TheGoodStuff
Member
Sammet - I love your cat 
Any photographers on IC?
- Thread starter TheGoodStuff
- Start date
Outlaw Grower
Member
forget the xti and buy a used 20d. used 20d is tons better and cost about the same as a new xti. i've just upgraded from the original digital rebel and loving the 20d.
TheGoodStuff
Member
I've compared the two, and I think that the XTi with a better lens and a battery grip is a good setup.
Outlaw Grower
Member
dont get me wrong xti is a great camera but if you are going to get serious with photography you'll want to upgrade soon. especially if you do any low light shooting or any sports or fast paced shooting. xti is more suited for macro and taking pics of the kid. higher noise levels. smaller buffer, slower frame rate. if your only planning on taking pics of weed xti will be great and for examples you should look for a buddy of mine that goes by monkey on most forums he shoots an xti with a variety of lenses.
I would also advise you to go with a used 20D over anything in the Rebel line. The stats might be similar, but there is a reason why the Rebel's list price is cheaper. To cut costs they cut build quality, namely use of weather seals and cheaper materials. The downside is that you'll probably not be able to get a warranty for a used 20D unless the store offers it. (Ebay has sellers that do offer warranties on used gear) It is a much better camera though, don't get caught up chasing megapixels, 99% of the population can do everything they need to with 5-8 MP's.
On camera flashes = mediocre paper weights. Someone suggested save your money on that and buy a faster lens... you won't get better advise than that. They produce a very harsh, flat light that isn't flattering and other than a few circumstances, they should only be used as a last resort. The only time I use mine is to provide a slight fill flash or backlighting for a halo effect when on location. You mentioned guys using them as a remote flash during games. That's Bush league. At no time during a sporting event should you not maintain positive control of your gear. It's a safety issue, you and your gear must be able to make an attempt to get out of an athletes way. Nothing else is acceptable. It's also a courtesy issue, if I'm also shooting the event and I can't get into position because you have remote gear set up where I need to be... your gear is getting moved, and it's not getting moved gingerly. It's getting the hell out of my way so I can get the shot. When I'm shooting an event, I'm paid to be there and I will get my shot. That might make me sound like an ass... in reality, the guys leaving gear like that are asses and their lack of experience or courtesy will not keep me from getting the best possible product to my client. If you're standing there, with your camera and flash ON YOUR CAMERA, then that's a different story... you've beaten me to the position so kudos to you.
Vertical Grips/Battery Grips One of the best investments you will make. You get extended battery life, nothing worse than your batteries shooting their wad in the middle of the action. If it's in a game, you might miss the shot but can get some other shots... if it's at a wedding, you just missed the first kiss and Bridezilla is going to go crazy on you. They also add more mass and weight which will help to steady your hand. I have shaky hands and can't hand hold lower than 1/60, I have a friend who can effectively handhold at 1/15 and it amazes me... he should be a surgeon. The best benefit, ah yeah, the vertical shutter release. So handy when shooting portraits. You see the guys that look like they are sniffing their pits while contorting to shoot vertical, don't be that guy... if you don't have the vert grip, just turn your camera the other way, I promise those pics won't be upside down
Tripods are a great tool depending on what you do. I keep a mono strapped on my bag for emergencies, only brake out the tri for specific purposes. If you want to shoot sports, buy a monopod first, it will be much more functional. If you want to shoot macro, or landscapes... pick up a tripod. Don't skimp here, you need to be able to set you camera on it and walk away with confidence. If you get that twnety dollar wal mart tripod, you won't be the first to watch that leg lock give way and your cam and lens bounce off the pavement. What will you have left?... that cheap tripod to remind you of your cheap ways.
Somebody already hit up on ISO, I just wanted to give a little more detail. ISO is the sensitivity of your film or censor to light. It works in halves or doubles, depending on your perspective. ISO 100 requires twice as much light as ISO 200, and 400 half as much light as 200. There is a time and place for all, the general rule of thumb is to shoot at the lowest ISO that your lighting conditions will allow. Both have advantages. The lower the ISO, the better your image quality. You will get better color saturation and rendition at lower ISO's as well as lower grain. The trade off is that it requires more light. Your higher ISO's can achieve proper exposures with less light, but there is a quality trade off. Film grain (AKA digital noise) is the main one. Your colors will also lose punch. Generally, at ISO 400 and lower you're fine. I have yet to find a digital SLR which produces acceptable images at 800 and higher, in their defense, very few films will either. You have to shoot at what your light will allow, so sometimes higher ISO's are the only option. (The faster your lens the lower ISO you can use though) ISO, FStop and Shutter Speed all work hand in hand, and are equal in that dropping one by half will have an equal and opposite reaction (thank you Newton) So if you double your ISO, you will need to either cut your Shutter Speed or F Stop in half. An exposure of ISO 100 F11 @ 1/125 is the same amount of light as ISO 200 F16 @ 1/125, or you could use ISO 200 F11 @ 1/60 All interchangeable and all have various reasons for what your settings are... not enough time or energy to go any deeper into that though.
