# DSLR Users' Corner



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

jixline said:


> what lens do u have? i bought yesterday the EF 28 - 105 f/3.5 - 4.5 USM. what do u think about it?
> and what about the 90-300 4.5 - 5.6 usm?
> 
> regards


I have the kit 18-55, as well as the EF 50 f/1.8. I dont really know much about the 28-105 but quick search reveals it is a decent lens. Not sure about the 90-300mm but if you can afford the extra $$$, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is very well regarded


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

mr_storms said:


> I have the kit 18-55, as well as the EF 50 f/1.8. I dont really know much about the 28-105 but quick search reveals it is a decent lens. Not sure about the 90-300mm but if you can afford the extra $$$, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is very well regarded


IS is very expensive  

the dog pic was taken with the EF 50/1.8? i already ordered it also, very cheap indeed. should be here in 1 week :cheers:


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

jixline said:


> IS is very expensive
> 
> the dog pic was taken with the EF 50/1.8? i already ordered it also, very cheap indeed. should be here in 1 week :cheers:


no, the dog pic was taken with the kit lens. You will be very impressed by the 50 1.8, it is amazing for its price


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

random pictures with E-500:

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=436865


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

anyone know any details on when the Nikkor 18-200mm lens is going to be available? I mean its on the market, but nobody seems to have it in stock. hno:


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

That's the thing i dislike about Nikon. Whatever happened to 70-200 VR?


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I assume you are talking about the Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR. That is a FANTASTIC piece and I strongly recommend it to anyone who has about $1800 to spend. In fact, I consider it for a future purchase, although I am sure Nikon will come up with something better by the time I decide to buy it. Check out this link, for photos taken with this lens:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/70-200_28g_afs​
Keep clicking on "more" to explore many more galleries. It seems to be a very good action lens, as well as good for portraits. Even with a D70, one can get professional quality images from this lens, not that I consider D70 a low quality dSLR camera.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

By the way, I closed the old thread and moved it to the archive. I also put a link to that thread in the first post of this thread, should anyone need to find it.


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

Thanks hydrogen!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

th0m said:


> Thanks hydrogen!


No problem. I've also stickied this thread. It gets enough traffic.


----------



## Joev (Jul 29, 2004)

I've been using an Olympus E300 for the last few months, and am happy with it, but then I haven't used any other DSLR. I know the market is dominated by Nikon and Canon, but I wonder what people think about Olympus in general as an alternative to the others.


----------



## Hviid (Jan 8, 2005)

/\ people who use Olympus love it (like me)  people who dont, hate it...


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

I really want to get a 70-200 f/4L IS now. The photozone review said its the best zoom they ever tested, and everybody is calling it just as sharp at their 135Ls. Im going to wait until may/june to get one though


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

hey guys, just wanted to let you all know that Beach Camera has the 18-200mm VR Nikkor in stock, its that lens that many places can't keep in stock or is always waiting for. Bad Part, Beach only ships stateside...which is kinda shitty for the international folks.

How does 2199.00 sound for a D200 with the 18-200mm VR lens? decent. good, great, like crap?

I'm not taking the risk of ending up with grey market stuff, and Beach is an authorized dealer for Nikon.

anyone?


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

bh has that combo at the same price in stock, and they are VERY reputable (not saying beach is bad, but bh is known for excellent customer service)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=413124&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
edit: youre also probably going to want to get a good prime. The 18-200 is a nice all-around lens, but the sacrifices in aperture needed to make such a combination portable and moderately priced means your not going to have much creative control with blurring and such. I know nothing about nikon primes, but im sure there is a high quality relatively cheap prime with a max aperture <f/2


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

yea there are, you mean Primes as a general purpose lens?

there is a 50mm f/1.8 which is nice.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

BuffCity said:


> yea there are, you mean Primes as a general purpose lens?
> 
> there is a 50mm f/1.8 which is nice.


well the 18-200 would be on your d200 most of the time, but when you needed low-light shots or stuff with bokeh (eg portraits) youd get your 50mm f1.8 out


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

some pics with my new EF 28 - 105 f/3.5 - 4.5 USM



^^ edited with photomatix (u can see the man to the left)


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

btw. nice shots Jix


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

mr_storms said:


> well the 18-200 would be on your d200 most of the time, but when you needed low-light shots or stuff with bokeh (eg portraits) youd get your 50mm f1.8 out


I got ya.


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

^^ the left part is not sharp


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

That is probably because at lower f-stops the image is sharper on the section you actually focused; the depth of field changes. If you had an aperture of, let's say f/22, your results would have been very different.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

Nicolás said:


> ^^ the left part is not sharp


Raleigh has it right, I used f/2.8 for this shot. The effect is intentional. Btw: heres a similar shot a f/5.6 for comparison








a did a lot less pp (nothing after raw conversion) on that one


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Stupid webshops. I am still waiting for my lens. How long was your longest delivery of a lens?


----------



## SUNNI (Sep 20, 2002)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> Nice bokeh on the first shot, SUNNI.


whats bokeh? :bash:


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

SUNNI said:


> whats bokeh? :bash:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

took this with my DA 50-200mm lens


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

nice


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

new 1ds mkIII introduced.
10mp
10fps
ISO 100-3200 (6400 high!!!)
live preview
ability to have micro focus presets for individual lenses.
Lots of other stuff, too. Too bad its $4000.


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

BuffCity said:


> nice


txs i got more


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

mr_storms said:


> new 1ds mkIII introduced.
> 10mp
> 10fps
> ISO 100-3200 (6400 high!!!)
> ...


That's a bargin! I wish i waited and got that instead of 30D.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

$4000 for that? :lol:


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

it has duel DIGICIII chip which lowers shadow noise by 50%.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Still seems kinda steep to me...I mean, I'll take a look at the camera and give it an honest read-over...but $4000 for these things now seems kinda heavy, with bodies like the D80 on the market for $1000 and with very little noticeable difference...I think we will all see more people push on to better lenses now that the bodies are doing great with ISO and quality build.

I dunno...not a big deal really.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

BuffCity said:


> Still seems kinda steep to me...I mean, I'll take a look at the camera and give it an honest read-over...but $4000 for these things now seems kinda heavy, with bodies like the D80 on the market for $1000 and with very little noticeable difference...I think we will all see more people push on to better lenses now that the bodies are doing great with ISO and quality build.
> 
> I dunno...not a big deal really.


read the full whitepaper here
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III_White_Paper.pdf


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

It is a significant upgrade. When the market is settled a bit, i'm sure that the price will drop slightly, just like the 5D. 

What i like about it are:
Crop factor is 1.3x
DIGICIII which reduces noise by 50%
preview screen
14 bit dynamic conversion
45 point AF + 19 high precision when using f/2.8
ISO6400
Water resistance build 
10fs


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Hey guys what do you think will come next. A replacement for the 5D or a replacement for the 30D? Or something new?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

If there is a replacement of 30D, i'm so gonna cry. I just got this thing!


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

MILIUX said:


> If there is a replacement of 30D, i'm so gonna cry. I just got this thing!



Why not the EOS 400D?
The mayor diffenrence is the size of the bodys.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

yeah that's the thing. It doesn't feel right where the lens is heavier than the body. Also, i needed the spot metering.

Had to come to a conclusion where it's either:
24-105L + 16-35L f/2.8 + 30D

or

24-105L + 5D


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

i am looking forward to the E510.

what i would have loved to see was a proper auto focus (not the three point one) and a moveable screen if it has live view... but well.. there u go.

other than that the IS inside the camera, and live view itself + their new lenses make it more than attractive for me, owning the E500...


----------



## Top Gear (Sep 19, 2005)

Hi, i have a question for the pro photographers here
I have a Fujifilm Finepix S5200 (a prosumer not DSLR) and it has a setting called chrome color (i dunno if thats common in cameras). It makes the pictures look more colorful and vibrant but is it good for most outdoor situations? Are there any quality trade-offs with chrome setting?


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Strifedaniel said:


> It makes the pictures look more colorful and vibrant but is it good for most outdoor situations? Are there any quality trade-offs with chrome setting?


It's basically an increase in saturation (some say contrast and/or sharpness also), meant to give a more slide film-like colour effect.

I'd keep it on for landscapes, wildlife, macros and any situation where you want the colours to pop. You might find it a little much for portraits though - skin tones may not be too natural.

As for quality, it could potentially increase visible noise, which may be a problem in low-light shots. I haven't noticed a problem with this in practice using the previous model.


----------



## Top Gear (Sep 19, 2005)

Thanks for the explanation, now I'll probably keep chrome on when taking street/cityscape pictures and maybe macro as well. But to me, it still looks unnatural/uncanny yet better than standard. 

Heres one i took today: 
With chrome on









Same pic without chrome 










The 2nd one looks more natural but the first one is more interesting 
Can't decide...:nuts:


----------



## Top Gear (Sep 19, 2005)

Just took some long-exposure shots with chrome on
Hey, not too shabby :cheers2: 



















Btw, what kind of white balance should I use for night scenery like this?
These are on auto i think. I tried incandestant too.


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Strifedaniel said:


> Btw, what kind of white balance should I use for night scenery like this?
> These are on auto i think. I tried incandestant too.


Incandescent will probably give you the most "natural" exposure when dealing with tungsten or sodium vapour lighting. I find it a bit too blue for my tastes though, so I usually use a daylight or flash WB setting.

If you shoot raw you can change the white balance easily in post - there's a decent Fuji raw converter here.


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

Doesn't it (your camera) have RAW format? if it does you should always try to photograph in it. And do the conversion later.
RAW format is like a digital negative - allowing you huge freedom in post processing starting from conversion itself and then possibility of editing 16 bit (well in reality 14, but still) images as opposed to 8 bit JPGs that are already compressed with all the nasty consequences of compression.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Sorry for the distraction, but has anyone played with the new Nikon D40x? I am amazed at Nikon's decision to release an improved version of D40, shortly after D40 hit the stores. The 10.1MP should provide a great addition to that already nice camera.


