one that best suits your shooting style(and budget :D ). A large appature(the lower the number the larger the appature) for example is good for taking pics of moving people in low light since it lets to keep a fast shutter speed aswell as having a narrow depth of field so the subject is isolated by casting the background a bit out of focus. If your taking landscape shots though you generally want to use a small appature for maximum depth of field so image stabalisation is more useful for the longer shutter speeds that creates.

I normally take landscape shots and pictures of my music equipment. When I go to concerts I want really good quality pictures to remember by, so depending on where I am in the concert room would depend on the lens. Mostly for concerts I would use a zoom.

For now I'm buying a DT 50MM f/1.8 fixed focal length lens and the zoom lens that comes with the camera. I would choose a DT 30mm f/2.8 macro over the fixed focal length but that's a little bit more money, and I'll probably get that for Christmas anyways.

And I'm not buying it for about a week or so; so I got plenty of time to decide.

Thanks for all of your information, helped a lot! :D

Edited by zepps_apprentice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greenman   

You can do Macro "on the cheap" without a dedicated macro lens, you can buy extension tubes that fit between the lens and the camera or diopters that screw into the front element. It won't generally be as much magnication as a macro lens(which gives 1;1 with object appearing lifesize on the sensor) and you lose the ability to focus to infinity(beyond a certain distance depending on how powerful they are) but the results can still be very useful.

The 50 1.8 is actually a very good lens to use extension tubes on as they reduce the amount of light so a large appature is important plus that lens uses a built in autofocus drive(rather than a screw motor from the camera as say the Ziess or old Minota designs use) so if you pay for good extension tubes that have electronic couplings you can still use autofocus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redrum   

Just got back from a holiday in the eastern alps...

First really exotic holiday using a DSLR, Canon 550D plus 10-22mm and 15-85mm lenses.

swissholiday494small.jpg

Love the glacier shots. Out here we have lots of glaciers on Mt. Rainier and the one I like to hike to is pretty much inaccessible now due to storm damage to the road that gets you to the trailhead. You can still go there if you don't mind walking 16 miles round trip. :blink: Too far for me for a day trip. I had made a couple trips to it before the washout.

Here is local girl Brandi Carlile. Took this at the Mt. Baker Theater in Bellingham, WA on July 29th, the kickoff of her U.S. tour. We were fourth row, dead center. She has a great voice and band. The show opened with her girl drummer doing a solo and I was knocked out. :) I still don't know how to size the damn pics. :slapface:

post-503-0-24461700-1314742450_thumb.jpg

Edited by redrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×