My biggest piece of advice on where not to skimp is on your lenses. A good lens will take you a lot farther on a mediocre camera than a mediocre lens will on a good camera. Quality lenses will also outlive your cameras (if properly cared for) and hold their value more so than any other piece of photo gear... so when it comes time to upgrade, you will get more bang for your buck on the trade in.
I currently shoot A Fuji S5, with an S3 and Nikon D70 as backups. I have a war chest of lenses (I'm a glass freak, pipes and lenses) from wide angle and macro to IS Zooms. I'm still not real sold on IS lenses, it would be hard to justify the extra cost if shooting at a consumer level. I have shot and owned a lot of cameras. I was fortunate in a severance package after my medical discharge and then an inheritance affording me the opportunity to get top of the line gear, which has all paid for itself many times over now... but most peoples camera gear isn't going to be a business expense that pays for itself, so that is a consideration. I started as a hobbyist with my first film camera, a Nikon FA (it was already a 20 year old camera when I bought it... learned more from it than any other piece of equipment though) From there I upgraded to an F3 and then an F4 (my all time favorite camera) before going digital. For film I later also picked up a medium format 645 and an old 4x5 view camera. I jumped on the digital wagon early, dropping just under 3 grand on a 3 megapixel Canon D30 (that was prior "coming into money" so I had to save like crazy). Then upgraded to the D60, 10D, 20D, 1DS and 1D MK II. Then made the switch to the Fuji S3 with a Nikon D70 backup and most recently upgraded to the S5. My rarely used flashes are Metz 54-i's... if you do buy a flash, look into the Metz line. My tripod and monopod are both Bogen, with bogen pistol grip heads. Studio lighting, my main workhorses are Norman power packs and heads (can't beat the power for the price) and also have an Alien Bee Ring flash and B800's used with a vagabond for location lighting. I use a lot of reflectors as well, which I would recommend. No need to drop the money on a reflector if you aren't sure you will use it, just get some various sized cardboard or art board and cover with aluminum foil... try gold and silver for warmer and colder light.
If you can't tell, I love to talk camera, so anyone with questions I would be more than happy to answer. I don't have enough posts for PM yet, need to go say hi to a bunch of new people I guess. If I don't know the answer I will find it for you, I have a great network of photographers who are just a wealth of info in all areas that will have an answer if I don't.
Bottom line though, you have to decide what is right for you. Only you really know how serious you are about it, what you plan to shoot, what your budget is and if you have the patience to wait and save or if you must have immediate gratification. So I'll throw out all the advice you want, but you gotta figure out what setup will make you happy. Never buy something that you can't afford protection for, always a good camera bag/lens case and ALWAYS a clear filter on all of your lenses for protection. And lastly, always wear that neck strap. Happy holidays, shooting, smoking and growing guys and gals! --LFG
On camera flashes = mediocre paper weights. Someone suggested save your money on that and buy a faster lens... you won't get better advise than that. They produce a very harsh, flat light that isn't flattering and other than a few circumstances, they should only be used as a last resort. The only time I use mine is to provide a slight fill flash or backlighting for a halo effect when on location. You mentioned guys using them as a remote flash during games. That's Bush league. At no time during a sporting event should you not maintain positive control of your gear. It's a safety issue, you and your gear must be able to make an attempt to get out of an athletes way. Nothing else is acceptable. It's also a courtesy issue, if I'm also shooting the event and I can't get into position because you have remote gear set up where I need to be... your gear is getting moved, and it's not getting moved gingerly. It's getting the hell out of my way so I can get the shot. When I'm shooting an event, I'm paid to be there and I will get my shot. That might make me sound like an ass... in reality, the guys leaving gear like that are asses and their lack of experience or courtesy will not keep me from getting the best possible product to my client. If you're standing there, with your camera and flash ON YOUR CAMERA, then that's a different story... you've beaten me to the position so kudos to you.