----------



## Top Gear (Sep 19, 2005)

The RAW format makes the pics 4 times larger in memory so I'll probably use it conservatively. But i just took some comparison shots and RAW definitely has a difference in quality when viewed 90%-100% zoom. 

Thanks for the Fuji RAW Converter. looks complicated to me but i'll learn over time 

Oh and i'm not sure what kind of JPEG my camera saves in but i think its better-than-average (when i had windows XP, it used to warn me before rotating the pictures because it could cause permanent quality loss but now i use Vista and the messages aren't there anymore). Is JPEG lossless same as RAW in terms of quality?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

I have finally bought an external flash for my Canon 30D. Speedlite 430EX. I won't be using it that often so i didn't get the premium version, 530EX. Also bought another 4GB CF card.


----------



## Tenacious (May 16, 2007)

Does anyone have recommendations for a Canon IS lens with zoom range of up to 200 or 300mm?

How much of a difference would the IS make? I currently have one at 200mm and it's pretty hard taking photos at the top of the zoom range without getting blur, even in daylight.


----------



## Omaro (Dec 20, 2005)

I like this thread, will keep an eye on it


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Tenacious said:


> Does anyone have recommendations for a Canon IS lens with zoom range of up to 200 or 300mm?
> 
> How much of a difference would the IS make? I currently have one at 200mm and it's pretty hard taking photos at the top of the zoom range without getting blur, even in daylight.


The IS version of the 70-200 f/4 L is a fine piece of glass, and about as affordable as stabilised Canon teles get. I don't know too much about the more expensive options.

The IS will reduce camera motion blur noticeably for stationary scenes, but won't help with moving subjects - the classic example being when shooting sports in low light, you'll get blurry players on sharp blades of grass. You should be able to shoot handheld @ 200mm easily in bright daylight (unless you're using tiny apertures and can't get a shutter speed of roughly 1/200s or faster) - assuming your handheld technique is OK, maybe you've got particularly shaky hands? If so, a good monopod and/or tripod might be a worthwhile investment.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I have nothing special to contribute except sharing my frustration. This past weekend I took some of the worst photos in my life. The weather was PERFECT for pictures and I managed to take the most underexposed photos, EVER  Does anyone have suggestions on how to deal with this problem? I use GIMP to process my images, but any Photoshop-oriented advice would do. I mostly used the Levels and in some cases I had to increase the red and yellow. Sharpness was adjusted to a lower rate than usual. I do not have any examples at this point in time, but if anyone has suggestions or links to sites on how to fix underexposed photos, please feel free to share them. My mistake was either the use of f/5.6 instead of f/8-f/11, or the negative exposure compensation setting - forgot to change it back to normal


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Were you shooting RAW? If so, you should be able to "push" your shots - ie, bump up the exposure compensation a stop or two - in a raw editor. Even a basic editor like the free Nikon View can do the job.

This won't be much help for the photos you've already taken, but it's a really good idea to check your histogram while shooting to make sure the graph isn't falling off the right or left ends of the scale.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

No, I was shooting in JPEG mode. The settings I used would have been fine, but my exposure compensation and aperture were wrong in most cases. What a pathetic photographer I am  I've learned a lesson though and next time I will be careful. Still, I was hoping for some way of fixing some of them.


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Ah, bummer.

The best I can suggest for JPGs is lowering the contrast. This will bring out some shadow detail but your images may get a bit washy. You could also try Curves (under Tools>Color Tools).

Sometimes upping the green level will bring out details (especially for skin tones), but if you mess too much with the colour you might have to convert to B&W.

Good luck!


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

mugley, I appreciate your time and input. What I will do is post a smaller version of the original and the image after processing it. If anything, you will be able to see for yourself how dumb I was. Also, last night, I discovered how I [accidently] ended up reducing the exposure compensation instead of fixing the aperture. What a dumb f*ck I was


----------



## LondonerUpNorth (Oct 19, 2004)

It's all in the learning process  I took a whole day of photos at a friends wedding at ISO1600 when I really really should have noticed how high the shutter speed was.

I'll never do it again 

Good luck.


----------



## cinosanap (Aug 10, 2004)

Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm not used to this part of SSC!

Is the Canon G7 a good camera? I would most likely just use it on holiday and special occasions with possibly trying to do what you guys do.

Cheers


----------



## Omaro (Dec 20, 2005)

cinosanap said:


> Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm not used to this part of SSC!
> 
> Is the Canon G7 a good camera? I would most likely just use it on holiday and special occasions with possibly trying to do what you guys do.
> 
> Cheers


I like it, it's a semi-pro one, but basically has the same functions of an SLR (Not the same quality and such but still, a very good one)


----------



## cinosanap (Aug 10, 2004)

Worth it or are there better for similiar prices?


----------



## rob_1412 (May 9, 2004)

LondonerUpNorth said:


> It's all in the learning process  I took a whole day of photos at a friends wedding at ISO1600 when I really really should have noticed how high the shutter speed was.
> 
> I'll never do it again
> 
> Good luck.


Several years ago on a trip through the Midwest, I shot a whole roll of what I thought would probably be my best shots to date, rare or infrequent railroad action, and with perfect light. It wasn't until I went to rewind that I realized I had forgotten to load film in the camera.


----------



## chisinchai (Dec 14, 2003)

IMO 400D or 350D > G7 (the price are similar right?)


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

chisinchai said:


> IMO 400D or 350D > G7 (the price are similar right?)


Similar if you don't count the lens.

The 18-55 kit lens doesn't have the range, speed or macro capability of the G7's lens. To get the equivalent you'd need something like a 24-140mm f/2.8-4.8 macro zoom. If something like this existed (nearest I can come up with is the 24-105 f/4 L), the price difference would be fairly large.

I'd still rather have the DSLR


----------



## chisinchai (Dec 14, 2003)

ah yes
but i rather use the kit lens to take more beautiful photos, than to have macro/zoom/etc.


----------



## dynamoultraclean (Nov 2, 2003)

You guys seem like you're able to help;
Nikon D40X w/ 18-135mm lens; or
Canon EOS 400D w/ 18-55mm & 75-300mm lens?


----------



## Hviid (Jan 8, 2005)

Olympus E510 w. 14-54mm & 50-200mm lens


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

dynamoultraclean said:


> You guys seem like you're able to help;
> Nikon D40X w/ 18-135mm lens; or
> Canon EOS 400D w/ 18-55mm & 75-300mm lens?


get the canon


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

dynamoultraclean said:


> You guys seem like you're able to help;
> Nikon D40X w/ 18-135mm lens; or
> Canon EOS 400D w/ 18-55mm & 75-300mm lens?


They're both toys 

The 400D rig is a bit more versatile. For the D40x, the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 VR would be a good alternative to the 18-135.


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

^^ 
what camera and lens do u have?


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

jixline said:


> ^^
> what camera and lens do u have?


*Cameras:* Nikon D70, Nikon F-801s, Yashica-Mat TLR, Fuji S5500, Canon Ixus 400 and two Gameboy cameras.

*Lenses:* AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4, AF-Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D, Nikon 135mm f/2.8 Series E, AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II, Rokinon 500mm f/8 mirror, Sigma 24mm f/2.8 AF, Sigma 300mm f/4 APO Tele Macro, Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 DI, Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X, Sigma 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 DL, Loreo lens-in-a-cap and PC-lens-in-a-cap, and some dodgy wide/tele/fisheye converters.

The "toys" comment is a joke BTW, the D40x and 400D are both nice little units. I'm just prejudiced against small DSLRs


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

^^ 
wow impressive collection


----------



## Cartel (Aug 26, 2005)

*Please help...*

Hey, I'm looking at buying a DSLR but not really to sure what to go for, as I've never used one before I'd want something entry level but that also does its job very good and will take good night & portrait shots too, and not too expensive, like low/mid range - not really keen on spending 4k+ for my first _real_ camera. I think I'm set on either a Nikon or Canon and some models I'm considering are Nikon D50, D70s or D80 and Canon EOS 300 or 400D. Does anyone own or have any experience with these models? And if so what would they recomend? 
Thanks!


----------



## chisinchai (Dec 14, 2003)

mugley said:


> *Cameras:* Nikon D70, Nikon F-801s, Yashica-Mat TLR, Fuji S5500, Canon Ixus 400 and two Gameboy cameras.
> 
> *Lenses:* AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4, AF-Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D, Nikon 135mm f/2.8 Series E, AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II, Rokinon 500mm f/8 mirror, Sigma 24mm f/2.8 AF, Sigma 300mm f/4 APO Tele Macro, Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 DI, Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X, Sigma 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 DL, Loreo lens-in-a-cap and PC-lens-in-a-cap, and some dodgy wide/tele/fisheye converters.
> 
> The "toys" comment is a joke BTW, the D40x and 400D are both nice little units. I'm just prejudiced against small DSLRs



how come you have 3 lens of 50mm?
what differnces and big differences between them??


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

chisinchai said:


> how come you have 3 lens of 50mm?
> what differnces and big differences between them??


The f/1.8 D was picked up as the cheap standard prime that nearly every reasonably serious 35mm/digital SLR user shoots with at some stage. A real workhorse and excellent value.

The Nikkor-S doesn't mount 100% on my D70, so it's not a good general-purpose lens, but it was cheap and has a huge rear element, so it's handy for reversing onto the front of a longer lens for macro work. Plus it's a great solid chunk of old-school optics and good to have around for ornamental value. 

The f/1.4 D is a recent acquisition and pretty much replaces the f/1.8 D for most purposes, as it's better in low light and has smoother bokeh. The f.18 D has now taken up permanent residence on the film body; it's good to shoot 50mm side-by-side on film and digital without swapping the lens all the time.



Cartel said:


> some models I'm considering are Nikon D50, D70s or D80 and Canon EOS 300 or 400D. Does anyone own or have any experience with these models? And if so what would they recomend?


Those models in order of most to least preferable are: D80, 400D, D70s, D50, 300. Maybe swap the order of the D70s and D50 if night shots are a priority over easier controls.

There's also the Canon 350D which slots in maybe between the 400D and the D70s. And I'd seriously consider the Pentax K10D, which is a superior camera to all of the above and sits price-wise between the 400D and D80.

For portraiture and handheld night work, you won't find better quality on a budget than a 50mm f/1.8 lens (see above). For night shots on a tripod and general daylight walkabout photography, one of the 18-xx kit lenses that come with the camera will do the job.


----------



## vytauc (Jul 25, 2003)

DLL_4ever said:


> Olympus E510 w. 14-54mm & 50-200mm lens


Now that would be a sweet kit :cheers:


----------



## Cartel (Aug 26, 2005)

Thanks for the advice Mugley!
I'm weighing up my options for either a 400d or a d80.
Currently found some pretty good priced d80s that come with either a 18-70 or 18-135mm lens, I know they're not really comparable but roughly what would these 2 lenses equate to in ' 'x zoom as the Point & shoot cameras are rated? And what would they be like for portraiture and handheld night shots, you'd probably still reccomend a 50mm 1.8 lens which I'd also get but are the 500mm for canon and nikon compatible on both DSLR's and film cameras & what should I expect to pay for one? Thanks again.


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Cartel said:


> Currently found some pretty good priced d80s that come with either a 18-70 or 18-135mm lens, I know they're not really comparable but roughly what would these 2 lenses equate to in ' 'x zoom as the Point & shoot cameras are rated?


On a D80, the 18-70 is 27-105mm in 35mm equivalent terms, and the 18-135 is 27-203mm. Most 3x zoom digital cameras are equivalent to around 35-105mm, so the 18-70 is like a 3x-zoom digicam with a bit extra on the wide end, and the 18-135 is a little like a 6x-zoom digicam with extra on the wide end (it also covers a similar range to the Ricoh R5).



Cartel said:


> And what would they be like for portraiture and handheld night shots


For handheld night work, forget it. Well, it's possible but it wouldn't be fun at all.

You can definitely do good portrait work with an 18-xx zoom, but you'll find it hard to get the good bokeh that you see in professional portraiture. You'd generally want to shoot these lenses at the long end for portraits, which would mean your maximum aperture would be f/4.5 on the 18-70 and f/5.6 on the 18-135. For a lot of portraiture work you really want to open up to f/2.8 or wider.

As an example, this portrait was shot at f/8 - it's not a terrible photo, but the background is in focus and tends to interfere with the subject:



... whereas in this photo shot at f/1.8, the background blurs nicely and the subject pops out:



Hope that makes sense 



Cartel said:


> you'd probably still reccomend a 50mm 1.8 lens which I'd also get but are the 500mm for canon and nikon compatible on both DSLR's and film cameras & what should I expect to pay for one? Thanks again.


500mm? Those things are expensive!

A modern 50mm Nikon lens will mount on just about any Nikon 35mm SLR from the 70s onwards - I've got one mounted on an early 90s film body right now. A modern Canon 50mm will mount on Canon 35mm SLRs from 1987 onwards - any "EF" or "EOS" camera will be compatible, but not any of the old FD-mount SLRs.

Using B&H prices as a guide, a Canon 50mm f/1.8 is currently $79.95 US and the Nikon equivalent is $114.95 US.


----------



## chisinchai (Dec 14, 2003)

BH
Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens 74.95/79.95
Normal EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus Lens 229.95/239.95
Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens 309.95/299.95
Normal EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Autofocus Lens 1339.95/1359

what makes the f/1.8 so much cheaper than the rest?


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

hell man, Nikkor...anything you want at f/2...gets expensive$$$

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/364708-USA/Nikon_2154_300mm_f_2_8_G_AFS_ED_IF.html

its f/2.8 but still...a nice lens.


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Are we talking about the Nikkor 200mm f/2 IF-ED?

I'll have one of those too, in the meantime a fast 70-200-ish zoom or a 180mm f/2.8 will have to do


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

I was thinking it was the 400mm...but its a 300mm.

that 200 sounds nice at f/2

Mugley, do you think that the VR adds two stops in regards to the compensation for f/ stops as Nikon claims or no?


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

BuffCity said:


> Mugley, do you think that the VR adds two stops in regards to the compensation for f/ stops as Nikon claims or no?


Dunno mate, haven't shot with any VR glass as yet (well, did borrow a 70-200 f/2.8 briefly, but didn't get to try the VR). Thinking about getting a 55-200 VR to test.

Either way, it's only going to be useful for static scenes, which could be handy for cityscapes.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Well from what I understand if you are using a tripod it makes no difference...plus it saves battery (big issue with the D200) when its off.

I can see a difference when using it...especially in motion shots (you say static shots?) In regards to skylines and night photos...I don't see anything as long as the wind is somewhat calm.

The VR is a great feature...I'd say its worth the extra money but I would rather have a non-VR with at a lower f/ stop. (ie: f/2-2.8)


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

BuffCity said:


> Well from what I understand if you are using a tripod it makes no difference


That sounds about right, it's more of a feature for handheld work.



BuffCity said:


> I can see a difference when using it...especially in motion shots (you say static shots?) In regards to skylines and night photos...I don't see anything as long as the wind is somewhat calm.


Yeah, I mentioned static shots because the VR should compensate for camera shake but won't stop the blur from a moving subject. So if you take a photo of someone walking in low light, you'll probably get a sharp background and a blurry person (which could be a pretty cool effect). Things like buildings that don't move much should be good subjects for handheld VR shots.



BuffCity said:


> The VR is a great feature...I'd say its worth the extra money but I would rather have a non-VR with at a lower f/ stop. (ie: f/2-2.8)


I want both 

Would love to have the cash for this baby.


----------



## gazgunman (Sep 12, 2002)

mugley said:


> Would love to have the cash for this baby.



what about the 70-200 f2.8 VR? believe me it is an excellent lens, very sharp and gotta be cheaper than the prime


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

gazgunman said:


> what about the 70-200 f2.8 VR? believe me it is an excellent lens, very sharp and gotta be cheaper than the prime


Yeah, that's on the list too. If money were no object, I'd still take the prime for the extra stop and to be able to use my 52mm filters with it.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

I'm actually considering a 28-70mm f/2.8

like $1500 USD

Nikkor also has a 14mm Wide Angle I think f/2.8 as well which has my eye now seeing that so much of my work is currently done at 18mm...it would be used often enough.

also roughly $1500 USD


----------



## rob_1412 (May 9, 2004)

BuffCity said:


> ...plus it saves battery (big issue with the D200) when its off.


The battery life seems to improve with use and additional discharge/recharge cycles. Mine took the battery down so fast when I first got it, that within a couple of days I bought a spare battery to carry with me.

After some use, I find that I'm getting pretty good battery runs, sometimes approaching 400 RAW shots and using VR a lot.

The D200's more accurate battery monitoring may create a perception of shorter battery life, too. With my D70, the battery-charge indicator didn't move off the fully-charged mark until the battery was pretty well depleted. From the first movement of the indicator, to dead battery, wasn't very long.

I think the D200's battery-charge indicator gives a more realistic display of battery life remaining. The indicator starts to show use soon after a fully-charged battery is inserted, and at first I thought OMG! It turns out, though, that if I stay with it, I still get a lot of shots and the indicator moves down gradually instead of just abruptly dropping from 3/4 full to dead.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Has anyone used Canon 24mm f/1.4L? What are your experiences with it?

I'm really having tough time which lens i should purchase. 

I'm speculating that the 5D replacement should arrive at the end of this year or early next year. So i gotta take that into account. Then gotta factor in that 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't work in 5D replacement. 

Then decide if i want to go 24 f/1.4L or 16-35 f/2.8L. 

Decisions decisions.


----------



## city_life (Apr 4, 2007)

Hey Cheek out www.citylife101.blogspot.com for great London Photos 

Taken with my new Nikon d80


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

rob_1412 said:


> The battery life seems to improve with use and additional discharge/recharge cycles. Mine took the battery down so fast when I first got it, that within a couple of days I bought a spare battery to carry with me.
> 
> The D200's more accurate battery monitoring may create a perception of shorter battery life, too. With my D70, the battery-charge indicator didn't move off the fully-charged mark until the battery was pretty well depleted.


Actually I’ve noticed the same! At the very beginning I could get no more then 200-230 shots from one battery charge and not it is about 400-500.
But it still falls VERY short of D70 case. There you can take couple of thousands shots with one charge! I wonder why such a HUGE difference?? Couldn't be just screen, could it? Of course all those extra pixels on the CCD need juice, but even that doesn’t explain such a difference 500 and 2500 shots!


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

the D200 has and Ice Box and a microwave under the CF port.


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

BuffCity said:


> the D200 has and Ice Box and a microwave under the CF port.


And tanning saloon!!
It sure must have all those the way it eats through battery!

I've got my hands on Nikkor 18-200 VR finally, and it is very mixed bag of cats, so to say. VR is a great add-on, and 11x zoom is really handy all around, but the vignetting is very visible and so is drop in sharpness from center to the edges at telephoto side at least. So noticeable that it is evident even after rescaling picture down to 1600 pix width from original 3872(so more the twice)
Both pictures are taken with Nikon D200.
First one is taken with Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200 VR second with Sigma EX HSM APO 70-200 F2.8 Both shots are 1/320s at F5,6 and at 200mm
  

You can see difference even from this thumbnail images!