Vertical Grips/Battery Grips One of the best investments you will make. You get extended battery life, nothing worse than your batteries shooting their wad in the middle of the action. If it's in a game, you might miss the shot but can get some other shots... if it's at a wedding, you just missed the first kiss and Bridezilla is going to go crazy on you. They also add more mass and weight which will help to steady your hand. I have shaky hands and can't hand hold lower than 1/60, I have a friend who can effectively handhold at 1/15 and it amazes me... he should be a surgeon. The best benefit, ah yeah, the vertical shutter release. So handy when shooting portraits. You see the guys that look like they are sniffing their pits while contorting to shoot vertical, don't be that guy... if you don't have the vert grip, just turn your camera the other way, I promise those pics won't be upside down
Tripods are a great tool depending on what you do. I keep a mono strapped on my bag for emergencies, only brake out the tri for specific purposes. If you want to shoot sports, buy a monopod first, it will be much more functional. If you want to shoot macro, or landscapes... pick up a tripod. Don't skimp here, you need to be able to set you camera on it and walk away with confidence. If you get that twnety dollar wal mart tripod, you won't be the first to watch that leg lock give way and your cam and lens bounce off the pavement. What will you have left?... that cheap tripod to remind you of your cheap ways.
Somebody already hit up on ISO, I just wanted to give a little more detail. ISO is the sensitivity of your film or censor to light. It works in halves or doubles, depending on your perspective. ISO 100 requires twice as much light as ISO 200, and 400 half as much light as 200. There is a time and place for all, the general rule of thumb is to shoot at the lowest ISO that your lighting conditions will allow. Both have advantages. The lower the ISO, the better your image quality. You will get better color saturation and rendition at lower ISO's as well as lower grain. The trade off is that it requires more light. Your higher ISO's can achieve proper exposures with less light, but there is a quality trade off. Film grain (AKA digital noise) is the main one. Your colors will also lose punch. Generally, at ISO 400 and lower you're fine. I have yet to find a digital SLR which produces acceptable images at 800 and higher, in their defense, very few films will either. You have to shoot at what your light will allow, so sometimes higher ISO's are the only option. (The faster your lens the lower ISO you can use though) ISO, FStop and Shutter Speed all work hand in hand, and are equal in that dropping one by half will have an equal and opposite reaction (thank you Newton) So if you double your ISO, you will need to either cut your Shutter Speed or F Stop in half. An exposure of ISO 100 F11 @ 1/125 is the same amount of light as ISO 200 F16 @ 1/125, or you could use ISO 200 F11 @ 1/60 All interchangeable and all have various reasons for what your settings are... not enough time or energy to go any deeper into that though.
My biggest piece of advice on where not to skimp is on your lenses. A good lens will take you a lot farther on a mediocre camera than a mediocre lens will on a good camera. Quality lenses will also outlive your cameras (if properly cared for) and hold their value more so than any other piece of photo gear... so when it comes time to upgrade, you will get more bang for your buck on the trade in.
I currently shoot A Fuji S5, with an S3 and Nikon D70 as backups. I have a war chest of lenses (I'm a glass freak, pipes and lenses) from wide angle and macro to IS Zooms. I'm still not real sold on IS lenses, it would be hard to justify the extra cost if shooting at a consumer level. I have shot and owned a lot of cameras. I was fortunate in a severance package after my medical discharge and then an inheritance affording me the opportunity to get top of the line gear, which has all paid for itself many times over now... but most peoples camera gear isn't going to be a business expense that pays for itself, so that is a consideration. I started as a hobbyist with my first film camera, a Nikon FA (it was already a 20 year old camera when I bought it... learned more from it than any other piece of equipment though) From there I upgraded to an F3 and then an F4 (my all time favorite camera) before going digital. For film I later also picked up a medium format 645 and an old 4x5 view camera. I jumped on the digital wagon early, dropping just under 3 grand on a 3 megapixel Canon D30 (that was prior "coming into money" so I had to save like crazy). Then upgraded to the D60, 10D, 20D, 1DS and 1D MK II. Then made the switch to the Fuji S3 with a Nikon D70 backup and most recently upgraded to the S5. My rarely used flashes are Metz 54-i's... if you do buy a flash, look into the Metz line. My tripod and monopod are both Bogen, with bogen pistol grip heads. Studio lighting, my main workhorses are Norman power packs and heads (can't beat the power for the price) and also have an Alien Bee Ring flash and B800's used with a vagabond for location lighting. I use a lot of reflectors as well, which I would recommend. No need to drop the money on a reflector if you aren't sure you will use it, just get some various sized cardboard or art board and cover with aluminum foil... try gold and silver for warmer and colder light.