Also I had to compress the shot from Sigma a bit more -70% quality from Photoshop export for web in Nikkor and 67% in Sigma case to get file of the same size (under 1,5Mb to get it to Imageshack for storing). This is also evidence of greater amount of detail rendered by Sigma. Although Sigma isn't as sharp as Nikkor 70-200 VR it bits hands down this one. Particularly how even picture from side to side and no trace of vignetting or CA as this is (apart from pro quality built and so on of EX series) also full frame lens bringing only the "sweet spot" to your DX sized sensor.


----------



## fooddude (Feb 2, 2007)

mugley said:


> Hehe, cheers. He's a non-actor friend of mine
> 
> Those are two models of Nikon flashes.
> 
> ...


Rad!! So thats how you get those funky colors! A few questions if you dont mind 

-Do Cokin colored polarisers filters come in a round screw on shape???

-Does Hoya make colored polarizers???

-Which is better quality: Hoya or Cokin???

-Can you recommend me some color polarized model #s?? (I really dig on deep purple, blue and red skys if that matters)

thx


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

fooddude said:


> -Do Cokin colored polarisers filters come in a round screw on shape???


The filters come in a square shape which slides into a holder, which attaches to an adapter that screws onto your camera. Sounds fiddly but it means you can use the filters on lenses with different thread sizes by changing the adapter ring.

There's an illustrated explanation here



fooddude said:


> -Does Hoya make colored polarizers???


I didn't think they did, but a bit of googling turned this up.



fooddude said:


> -Which is better quality: Hoya or Cokin???


The average Hoya glass filter is better than the average plastic Cokin filter. The Cokin coloured polarisers are solid glassy things though, so they're probably pretty similar. Haven't used the Hoya coloured pols, but I've got an old Fotar red-blue and can't see any real image quality difference between it and my Cokin blue-yellow.



fooddude said:


> -Can you recommend me some color polarized model #s?? (I really dig on deep purple, blue and red skys if that matters)


If you haven't already got one, I'd start with a regular uncoloured circular pol - I get a lot more use out of mine than I do with the coloured types.

For coloured pols, I'd start out with the Cokin P173 (blue-yellow varicolor). There's a Singh Ray version that's supposed to be superior, but it's expensive. The blue-yellow will do pink, purple and blue skies with blue and yellow highlights on reflective surfaces. Some examples here, this one is fairly representative of the overall look of the filter:



I'm not a huge fan of the other colour combos. Red-blue (eg Cokin P171) can be useful but I find the look a little too "bubble-gum", as the red is more like pink:



You can take the edge off this by turning up the green in post, but I like to see what the photo's going to look like while shooting, so I usually combine a red-blue pol with an X1 (mild green) filter. If you've got a good angle to the sun, you can get a deep red sky:


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

@mugley

amazing work and explanations. thanks for always useful info :cheers:


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

I'm going to buy a D40 in a couple months to have as a relatively inexpensive, lightweight SLR to play around with until I can afford a D200 early next May. A camera store a few blocks away is selling the D40 body kitted with 18-55mm and 55-200mm for $799 (no tax). Am I correct assuming I can use these lenses on the D200?


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

They'll work fine on the D200. Try to get the VR version of the 55-200, apart from the VR it's supposed to be optically superior.

A D200 with a D40 as second body would be a great combo.


----------



## Tim3167 (Aug 21, 2004)

I'm currently using a D50 with either the 18-200mm VR or 50mm 1.8 lens. The shot below (Orlando) was with the 50mm. I'm really still learning but would love to think about what my next lens might be. I love the sharpness I get from the 50mm but would like a bit wider choice. I'd also like to limit the distortion that makes buildings appear to lean (term for this??).


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Tim3167 said:


> I love the sharpness I get from the 50mm but would like a bit wider choice. I'd also like to limit the distortion that makes buildings appear to lean (term for this??).


It's called keystoning and is caused by tilting your camera up or down. It tends to be more of a problem with wider lenses and buildings placed towards the edges of your frame. Some ideas for dealing with it:

1) Don't tilt the camera. This is unfortunately impractical for shooting skyscrapers from ground level, although finding higher vantage points can be fun.

2) Get a lens that allows perspective manipulation. On a Nikon body the options that come to mind are a PC-Nikkor, a tilt-shift adapter for medium format lenses (DIY version here), bellows, or a PC lens in a cap (this last one's a bit of a toy).

3) Correct with software. Programs like Photoshop and Gimp have perspective adjustment tools. These can require a bit of work but some people swear by this method. You could also try shooting multiple overlapping shots and stitching with panorama software - this often straightens out buildings without much hard work from the user. DxO Optics Pro might also be worth a look.

4) Learn to work with it. Move your camera around and observe how the distortion changes in your viewfinder, and find ways to use this for creative effect. Then post your shots in the UPC and watch people complain about the tilt 

Your photo is really good BTW, very smooth, sharp and well-exposed.


----------



## fooddude (Feb 2, 2007)

i am finding more and more about this with my new dslr as i shoot bulidings, architecture, etc. 

It is very hard to get nice straight angles when shooting wide..or angles in general with buildings.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Some time ago i wondered why people would buy fixed lenses. You can`t zoom so you take less pics, was what i thought. 

But i was so wrong. I never knew that a 90€ 50mm f1.8 lens can make so much fun.

Also taking pics of faces and people is the most interesting part in photography.


----------



## seicer (Jun 1, 2007)

^ Nice  I once swore by variable lenses myself, but after purchasing a Nikon 20mm f/2.8 and seeing the vast quality difference versus the former 18-70mm f/2.8-5.X that I had, I am saving up for even more. Variable lenses do have their great sides, and I always keep a few handy for when I need it.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Thanks for posting those fantastic shots, Tom. I've been considering the 50mm f1.8. Amazing lens for the money. Your photos all but sealed it for me. Eventually, I'd like to upgrade to the f1.4.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Thanks 

All mylife i had hobbies where i collected stuff, like stamps, stones, airplanes,.... Now i have photography. The bad thing is that i continue my habbit of collecting things. I collect lenses. So far i have 5 and i can`t stop >_<


----------



## Top Gear (Sep 19, 2005)

hello everyone
I've found a very useful tool called auto color while messing around with photoshop. It was perfect for getting rid of colorcasts, especially in observatories where the window usually have a slight tint. 

My question is... should I also use it for outdoor shoots? I really can't decide which is better. It seems to make the outdoor pictures brighter overall and also seems to do something with the contrast.


----------



## davaosniper07 (Jun 12, 2007)

I am new with this dslr thing....i only use sigma 10-20mm with d200 and edited with picasa2. I reduce the size and this is what i got:


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I have a D200 and I am considering the Sigma 10-20mm lens. Are you happy with it so far?


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Who will buy the new EOS 40D?


----------



## LondonerUpNorth (Oct 19, 2004)

Probably. I've got the 350D, and am looking to upgrade. I've wanted to go the 5D route for a while but it's still too expensive and the 40D looks like it'll be good for the minute. It'll have to wait as I've just bought myself a 24" iMac for image editing  It's a sweet machine!


----------



## LondonerUpNorth (Oct 19, 2004)

Btw, nice pictures, Tom!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Anyone have any experiences with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?


----------



## Sergei (May 20, 2004)

I just received my Canon XTi (400D)!!! I still need to buy a CF card to start taking photos, but so far I've been playing around with it, and I love it already! I'll post some photos when I figure everything out!


----------



## davaosniper07 (Jun 12, 2007)

Raleigh-NC said:


> I have a D200 and I am considering the Sigma 10-20mm lens. Are you happy with it so far?


well, at first i was worried. kenrockwell review this lens as unsharp compare to nikkor wide lens. but this lens is much wider and cheaper and lighter than nikkor lens. i did notice that sometimes the focusing is not that sharp compare to my nikkor 18-200 vr lens. well, at first i am not happy but, when i put a nikon nc 77mm filter, the focusing and the picture quality improved. Im glad to have this lens. it is soooo wide.


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> Anyone have any experiences with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?


I have one. It is often described as a hidden L-series lens.
It's especially good for wildlife but can be multi-purpose as well.
a few pics I took with it:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1176/1183241227_a411ef715f_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/1183239807_ebd2eb11ef.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1412/1184033912_1cd4677f74_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1026/1183168409_4ddb6f6ea4_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1256/1204269195_e867520faf.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1007/870972464_1f41a2ec78.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1392/869565678_f428c0fb9f.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1279/870042827_92e438521a.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1421/752809363_6f8ca5dea6_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1310/719374278_9efbf0d287_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1178/633108647_8e7e5450d4.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/633913884_5038dcc972_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/633961166_62fd9c9d57_o.jpg

All pics taken handheld.

loads of other pics on http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon70300is/pool/


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

^thanks, I've actually decided to go with the 70-200mm f/4 L USM


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I haven`t posted any pics so far taken with my new Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens.

It`s time to change it. 


















I am very very happy with that lens.


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> ^thanks, I've actually decided to go with the 70-200mm f/4 L USM


Good choice, you shouldn't regret :cheers: 

Won't you buy the same lens but with IS?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Ursyn said:


> Good choice, you shouldn't regret :cheers:
> 
> Won't you buy the same lens but with IS?


I wish... It's too expensive for me. But I usually tend to shoot in bright light, so the lack of IS shouldn't be much of an issue.


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

I'm purchasing myself a DSLR cam very soon. I'll be very new to the world of DSLR photography by then so I hope you can recommend the best among these 3 cameras: Nikon D40x, Nikon D40, Nikon D80. Which among them would you recommend? Thanks!


----------



## mugley (Aug 2, 2004)

Jhaelnis said:


> I'm purchasing myself a DSLR cam very soon. I'll be very new to the world of DSLR photography by then so I hope you can recommend the best among these 3 cameras: Nikon D40x, Nikon D40, Nikon D80. Which among them would you recommend? Thanks!


Depends entirely on you priorities...