If you can't tell, I love to talk camera, so anyone with questions I would be more than happy to answer. I don't have enough posts for PM yet, need to go say hi to a bunch of new people I guess. If I don't know the answer I will find it for you, I have a great network of photographers who are just a wealth of info in all areas that will have an answer if I don't.
Bottom line though, you have to decide what is right for you. Only you really know how serious you are about it, what you plan to shoot, what your budget is and if you have the patience to wait and save or if you must have immediate gratification. So I'll throw out all the advice you want, but you gotta figure out what setup will make you happy. Never buy something that you can't afford protection for, always a good camera bag/lens case and ALWAYS a clear filter on all of your lenses for protection. And lastly, always wear that neck strap. Happy holidays, shooting, smoking and growing guys and gals! --LFG
Last edited:
kurlyq2g
Member
I recently got a Canon rebel XT 8.0 Megapixel for my Birthday.
Very lightweight, responsive camera.
3 frames per second for the Xt, 5 frames per second for the XTi
8.0 Megapixels for the Xt, 10.2(or 10.0, i forget) for the XTi
But really, 8 megapixels is more than enought for most.
Very lightweight, responsive camera.
3 frames per second for the Xt, 5 frames per second for the XTi
8.0 Megapixels for the Xt, 10.2(or 10.0, i forget) for the XTi
But really, 8 megapixels is more than enought for most.
This thread is full of Canon fan boys, where are all the Nikon users at? 
(just some info - those photos above where all shot at 1/15 ISO 100 if I remember correctly, apart from the car/sunset)
loflogro - had any experience with the new nikon lenses with VR? I was thinking of getting a 55-200mm AF-S DX VR for christmas and was wondering if the VR is any good?
(just some info - those photos above where all shot at 1/15 ISO 100 if I remember correctly, apart from the car/sunset)
loflogro - had any experience with the new nikon lenses with VR? I was thinking of getting a 55-200mm AF-S DX VR for christmas and was wondering if the VR is any good?
G
Guest
Wow lof, that is some intense advice. Obviously you know a thing or two about camera. Thanks.
Last edited:
d70 here manSammet said:This thread is full of Canon fan boys, where are all the Nikon users at?
(just some info - those photos above where all shot at 1/15 ISO 100 if I remember correctly, apart from the car/sunset)
loflogro - had any experience with the new nikon lenses with VR? I was thinking of getting a 55-200mm AF-S DX VR for christmas and was wondering if the VR is any good?
damn loflogro,
solid, informative post.
I just received a Nikon P5100 and am in awe of it's abilities even as i know it's just a toy compared to the pricier SLR and DSLR bad boys. I can't wait to get a tripod and play with the macros. I need to get a hand on a photography textbook to hip me to the nuance of Fstop/shutterspeed/ISO.
Peace, Love & Coco
solid, informative post.
I just received a Nikon P5100 and am in awe of it's abilities even as i know it's just a toy compared to the pricier SLR and DSLR bad boys. I can't wait to get a tripod and play with the macros. I need to get a hand on a photography textbook to hip me to the nuance of Fstop/shutterspeed/ISO.
Peace, Love & Coco
Nice shots. ive got a nikon d40. with a 18-200mm lens. i love it.
Sammet - It's a pretty good little lens at the price. It really depends on what your needs are, if you want an all around lens that is fairly light and compact at a very fair price, then it's not a bad little lens at all. If you were heading to photo school or planning to make money, then I would steer you torwards a 2.8 lens in a comparable zoom range. But that 2.8 lens is going to be a lot bulkier and substantially more expensive, especially in the VR model. But for under 200 bucks, I think you will be pleased. I wouldn't put to much faith on the VR, that's a personal opinion and you can find arguments on both sides, some people swear by it, claiming they gain three stops but I just think they are FOS. I get about a stop extra out of it, but I don't think that extra stop is as "functional" as if it were shot with a faster lens instead. The VR isn't quite as responsive as just pure optics and then there is the extra drain on your battery. But in regular everyday life, you'll rarely need to turn it on since the F4/5.6 will handle most lighting situations. But it will give you a little help in some situations. One thing to keep in mind when buying lenses for digital cameras is your crop factor. Most lenses were designed for a 35mm film plane, but most censors are smaller than that. When the censor is smaller, you get what is called a crop factor. The average crop factor is 1.5, and what that means is your 100mm lens acts more like a 150mm lens. If you are looking for more zoom, it's in your advantage since you get more zoom without losing a stop of light. If you are shooting wide angle, then it stings a little bit since extreme wide angles like 8mm are expensive and it sucks when they act like a 12mm. A lot of newer lenses are being designed to narrow that gap, and you should be able to find the specs for any lens you are interested in.
Anybody reading who is lost on the F Stops thing, don't feel bad, everybody is at first since it is a little backwards. On top of learning the light side of it, getting a grip on the visual effects will really bring your quality of shooting up. It has a huge effect on your Depth of Field. Depth of field what is in acceptable focus in front and behind of your subject. When you are shooting at Fast F stops, or the smaller numbers (F 2.8, 4, 5.6) you have less depth of field. It's very useful in portraits in that you can have your subject in sharp focus but the background very blurry which will draw your attention to the subject. If you were shooting a landscape and wanted as much as possible in focus, you would try to shoot on something closer to F16. A functional use of this, and it sounds mean but it works, if you have a really attractive subject, shoot at F 2.8-5.6 and really bring the focus onto them... but if you have a, "less than attractive subject", shoot it on F11 and get more things in focus so that the viewer has more to look at than just the ugly mug in the photo. To get hands on, throw your camera on a tripod, focus on one subject that won't move, like a tree, and shoot a series starting at your lowest F Stop and going all the way through, but only change your Fstop and shutter speed to get the correct exposure on each one. Then look at them in a series to get a feel of how it fades/sharpens as the settings change. It will really click when you look at it.
But now for a rant... Color Balance. Especially all of you taking those pics of the pretty ladies sitting under HPS lights. A lot of people here have a lot of knowledge of color temperature, it doesn't just have effects on your veg and flower cycle, it has an impact on your film and especially on digital cameras. Normally, only your higher end cameras allow you to set your color balance in Kelvin, there are exceptions on consumer end cameras but most cameras tend to have the options in terms of what kind of light, Floro, Tungsten, Sun, Overcast ect. Most cameras have a custom white balance function, and this is your best bet to getting the best exposure under HPS lights. Get something just plain white like printer paper, if you want to be super precise you can grab some grey cards at a camera shop but theres really no need, put the paper under the HPS and set your custom white balance for it... you should be able to save that setting so you can just select it in the future. Yeah, you may have to read your manual to learn how, but the first rule of a new camera is RTFM.
Anybody reading who is lost on the F Stops thing, don't feel bad, everybody is at first since it is a little backwards. On top of learning the light side of it, getting a grip on the visual effects will really bring your quality of shooting up. It has a huge effect on your Depth of Field. Depth of field what is in acceptable focus in front and behind of your subject. When you are shooting at Fast F stops, or the smaller numbers (F 2.8, 4, 5.6) you have less depth of field. It's very useful in portraits in that you can have your subject in sharp focus but the background very blurry which will draw your attention to the subject. If you were shooting a landscape and wanted as much as possible in focus, you would try to shoot on something closer to F16. A functional use of this, and it sounds mean but it works, if you have a really attractive subject, shoot at F 2.8-5.6 and really bring the focus onto them... but if you have a, "less than attractive subject", shoot it on F11 and get more things in focus so that the viewer has more to look at than just the ugly mug in the photo. To get hands on, throw your camera on a tripod, focus on one subject that won't move, like a tree, and shoot a series starting at your lowest F Stop and going all the way through, but only change your Fstop and shutter speed to get the correct exposure on each one. Then look at them in a series to get a feel of how it fades/sharpens as the settings change. It will really click when you look at it.
But now for a rant... Color Balance. Especially all of you taking those pics of the pretty ladies sitting under HPS lights. A lot of people here have a lot of knowledge of color temperature, it doesn't just have effects on your veg and flower cycle, it has an impact on your film and especially on digital cameras. Normally, only your higher end cameras allow you to set your color balance in Kelvin, there are exceptions on consumer end cameras but most cameras tend to have the options in terms of what kind of light, Floro, Tungsten, Sun, Overcast ect. Most cameras have a custom white balance function, and this is your best bet to getting the best exposure under HPS lights. Get something just plain white like printer paper, if you want to be super precise you can grab some grey cards at a camera shop but theres really no need, put the paper under the HPS and set your custom white balance for it... you should be able to save that setting so you can just select it in the future. Yeah, you may have to read your manual to learn how, but the first rule of a new camera is RTFM.