Least expenditure: D40

Most capability: D80

The D40x will give you equivalent images to the D80, with the bonus of better portability but the negative of lesser lens compatibility. I'd say get the D40 or a 2nd-hand D50 or D70/s - it'll cost less, and by the time you need to upgrade you'll know what you want (and have a handy second body).


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I made a roadmap for the next 2-4 years.

The next thing i want to buy is the canon EOS 40D. I found 13 reasonable reasons to replace my EOS 350D by this cam but it`s to difficult to decribe it in Englisch. And the bigger body is not one of the reasons. 
Later i will replace my Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro by the Canon 70 - 300 mm/4,5 - 5,6 DO IS USM. I need the IS because there are to many pics at 300mm taken by the Sigma that are not sharp. I thought about buying my first L lens. But the canon 100-400mm is way to expensive and too heavy. 
I also need to replace my Canon EF-S 18-55Kit lens by the Sigma 17-70mm F2,8-4,5 DC MACRO. There are many reasons to replace the kit lens. Also the Sigma is not that expensive.
And i want to replace my Canon EF 50mm 1.8 f1.8II lens by Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM. 

What do you think?


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

Jhaelnis said:


> I'm purchasing myself a DSLR cam very soon. I'll be very new to the world of DSLR photography by then so I hope you can recommend the best among these 3 cameras: Nikon D40x, Nikon D40, Nikon D80. Which among them would you recommend? Thanks!


If I were you I would choose a one of the newest Nikon camera D300. It will be available in November with the price around $1800. 
Look here > http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/

If I have to choose from cameras mentioned by you I choose of course D80. It's a higher class camera than both D40's.

Here > http://fotografuj.pl/Dzial/Porownywarka_lustrzanek/aparat/Nikon_D40|Nikon_D40X|Nikon_D80| you have nice comparison (in Polish  ) but you should understand everything.

Good luck and let us know what did you buy.


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

Hi! Thanks for your feedback. Nah, as much as I would want the most high-end DSLR cam, I simply can't afford such since I'm still a student


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

Tom_Green said:


> I made a roadmap for the next 2-4 years.
> 
> The next thing i want to buy is the canon EOS 40D. I found 13 reasonable reasons to replace my EOS 350D by this cam but it`s to difficult to decribe it in Englisch. And the bigger body is not one of the reasons.
> Later i will replace my Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro by the Canon 70 - 300 mm/4,5 - 5,6 DO IS USM. I need the IS because there are to many pics at 300mm taken by the Sigma that are not sharp. I thought about buying my first L lens. But the canon 100-400mm is way to expensive and too heavy.
> ...


In my opinion changing this Sigma 70-300 for Canon 70-300 isn't probably the best solution. Of course Sigma doesn't have IS but it's lighter than Canon. Don't you think about Canon 70-200/4 or 70-200/4 IS? If you really need something longer than 200mm you can buy i.e. TC 1,4x. Both of 70-200 are from L series.
I heard that Canon kit lens isn't so good but mentioned by you Sigma also isn't impressive. You can check also Tamron 17-50/2,8 and Sigma 17-50/2,8. They aren't so expensive but for sure they are lighter with constant light.

Maybe this website will be useful for you
http://www.photozone.de/active/surv...' or brand='Tokina AF' or brand='Vivitar AF'"

Good luck.


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

Yeah I also wait for D300!!
If these pictures showing NIkon D3 in action are to be believed and if (and that should be quite likely) the same technology is used in D300 CMOS that we are in for a revolution!!
Just take a look at it:
http://review.fengniao.com/64/644874.html
http://review.fengniao.com/64/644918.html


----------



## Yörch1 (Oct 31, 2006)

I'm also about to enter into the DSLR world. What about the Canon EOS Rebel XTi?

Is it ok for a beginner? Any other advice in the same price range?


----------



## LondonerUpNorth (Oct 19, 2004)

XTi is a great camera for beginners. Even the XT model before it is still pretty good. Get the kit lens and cheap 50mm f1.8 lens as well for starters and experiment with the settings.


----------



## Yörch1 (Oct 31, 2006)

^^ Thanks a lot!


----------



## la wood (Jun 3, 2006)

LondonerUpNorth said:


> XTi is a great camera for beginners. Even the XT model before it is still pretty good. Get the kit lens and cheap 50mm f1.8 lens as well for starters and experiment with the settings.


images captured by 50mm/f1.8

f1.8









f8









f22









even though i'm not a photographer, but all the pictures looks okay to me


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

You must remove a little stain from your lens or camera. It is on the sky on the last photo.

BTW Nice photos.


----------



## ch1le (Jun 2, 2004)

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m83/cross_eyes/IMG_6492.jpg

superb pic!
10 out of 10!


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Ursyn said:


> You must remove a little stain from your lens or camera. It is on the sky on the last photo.
> 
> BTW Nice photos.


Sensor dust only appears in small apertures like f/22 which isn't something most people regularly use.

My 50mm 1.8 is my favourite lens though. Took a while to get used to the mild telephoto on digital but it's great for happy snaps too, when I can be bothered lugging around a DSLR to parties.

I'm sort of stuck on what lens to get next though, since I've got my 50mm prime, a cheap 28-80 (thanks mugley), and a Tokina 12-24 which is pretty fun to use. I'm thinking of getting either the 18-200 VR, 24-120 VR, or a cheaper 55-200 VR. Leaning towards the first two because I'd like VR across a wider range since I don't really use anything around 200mm anyway.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

24-120VR is pretty good. I used it for about a year. From my experience Nikon's VR works better than Canon's IS. Just my experience of it.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

My *cube* has just arrived!! :banana:


----------



## gutooo (Jan 30, 2005)

I just got a Canon 40D!

It will arrive in about 20 days!

I think I will be very active around here now! 

:banana:


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

MILIUX said:


> My *cube* has just arrived!! :banana:


Congrats. I'm patiently waiting for my 70-200m f/4 L to arrive.


----------



## gutooo (Jan 30, 2005)

What do you guys think about the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM ?


----------



## Sergei (May 20, 2004)

gutooo said:


> I just got a Canon 40D!
> 
> It will arrive in about 20 days!
> 
> ...


YAY! :colgate:


----------



## fooddude (Feb 2, 2007)

MILIUX said:


> My *cube* has just arrived!! :banana:


Beautiful! 

I wish Nikon would come out with a 1.4 wide prime:rant:


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

Just a question: Do you guys shoot RAW Files or JPG Files from your DSLRs?


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

RAW files. More flexible with adjustments if I need to make them, otherwise it's still easy to mass convert everything to JPEG on your computer.

Storage isn't much of an issue, memory cards aren't that expensive, and a large JPEG file at maximum quality isn't that much smaller than a RAW file.

I just got my 18-200mm VR. Reasonably sharp handheld images at 0.3s exposure. 









This was 0.5s, handheld.  No ISO noise to speak of, even at ISO 1000.

But it did take about 5-6 attempts to get a sharp photo.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Sinjin P. said:


> Just a question: Do you guys shoot RAW Files or JPG Files from your DSLRs?


i think it kinda becomes pointless to have dslr without using raw. 

RAW = 10 bit colour (Nikon) 12 bit colour (Canon) 14 bit colour (newer models)
Jpeg = 8 bit

It is a lot of difference.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I would shoot RAW if I had the software to recognize it - Nikon charges more money for their software than I am willing to pay  Currently, I shoot in JPEG format. Eventually, I will purchase that software and shoot in RAW, but first I need to become a seasoned photographer and master my D200.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

MILIUX said:


> i think it kinda becomes pointless to have dslr without using raw.
> 
> RAW = 10 bit colour (Nikon) 12 bit colour (Canon) 14 bit colour (newer models)
> Jpeg = 8 bit
> ...


The difference isn't as big as you think it is because although RAW files use more bits to store pixel data, the algorithm is less efficient (linear) than JPEG which uses a logarithmic algorithm which can still represent the same range.

The increased bit depth is useful for people who like to make lots of adjustments in Photoshop - remember that the RAW format simply records the data right from the sensor, and adjustments like white balance are stored as metadata so that they do not actually alter the actual image data in a destructive fashion as JPEG does.

Pretty much every camera out there should theoretically be able to support some sort of RAW format, it's excluded on most cameras because the typical user of a point and shoot, or even a prosumer, doesn't know what to do with them. I know you can get RAW output on the prosumer Canon cameras using modified firmware.

@Raleigh-NC - there's no reason why you should just use Nikon's software, which is shit anyway. There are free applications which can open NEF files, but there's nothing wrong with just getting it right and not needing to make adjustments.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

^^
Please, feel free to recommend some of those apps... Although I use Linux, and I already found an application (written for Linux) that simply haven't tried yet, I am very open for suggestions. Another, temporary solution is to shoot in RAW+JPEG and process the RAW images at a later time. Thanks for any suggestions, in advance


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

I have used ACD See Pro 2 recently. Much cheaper than Adobe Photoshop CS3 the other software i use. If you are gonna edit it hardcore..then photoshop will do.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Some low light shots with my new lens. 










it was a really foggy night



























i'm really drilling the new lens as i want to see what other lens i should buy next. The 5D replacement is still a while away. 

I think i am alright with the wide-angle department. It will be wider when i get 5D replacement. 

The trickiest part is that i have 34-105L and it really covers a lot of my range...


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Solid work, MILIUX kay: Thanks for sharing your work with us.


----------



## gutooo (Jan 30, 2005)

Hey!

This is my first thread made with DSLRs pictures!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=533256

Please tell me what you guys think!

I got a Sigma 10-20mm last week, Im having lots of fun with it 

I took some nightshots using my 580EX II, but I dont know if I really should use it!


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Great work, gutooo!!! Loved your photos kay: Enjoy your new camera and lens(es).


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

A couple with my new lens:


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I am right now a user of a 350D.

I want a second body. All the time i thought i should buy the EOS 40D. But right now i don`t know if it is the best idea. For the same money i could get a 400D and a Canon 70-300mm is. 
It`s difficult.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Always go with the lens. 