G
Guest
Ive copied your posts into word, lof, and it was 4 pages. LOL! Gonna read it later on
loflogro cheers for the advice mate, I'm still a beginner so I think it'll do me well. 
This thread is great
Here's some shots I took in the summer at Longleat safari park (thats in southern England):
This was taken through the windscreen as the monkey sat on the car
And as usual a close up shot of a flower
This thread is great Here's some shots I took in the summer at Longleat safari park (thats in southern England):
This was taken through the windscreen as the monkey sat on the car
And as usual a close up shot of a flower
Last edited:
Outlaw Grower
Member
loflogro very good advice. how long have you been shooting? the only thing i dont agree on is the flash, in some situations flash will greatly increase your chances of keepers but it requires various diffusers and has a huge learning curve.
and the canon fanboy comment. thats because canon is where its at if shooting RAW, nikons pics may look better color wise out of the camera but it comes at a cost. canon offers more leeway(sp?) for post processing to let the photographer pick the best look for their images. i know you weed forums guys hate edited images other than resizing but it is nesicary with dslr's if you shoot a dslr and dont do post processing your missing out big time.
and the canon fanboy comment. thats because canon is where its at if shooting RAW, nikons pics may look better color wise out of the camera but it comes at a cost. canon offers more leeway(sp?) for post processing to let the photographer pick the best look for their images. i know you weed forums guys hate edited images other than resizing but it is nesicary with dslr's if you shoot a dslr and dont do post processing your missing out big time.
Hey Outlaw, thanks. I have been shooting for about ten years now, started as a serious (and expensive) hobby while in the military but have been shooting truly professionally for about four years... which in photography world isn't very long at all... a lot of my mentors have been working a camera for a lot longer than I have been alive. I was already published and working before going to school for it, just wanted the paperwork, but it worked out to the most incredible college ride. My instructors were awesome, most of them were like we know you can shoot and once I established my work ethic with them, most said heres what you need to turn in for the class, past that just ask questions when you need. And I just had run of our studios and equipment, which was extensive, to do my own thing. I have a good buddy who I met in the school and he was in a similar boat. We were both smokers and both had that long leash from the instructors. We both also had money that allowed us to do nothing but go to class and shoot. So it was smoke up, collaborate, go find props, run to my house and smoke again, book models and shoot... rinse and repeat. Man it was awesome. I was shooting for money during the time, but was only taking on gigs that interested me or helped my portfolio. So for the one time in my life, for about a year and a half I did nothing but exactly what I wanted to do. I really wish I could share some work with you guys, especially to give visuals on things I talk about, but I just can't take the risk since there is the outside chance someone might recognize my work. If there continues to be a really high interest in the topic, maybe down the road when I get some time I'll try to shoot some non identifiable stuff to add to some little photo lessons.
I do have to disagree with the flash though, there are definitely times when a flash is the only option, but with the proper equipment, namely the right lens, I would say that is less than 5% of the time. I shoot in a wide range of lighting conditions and can back that up. But, something I should take into more account, and I will in the future when giving advice, most people are not going to be able to drop the money on the gear that will limit the need for a flash that much, so for some it is a necessity. You are dead on about the learning curve, you can shoot on auto and the camera will get decent results, but I like to tell my camera what to do instead of letting it do what it wants, so learning your flash range and light fall off as well as things like fill flash takes studying and hands on. I also agree with the use of a diffuser, I just use a little pop on now. I also have Gary Fong's version but don't care for it. The results with it are acceptable, but its such a bulky piece that it isn't functional for me. Another option if you're in a crunch, take some toilet or tissue paper and rubber band it over your flash, you can adjust the level diffusion by adding more paper over it.
Canon is the digital leader, hands down. If you look at any major event, you will see the vast majority of photographers wielding those signature white canon lenses... there is a reason most pro's are going that way. My decision to leave canon to go Fuji was a very tough one, especially when it comes to selling and buying all the lenses, but for the bread and butter of my work, the image the fuji puts out coupled with the flexibility of the extended dynamic range is awesome.... but in every other aspect the Canon's spank it. Both Nikon and Canon have great offerings in the consumer price range, most shooters could go with the Canons or Nikons in that range and be ecstatic... a lot of photos in this thread show that. As far as shooting RAW, I could argue for either since a raw image is just that, the raw data. I would lean toward Canon as being able to more efficiently process the RAW images, but as long as I'm getting all those untouched pixels at an acceptable speed then I'm happy. I shoot about 70% JPEG and 30% RAW, it depends on what the project is. I'm not shooting a thousand wedding pics in RAW, but I will shoot two hundred product or fashion shots in RAW. Mainly because wedding and event pics aren't going to get near the post production work that the others will, so having the extra RAW data to work with gives me more options and a cleaner finished product. Canon is also top dog in buffering and shooting speed. Nikon has been the sport camera of choice for a long time, but they just can't keep up with the buffering and frame rate of the Canon's. Nikons D2 series is alright, but there are some quirks on them that I just think are ignorant. My Fuji S5 and S3 can't come close to either of them for fast paced shooting, that's not what they are designed for though, but when it comes to buffering my Fuji's are Sahalowwww. One of Canon's latest pro offerings, the 1D Mark III, is rated at 10 frames per second with bursts of up to 110 shots before it has to dump the buffer... that's friggin insane and just proof of the amount of research the company does. I've had the itch to go back to Canon at times, but I think my next big purchase will be a medium format digital scan back setup. I can't justify the cost yet though. Canon, IMO, also pays more attention to their customers, and produces and corrects accordingly. The 5D is a great example of that. They thought people wanted a full frame censor at a cheaper price, so they put it out. It didn't take long for everyone to realize that the people really demanding full frame didn't want other things cut out to make it more affordable... so Canon said here ya go with the MK III's, gave us the solid build back, 45 focus points vs. 9, incredible weather sealing and all the other quality that was expected following the MK II's. They listen, produce and make a load of money... manufacture and consumer both win, isn't capitalism great?
I did recently pick up a Canon S5 IS for my play camera. I'm not a take my gear everywhere photographer, if I have broken the big toys out then I'm getting paid or doing a project of my own, otherwise I'm not lugging all that crap around. If I did photojournalistic work then I probably would since you have to be ready for opportunistic shots, but that's not my realm. I don't usually see a picture in real life, I see it in my head and then create it in real life. For everyday stuff I like something relatively small but with a little power, and this isn't a bad camera. Anyone not wanting to spend the money on or dealing with the extra hassle of SLR's, take a look at that camera. I got mine for about 300 bones and it is worth every penny.
I apologize that I haven't taken the time to comment on some of the pictures posted, I was actually impressed with quite a few of them. A lot of really clean, sharp photos. I'm also really happy to see people "getting close". Don't be scared to zoom in or take a few steps in and really fill the frame with your subject matter, it is the easiest way to get impact out of your photos. The picture of the monkey above is a great example of that, had you taken a full length picture of the monkey, it wouldn't have been as visually stimulating. But zoomed in like that I see individual hairs, reflection of the surroundings in his eyes and other details that would be missed if taken at a wider perspective or not cropped. That picture is also a great example of use of Depth of Field, really happy you posted it. I'm guessing it was shot somewhere around F5.6 which gives you a shallow depth of field, the distance of the background also helps to blur it out as well... but it really shows how having just the subject in focus draws the viewers eye in.
Sorry my posts get lengthy, but hopefully there is useful info for the ones wanting to bring their shooting up a notch or looking to really research equipment purchases. When I'm researching the things that bring me to this site, which I'm an idiot about, I appreciate the in depth posts a lot of you guys put out... so I'm trying to return the favor on a subject matter that I consider myself well versed in.
I do have to disagree with the flash though, there are definitely times when a flash is the only option, but with the proper equipment, namely the right lens, I would say that is less than 5% of the time. I shoot in a wide range of lighting conditions and can back that up. But, something I should take into more account, and I will in the future when giving advice, most people are not going to be able to drop the money on the gear that will limit the need for a flash that much, so for some it is a necessity. You are dead on about the learning curve, you can shoot on auto and the camera will get decent results, but I like to tell my camera what to do instead of letting it do what it wants, so learning your flash range and light fall off as well as things like fill flash takes studying and hands on. I also agree with the use of a diffuser, I just use a little pop on now. I also have Gary Fong's version but don't care for it. The results with it are acceptable, but its such a bulky piece that it isn't functional for me. Another option if you're in a crunch, take some toilet or tissue paper and rubber band it over your flash, you can adjust the level diffusion by adding more paper over it.