Body is not an investment unless it significantly improves your photographic skills. Lens is an investment as it does.


----------



## Top Gear (Sep 19, 2005)

can anyone recommend me a good bulk picture resizer?


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

I got a question for camera people:

There are two cameras with these changes, otherwise identical

Camera A has a bigger sensor then Camera B
Camera B has a better lense then Camera A

Which would you get? In other words, whats better, a better lense or a bigger sensor?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Camera B has a better lense then Camera A

no doubt


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

OK...here's a hard question...
What's the best camera I could buy that is under $500, dslr or like-dslr with interchangable lens capability?


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

victor5101 said:


> Anyone here using Canon EOS 400D??


I just bought one...gonna be at my door on Monday morning!


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

DLL_4ever said:


> *The Olympus E-3* – main features:
> 
> *Speed*
> - World's fastest autofocus* for quick and precise image capture


I wonder what is denoted by that asterisk...

Either way, seems stupid to bill something as having the world's fastest AF when it also depends on what kind of lens you stick on there.


----------



## Kingofthehill (Jun 3, 2007)

*Can somebody recommend me a good camera to lens to upgrade from the plain-jane EF 17-58m lens? I use a -400D and I would like something with more range.

How are the EF 75-300m lens? I'm considering one, but most reviews I've read have tarnished the likelihood of me getting one.*


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

^^ start with sigma 18-200 with image stabilization


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

jixline said:


> ^^ start with sigma 18-200 with image stabilization


how much did u pay for that, and how sharp is it?


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

^^
around 400$. it is a really nice lens and it is delivering good results. one thing that is not so well is the bokeh, but not in all situations

check the review if u want
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18200_3563os/index.htm


----------



## brunods (Jan 25, 2007)

A picture with my Canon 400D and 70-200 2.8 IS!


----------



## Dubai Freak (Jul 26, 2004)

*New lens for Canon 400D?*



jixline said:


> ^^ start with sigma 18-200 with image stabilization


I am in the same position as 'Kingofthehill', looking for a new lens for my Canon 400D

There are some good reviews on the Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro.

Does anybody have any comments or recomendations, Sigma or Tamron or other?


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

My old Sigma 18-200 was alright during the day but was pretty atrocious at night, where points of light would often come out as blobs and general problems with flare. I'm a Nikon user and I managed to replace it with the Nikon 18-200 VR which is absolutely brilliant. 

Not really a fan of third party lenses, Sigma especially have a pretty poor build quality and the finish marks quite easily. Don't know much about Tamron but it's meant to be sort of like Sigma in terms of quality (i.e. average, but does the job). Tokina is the other manufacturer of third party lenses, I have their 12-24mm and it's a very good lens, both in terms of image quality and build quality.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

What`s the better combination for 2 bodies:

Sigma 17-70mm + Canon 70-300mm is

or

Tokina 12-24mm + Tamron 28-300mm VC


----------



## Dubai Freak (Jul 26, 2004)

*Sigma Vs Tamron*



invincible said:


> My old Sigma 18-200 was alright during the day but was pretty atrocious at night, where points of light would often come out as blobs and general problems with flare. I'm a Nikon user and I managed to replace it with the Nikon 18-200 VR which is absolutely brilliant.
> 
> Not really a fan of third party lenses, Sigma especially have a pretty poor build quality and the finish marks quite easily. Don't know much about Tamron but it's meant to be sort of like Sigma in terms of quality (i.e. average, but does the job). Tokina is the other manufacturer of third party lenses, I have their 12-24mm and it's a very good lens, both in terms of image quality and build quality.


Thanks for the feedback invincible, the more reviews etc I read on the internet/magazines etc the more I am swinging away from the Sigma to the newer Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro. Without stretching finances to more expensive lenses with image stability etc I think the Tamron will suit my day to day photographic requirements whilst holidaying etc


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Hey all, I'm wondering as to what vendors are there for lenses for Nikon.

I'm thinking of using DSLRs (they're so cheap now!) and I'm between the 400D (Rebel XTI) and D40x. They're identically priced and nearly identically reviewed.

The thing is, Canon stock lenses on newegg, and I dunno where I can find a good reputable vendor for the Nikon


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Is the Canon EOS 350D a good camera?


----------



## 177625 (Sep 22, 2002)

What would be a cheap (less than USD 300) ultra wide angle for the Canon EF mount?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

I have my Canon DSLR system with L lens, but what frustrates me is the size. I also cannot take inside concerts or nightclubs which really makes me angry given that i want these scenes to be documented by myself. 

So i bought myself a Canon G9. I think it will bring new life to my photography adventure. I won't have to take my dslr everywhere anymore...and it is heavy to carry around for long periods!

The Canon G9 has a RAW feature. I will never step into that darkage where i had to process jpeg photos like crazy.


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

I'll soon have a D40. :happy: :banana:


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Kampflamm said:


> Is the Canon EOS 350D a good camera?


Yes it is.


----------



## jixline (Jul 16, 2006)

invincible said:


> My old Sigma 18-200 was alright during the day but was pretty atrocious at night, where points of light would often come out as blobs and general problems with flare. I'm a Nikon user and I managed to replace it with the Nikon 18-200 VR which is absolutely brilliant.
> 
> Not really a fan of third party lenses, Sigma especially have a pretty poor build quality and the finish marks quite easily. Don't know much about Tamron but it's meant to be sort of like Sigma in terms of quality (i.e. average, but does the job). Tokina is the other manufacturer of third party lenses, I have their 12-24mm and it's a very good lens, both in terms of image quality and build quality.


i was talking about the new sigma 18-200 OS. it is better than than the old one but heavier and more expensive. the old sigma also suffer from difficulty of autofocus at night,and this one doesn't have this problem. the only thing about this lens is the bokeh for close background, which is not v nice. otherwise it is a great lens

here is one unedited photo taken with 400D


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I always knew what i wanted. But now i need a lens for ultra wide range.
And here comes teh problem. There are 4 lenses.

Canon 10-22mm
good: biggest range, 80€ cashback, smaller aperature, low weight
bad: prize

Sigma 10-20mm
good and bad: nowhere extreme good and nowhere extreme bad

Tokina 12-24
good: can "zoom" the most, f4.0
bad: heavy, starts at 12mm

Tamron 11-18
good: low weight, by far the cheapest lens
bad: smallest zoom range


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

I'll get my new Nikon D40 kit in 1-2 days :banana:


----------



## Þróndeimr (Jan 14, 2003)

Im thinking about a Nikon D80, or a Canon EOS 400. D80 is quiate a lot more expencive than the EOS 400, but it has scored better in most tests etc. What do you guys recommend me as i have no experience with a DSLR?

Have also been thinking about Nikon D40 (Nikon D40x) and Canon EOS 350 as its very cheap atm.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

go with the D80...seen it in action, you will not regret.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I bought a new lens. The Sigma 10-20mm for 430€. 
I hope the lens will be fun.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

just picked up some stuff for my D200...

SB-D200 Battery Pack $173.00 US
SB-600 Speed Light $261.00 US

Needed the battery pack because the D200 is a little liberal with battery power and I have been kicking around the idea of getting a speedlight for some time now...should help with some wedding gigs and portrait work on the side.

Now, my camera weighs about 4lbs. lol

next, new lens and tripod.


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

I got Sigma 17-70mm 1:2,8-4,5. Seems to be a fine piece of equipment for such a low price.


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

First shot with my new toy.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

What did you get Sinjin?


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

Nikon D40 kit. 

-----
EDIT: I'm currently having problems opening RAW files in Adobe Photoshop CS2. It says, "Could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document". Hmm, what is the recommended software for opening/editing RAW files? Thanks!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Unfortunately, that's a common problem many people face. I don't think CS2 supports RAW files. Did your camera come with any software? If so, use it to transfer your RAW files to your hard drive and try opening them in another kind of RAW software such as PhaseOne.


----------



## Þróndeimr (Jan 14, 2003)

I have that problem too with RAW files. For RAW files i recommend you to download Adobe Lightroom, a very handy program for everything, especially RAW files.


----------



## Ringil (Jul 28, 2004)

Qazaq said:


> I have that problem too with RAW files. For RAW files i recommend you to download Adobe Lightroom, a very handy program for everything, especially RAW files.


I second that :yes:


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Qazaq said:


> I have that problem too with RAW files. For RAW files i recommend you to download Adobe Lightroom, a very handy program for everything, especially RAW files.


For the trial you mean:cheers:. It's also great for managing your files.

I agree that's a great program. Almost makes photoshop work unnecessary.


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

Sinjin P. said:


> EDIT: I'm currently having problems opening RAW files in Adobe Photoshop CS2. It says, "Could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document". Hmm, what is the recommended software for opening/editing RAW files? Thanks!


Try to download the newest plugin Adobe Camera Raw from Adobe website.You'll find there also follow instruction what should you do with it.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

Your D40 is on the list. Good luck!


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> Unfortunately, that's a common problem many people face. I don't think CS2 supports RAW files. Did your camera come with any software? If so, use it to transfer your RAW files to your hard drive and try opening them in another kind of RAW software such as PhaseOne.


Every newer Photoshop supports RAW files. I'm sure that all CS version do. Everything depends on which version of plugin Adobe Camera Raw do you use. When you have newer camera then this plugin, your RAW files won't be supported of course. Every time you can check it on Adobe website and download newest version.

This plugin is suitable for Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshop Elements for sure.


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

Yep all CS versions of Photoshop do support all possible RAW file formats. And are absolutelly same in such capability as it i s realise not internally in the program itself, but as a plugin that is same for all versions. So no matter if you run CS or CS3 your capabilities in terms of RAW are same. And currently this beautiful piece of software is about as good a converter as it gets! There is no point to get entangle with anything else. Particularly Nikon own converter is a horrid memory hog! This is use was documented way back in 2003 still Nikon either unwilling or incapable (or both) to do anything about it. Memory leaks very fast bringing your computer to a stand still in no time at all!
I like Adobe RAW so much that I didn't even bother getting Nikon CaptureNX although it was supplied with my new D300 free of charge.
And JPGs?? well as one member put it here very wel earlier on - never shall I go back to dark ages of JPG! Why on earth?