Canon is the digital leader, hands down. If you look at any major event, you will see the vast majority of photographers wielding those signature white canon lenses... there is a reason most pro's are going that way. My decision to leave canon to go Fuji was a very tough one, especially when it comes to selling and buying all the lenses, but for the bread and butter of my work, the image the fuji puts out coupled with the flexibility of the extended dynamic range is awesome.... but in every other aspect the Canon's spank it. Both Nikon and Canon have great offerings in the consumer price range, most shooters could go with the Canons or Nikons in that range and be ecstatic... a lot of photos in this thread show that. As far as shooting RAW, I could argue for either since a raw image is just that, the raw data. I would lean toward Canon as being able to more efficiently process the RAW images, but as long as I'm getting all those untouched pixels at an acceptable speed then I'm happy. I shoot about 70% JPEG and 30% RAW, it depends on what the project is. I'm not shooting a thousand wedding pics in RAW, but I will shoot two hundred product or fashion shots in RAW. Mainly because wedding and event pics aren't going to get near the post production work that the others will, so having the extra RAW data to work with gives me more options and a cleaner finished product. Canon is also top dog in buffering and shooting speed. Nikon has been the sport camera of choice for a long time, but they just can't keep up with the buffering and frame rate of the Canon's. Nikons D2 series is alright, but there are some quirks on them that I just think are ignorant. My Fuji S5 and S3 can't come close to either of them for fast paced shooting, that's not what they are designed for though, but when it comes to buffering my Fuji's are Sahalowwww. One of Canon's latest pro offerings, the 1D Mark III, is rated at 10 frames per second with bursts of up to 110 shots before it has to dump the buffer... that's friggin insane and just proof of the amount of research the company does. I've had the itch to go back to Canon at times, but I think my next big purchase will be a medium format digital scan back setup. I can't justify the cost yet though. Canon, IMO, also pays more attention to their customers, and produces and corrects accordingly. The 5D is a great example of that. They thought people wanted a full frame censor at a cheaper price, so they put it out. It didn't take long for everyone to realize that the people really demanding full frame didn't want other things cut out to make it more affordable... so Canon said here ya go with the MK III's, gave us the solid build back, 45 focus points vs. 9, incredible weather sealing and all the other quality that was expected following the MK II's. They listen, produce and make a load of money... manufacture and consumer both win, isn't capitalism great?
I did recently pick up a Canon S5 IS for my play camera. I'm not a take my gear everywhere photographer, if I have broken the big toys out then I'm getting paid or doing a project of my own, otherwise I'm not lugging all that crap around. If I did photojournalistic work then I probably would since you have to be ready for opportunistic shots, but that's not my realm. I don't usually see a picture in real life, I see it in my head and then create it in real life. For everyday stuff I like something relatively small but with a little power, and this isn't a bad camera. Anyone not wanting to spend the money on or dealing with the extra hassle of SLR's, take a look at that camera. I got mine for about 300 bones and it is worth every penny.
I apologize that I haven't taken the time to comment on some of the pictures posted, I was actually impressed with quite a few of them. A lot of really clean, sharp photos. I'm also really happy to see people "getting close". Don't be scared to zoom in or take a few steps in and really fill the frame with your subject matter, it is the easiest way to get impact out of your photos. The picture of the monkey above is a great example of that, had you taken a full length picture of the monkey, it wouldn't have been as visually stimulating. But zoomed in like that I see individual hairs, reflection of the surroundings in his eyes and other details that would be missed if taken at a wider perspective or not cropped. That picture is also a great example of use of Depth of Field, really happy you posted it. I'm guessing it was shot somewhere around F5.6 which gives you a shallow depth of field, the distance of the background also helps to blur it out as well... but it really shows how having just the subject in focus draws the viewers eye in.
Sorry my posts get lengthy, but hopefully there is useful info for the ones wanting to bring their shooting up a notch or looking to really research equipment purchases. When I'm researching the things that bring me to this site, which I'm an idiot about, I appreciate the in depth posts a lot of you guys put out... so I'm trying to return the favor on a subject matter that I consider myself well versed in.
Outlaw Grower
Member
im also getting sick of lugging around all the gear and thinking of getting a g9 for 24/7 carry. my gurl is sick of it too, says its embarrasing that i take the dslr everywhere with me. and to think i thought photography was a respectable hobby/profession lol
and great photos everyone..! keep posting please....
TheGoodStuff
Member
wow loflogro!
Thanks for the info
Thanks for the info