----------



## FinrodFelagund (Oct 18, 2007)

Hi all. I am new to this forum, I am from Colombia and I would like to ask for advice. I like photography very much and I currently have a film camera, a Pentax K1000 with three lenses, a Pentax wide-angle 24-50mm zoom F4, a Pentax 50mm and a Vivitar Series 1 telephoto 70-210mm F3.5 macro zoom. For digital photos I haven´t got a DSLR, I have a compact Canon PowerShot SD550 of 7.1 mp which is pretty old but has a few advanced controls, such as exposure controls and macro options. I am currently allright with this equipment, but in the future I would like to ge a DSLR, mostly because of costs (you dont have to keep buying films and other stuff, you can have a 4GB SD card and nothing more and reveling the films is more expensive than printing digital photos) and beacuse film cameras get everyday more uncommon, so its maintenance and accesories get more expesive and more hard to find. I would like you to advice me about a DSLR. Which one is better for general photography? Nikon? Canon? how about new Sony alpha? can any of actual DSLRs use my lenses? they are completely manual (from the 70s and 80s) and have bayonet mount. And which software is the best for editing? and the cheapest one? Thank you very much,

Simon


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

you know, if you have autofocus Pentax lenses...you should check to see if they will work on a Pentax body DSLR.

Pentax make some pretty decent DSLRs like the K10D which is water resistant and has anti-shake.

If you can, I would go this route if you are happy with Pentax...as you will save yourself lots of money with not having to buy new glass.


----------



## FinrodFelagund (Oct 18, 2007)

K, thanks very much for the answer .


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

Hi guys, what would be a good wide angle lens for my Nikon D40? Thanks! :colgate:


----------



## Quall (Feb 15, 2006)

Finally got my Olympus E330. 

For my kind of photography, I'll need a decent wide-angle lens. Any suggestions?


----------



## vytauc (Jul 25, 2003)

TRMD said:


> Finally got my Olympus E330.
> 
> For my kind of photography, I'll need a decent wide-angle lens. Any suggestions?


I use ZD 11-22mm f2.8-3.5 - very happy with it. Unbelievably sharp and focuses instantly, also very well built and weather sealed.
The ZD 7-14 f4 is a really sweet glass, just too expensive or me at this stage.


----------



## 7t (Jun 4, 2006)

I'm dying to get the new Nikon D300.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Sinjin P. said:


> Hi guys, what would be a good wide angle lens for my Nikon D40? Thanks! :colgate:


The Nikon D40 is annoying because they removed the autofocus screw so only lenses with internal motors (AF-S) will work.

That means the only lenses with working AF are the Nikon 12-24 (brilliant but expensive) or the Sigma 10-20. I'm not a fan of Sigma build quality myself but this is one of their more expensive lenses which might be decent.

I'm using a Tokina 12-24 which won't autofocus on a D40 but you can probably get away with focusing it manually. The focus scale goes from 2m to infinity so you can just keep it at infinity and it'll be fine for most photos. The lens is huge and chunky but it's top quality, although filters can be an issue. Tokina is part of the same company that produces Hoya filters so you know their glass is high quality and they're the best of the third party lens manufacturers.

You can't use the wide angle lenses designed for film because of the 1.5x crop factor.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

I just ordered a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM lens. It's going to be a long 3-5 days waiting for its arrival:










It will be a great complement to my EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM:


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

7t said:


> I'm dying to get the new Nikon D300.


yea no kidding. 

I was amazed how the changes from the D200 are very well done.

better battery life, more AF points, live-view LCD and tons more...but those are the big hitters. :banana:


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

Why are people always going nutz over dslr bodies, though? You can upgrade your system far better by purchasing a decent lens. I still use my old 350D, which i got in June 2005.  And I would never change it. I know it like the backs of my hands, and so using it is very easy and fast - I don't have to think what buttons to press to change settings and so I can focus on shootin'. Using it is very intuitive. If I upgraded to a more recent body, not only would I spent several hundreds of euros to practically non-existent improvements, I'd also lose the fast operation of my 350D I've learnt.


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

Moolio said:


> Why are people always going nutz over dslr bodies, though? You can upgrade your system far better by purchasing a decent lens. I still use my old 350D, which i got in June 2005.  And I would never change it. I know it like the backs of my hands, and so using it is very easy and fast - I don't have to think what buttons to press to change settings and so I can focus on shootin'. Using it is very intuitive. If I upgraded to a more recent body, not only would I spent several hundreds of euros to practically non-existent improvements, I'd also lose the fast operation of my 350D I've learnt.


Sorry, but you're wrong. If you upgrade your dslr you'll get something better (you can check everything in specifications). When you change your body made by the same company it'll be as intuitive as your older model. Haven't you thought why people want to have more expensive bodies? I think they don't do that only because they have too much money. Of course, not everyone need top class dslr and you're good example.
Using advanced cameras makes taking photos easier because they offer bigger possibilities and you can concentrate yourself only on taking photos.


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

Ursyn said:


> Sorry, but you're wrong. If you upgrade your dslr you'll get something better (you can check everything in specifications).


Son, of course I check the specs of new models before making any decisions. However one day you'll realise that some IQ/usability/whatever characteristics of dslr bodies cannot be read from the spec sheet. For instance EOS 400D has about 1/3 stop wider D-range than 350D, while the sensor resolution is somewhat lesser. Whichever of the two you consider more important is up to you, but in either case you actually need a bit deeper understanding of photography than the spec sheet to make the decision between the two bodies.

And yes, spending 700 euros on a nice ultra fast fix focal lens will make a bigger difference than the extra 1/3 stop DR, dust removal/mapping, whatever you might get from newer body.



> When you change your body made by the same company it'll be as intuitive as your older model.


No it won't. There are always some changes in the button and menu lay-out. Many things will be the same, yes, but I don't have to accept any of that until I have a good reason to buy a new body. A good reason means something like having broken my old camera beyond repair or Canon introducing an affordable FF sensor.



> Haven't you thought why people want to have more expensive bodies? I think they don't do that only because they have too much money.


Yes, some actually need a new body. Again, I don't, because I have one which is by all accounts an excellent body.



> Of course, not everyone need top class dslr and you're good example.


I don't know if I'm supposed to be offended by this, but if yes, is this normal Polish behaviour?



> Using advanced cameras makes taking photos easier because they offer bigger possibilities and you can concentrate yourself only on taking photos.


If you think you can out-do a 350D with your skills I seriously want to see some of your photos. Also, you could tell me how a more expensive of newer body would make them better.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

take it easy guys.

I understand both sides here...yes you need GLASS (lenses) and anyone who tell you otherwise has either never owned a DSLR or wears a straightjacket to bed.

an f/5.6 lens vs. and f/2.8 can make all the difference in the world...the elements of glass and which are special coatings ect ect...even VR/IS is iportant now.

The camera body is the electronic component of the shooting, yes you might get live-view, more AF points, better battery life and some new in-camera processing features...but you have to ask yourself whats more important at the time...a body purchase or a lens purchase? I just got my D200 a year ago and I'm not serious about getting a new camera body for another 2 years (three years is good enough that I will see significant feature changes to justify the expense) but I do plan to buy some new lenses and a heavy aluminum tripod. So right now, my focus is on glass and expanding my opportunities in focal length and f/ stop with quality glass and not getting live-view on a camera body.

both sides are right, just have to have it explained is all.


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

Yep D300 is an excellent camera - best to date, but it isn't all that better to warrant upgrade from D200. It isn't exactly cheap and selling second hand bodies is a pain in many places. And of course lenses are of paramount importance. 
This said, good body is also important. And much of the benifit is impossible to get from Specs listing in the brochure. Those are stuffed with marketing blah-blah -like megapixels and all the flashy names of "new" technology inside - most of it is very little more then rephrasing same old news.
D300 offers quite few real worth while additions, but to understand if you (exactly YOU) would need them is possible only after having quite a bit of experience with dSLR.
For instance it has hardware enhanced DLighting built in. Great feature, but mostly worthless to me -it is a JPG feature and i never shot JPGs, only NEFs. And so on.
In the end it is things like viewfinder, quality and speed of autofocus system (very noticeable improvement especially when shooting fast moving objects), ergonomics ( basically same as in D200 - meaning best on the market) that are key here. And so is battery life... And things like self-cleaning sensor will save you quite a bit money even in medium run - practically paying the difference in price between say D200 and D300. So if anyone thinks of getting NIKON today and in this range then D300 is a better choice even given it's higher price. Because all this things make you experience with camera much more pleasant. And then the screen!!! It is magnificent and truly practical thing allowing you MUCH better judgment of the success of any given shot and hence possibility to re-shot.

So in the end Good Body is better. If you can afford it - get it. But if your budjet would allow you only to go for more expensive body OR lens, go for lens! In terms of body when on the budjet IMHO it is better to buy older higher end one then newer cheaper one. Find previous model in a good condition. You'll be MUCH better off! (like today buying second hand D200, or if you are a Canon guy say 30D. You'll pay less then new D80 or 400D and get BETTER camera!

But there is one problem here as well. More pixels on the sensor remaining of same physical size put impossible demands on optics. To put it simply there is not commercially available lenses that would match resolution of 12mPix CMOS of this size. And those lenses that look passable on say 6-8mPix censors of 1,5/1,6 crop factor start to look really bad on 10-12 mPix ones. All that means that after buying more expensive body you've almost HAVE to by very expensive glass... Or you would be GREATLY disappointed with the results.

BTW I think I've noticed one strange thing about D300 as compared to D200. It seems that there is something in the body that fixes chromatic abberations. The differences between two with same lenses is quite noticable. Can anyone confirm or dispute this?
Also it seems that somehow camera is "better tuned" to Nikon own lenses as compared to say SIGMAs. Again this didn't seem to be the case with D200.


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> I just ordered a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM lens. It's going to be a long 3-5 days waiting for its arrival:


I have it, the best in its class as far as I know. The only thing that I regret about this lens is not having a full frame camera :lol: Enjoy it!


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

Moolio said:


> Son, of course I check the specs of new models before making any decisions. However one day you'll realise that some IQ/usability/whatever characteristics of dslr bodies cannot be read from the spec sheet. For instance EOS 400D has about 1/3 stop wider D-range than 350D, while the sensor resolution is somewhat lesser. Whichever of the two you consider more important is up to you, but in either case you actually need a bit deeper understanding of photography than the spec sheet to make the decision between the two bodies.
> 
> And yes, spending 700 euros on a nice ultra fast fix focal lens will make a bigger difference than the extra 1/3 stop DR, dust removal/mapping, whatever you might get from newer body.
> 
> ...


I'm not your son, do don't call me like this. I didn't want to insult you and I don't understand what do you mean as a "Polish behaviour".

Why you can't read sth from specification? If you don't understand something you can always read about it in some book or in the Internet. Especially photo forums are full of information and samples.

All Canon dslrs have almost the same menu. Of course there are some differences because more expensive models have more functions but if you have one of them you'll quickly learn a new one. You decide when you want to change your camera, no one else.

I still think that newer cameras allow you take better photos. They have newer sensors, processors and other higher quality equipment which were used inside.

@bohio, Canon 16-35/2.8 II is better than 17-40/4. I heard that 17-40/4 sometimes don't keep the "L" quality but I haven't had it and I can be wrong. It's very light lens, only around half a kilo, that's a big advantage.


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

Moolio said:


> Why are people always going nutz over dslr bodies, though? You can upgrade your system far better by purchasing a decent lens. I still use my old 350D, which i got in June 2005.


Yes and no. Depending on the kind of photos that you do, and the final usage, a good lens might be a better investment than upgrading the body. In fact, that's what works for me, I own a 350D too.

However, for example, many stock photography agencies (specially rights managed) won't accept files from cameras with less than 11MP of resolution. In such a case, the best lens in the world mounted on a 350D won't do the job.

Another scenarios where the body makes a difference are sports photography where speed is vital, or nature photography where sealed bodies are the most reasonable way to go.


@Ursyn: Yes, but the 16-35/2.8 cost twice as much! Maybe I should rephrase my statement to "the best in it's price range".


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

bohio said:


> I have it, the best in its class as far as I know. The only thing that I regret about this lens is not having a full frame camera :lol: Enjoy it!


If all goes according to plan, I'll be going full frame in a couple of months.


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

bohio said:


> @Ursyn: Yes, but the 16-35/2.8 cost twice as much! Maybe I should rephrase my statement to "the best in it's price range".


Now, everything is clear. It is the cheapest "L" zoom I think and offer a great range, especially on FF.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> If all goes according to plan, I'll be going full frame in a couple of months.


what body?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Has anyone used Canon f/1.2L 85mm lens yet?

I am thinking of getting one. I am so pleased with my fast lens Canon f/1.4L 24mm lens. Can't live without it in nighttime street photography.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

BuffCity said:


> what body?


5D


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

nice unit...I hear the 5D is great on a tripod.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos5d.asp


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

What? Nobody is talking about the D3? I have been salivating over it since I read the previews :lol:








How about some decent glass to go with it?








Unfortunately, I cannot afford this type of equipment, nor I could justify getting into debt in order to buy it  Still, I would LOVE to be able to put my hands on such camera and lenses!!!


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

^^
Yup. That's one imposing piece of equipment. Can't wait to see review of it at dpreview.com.


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

Raleigh-NC said:


> Unfortunately, I cannot afford this type of equipment, nor I could justify getting into debt in order to buy it  Still, I would LOVE to be able to put my hands on such camera and lenses!!!


Who said that photography is for financially responsible people? :cheers:


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> 5D


You won't regret :applause: 
Good choice.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

All the time i have too much to do or it is too dark after work to test my new Sigma 10-20mm lens.

But here is one of the few shots.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Raleigh-NC said:


> What? Nobody is talking about the D3? I have been salivating over it since I read the previews :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So...I was surprised this year when doing a preliminary review of my taxes, so my fefund will be fat because of my being a student and WAY OVERPAYING my income tax. I had plans to get a new lens this year and I'm actually thinking of getting (2 or 3) Depending on the tax rebate thats going through the congress and hopefully the presidents desk soon.

So I made a deal with myself, I will put away into my investments as much as I'll spend on lenses...so I won't feel guilty and I won't be totally irresponsible. lol

I've been looking for 3 lenses, a wide angle, mid-range and a tele-zoom all with a minimum f/ stop of 2.8. I'm almost certain about the 28-70mm ($1399.00) and I've been considering the AF 80-200mm ($849.00) for a zoom. One thing I've felt uneasy about is not having a very good wide angle as I'm shooting so much already at 18mm but at f/3.5 and I feel the limitations. The 14-24mm is rated better than nearly any of the current wide angles on the market...simply remarkable results when using this lens regardless of the $1800 price.

Either the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm are great lenses and possibly what I might get for some glass. Just saw the 14-24 at the local Nikon dealer the other day and WOW...its a fat lens (77mm from element) The only thing is I'm wondering is if the 28-70mm is better than the 24-70mm...the latter I think is newer. 

I could easily spend $5000.00 on glass but I'd like to keep it around $3000.00. If you guys have any more info on these lenses let me know because its almost crunch time.

The D3...watch out with the DX lenses if you don't know there are issues with the new full format sensor and those lenses so they might not work from what I hear.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

MILIUX said:


> Has anyone used Canon f/1.2L 85mm lens yet?
> 
> I am thinking of getting one. I am so pleased with my fast lens Canon f/1.4L 24mm lens. Can't live without it in nighttime street photography.


I haven't used the 85mm f/1.2 L, but I can confidently say from the photos I've seen that it's the best portrait lens from Canon currently available. It has this ability to create that sought-after 3D effect by separating the subject from the background in such a beautiful way. Here's a thread of sample shots:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224258&

You can't be serious?
by echo from P.O.T.N. - Razor thin DOF









Unknown


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

anyone whos interested in seeing a shit-load of new dslrs published, go to dpreview.com.


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

The new Canon 450D appeared on PMA. This is the first Canon DSLR using SD cards.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012404canoneos450dhandson.asp

@MILIUX, which Canon's body do you have?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

I got the 30D. 

All my lens are L lens, which means i can easily upgrade to a newer model of 5D. I didn't intentionally buy just L lens. I take photos in rain, which makes the weather-proofed lens much more appealing.

It feels wrong and unbalanced that my lens are heavier than the body.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

question?

If Canon has the 'L' lens selection, what does Nikkor / Nikon offer of the same quality and technology?

Or does Nikon not label the lenses the same way but rather reflect it all in the price of the lens?

some insight would be appreciated.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't think the Nikkor range label it the same way as Canon. I think the easiest way would be the price range and specification similarities. 

The good thing about L lens are:
Hard for dust to get into lens
Solid build. The elements doesn't 'jiggle'
Weather resistant
Superior sharpness quality
Designed for full frame lens
If it is a zoom lens, the Ultra-Sonic A-F


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

MILIUX said:


> It feels wrong and unbalanced that my lens are heavier than the body.


That's one thing that took me by surprise of the 5D, it looks much heavier than it really is... actually it feels so light. This is the one I'm considering to get anyway.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Does anyone here recommend a Tripod brand or model?

I'm looking for a tall, heavy aluminum tripod (professional grade) for my DSLR.

I would prefer American or European construction but more importantly is the quality of the unit.

Manfrotto, Giottos, Boken, Sunpak...?


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

BuffCity said:


> Does anyone here recommend a Tripod brand or model?
> 
> I'm looking for a tall, heavy aluminum tripod (professional grade) for my DSLR.
> 
> ...


Look up this model:

Benro C-297N6

You can't go wrong with manfrotto? What do you think of fibre-construction?


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

BuffCity, I read that Manfrotto's 190 series is very good - they have multiple models available. As for wide angle I would consider Sigma's 10-20mm. I own one and I am very happy with it. Of course, you can't beat Nikon's quality when it comes to glass, but considering the price, the 10-20mm is something to think about - assuming you want it for your D200. Besides, it is a very good lens, regardless its low price.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

thanks guys,

I will search both models and see what I can find.

I would like to go with Aluminum, I know they are heavy but I'm a big guy so I can handle the weight if I know it will work out better when I'm getting a breeze or slight gust of wind.

As for the lenses...I'm pretty firm about staying with Nikkor glass, I'm about sold on the 14-24mm f/2.8 (new) lens that Nikon released, it's pretty stiff on price but I know that. Also looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 thats another high priced chick...big dollars with the f/2.8 but now that Nikon has this Nano coating on these lenses and clarity and sharpness are key it's hard to not consider them. 

I'm also thinking about the 80-200mm f2.8 zoom by Nikon, thats not too bad on price but I'm getting torn between that and the 70-200mm VR. hno:


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I hear you... If money is not the issue, then it is wise to stick with the lenses you mentioned. I would do the same thing, although I would go for the 70-200mm instead


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

BuffCity said:


> I'm also thinking about the 80-200mm f2.8 zoom by Nikon, thats not too bad on price but I'm getting torn between that and the 70-200mm VR. hno:


If I were you I would choose the 70-200/2.8 VR. Nikon still produces the 80-200/2.8 ? I thought they replaced it by the 70-200/2.8 VR.

Nice equipment :cheers:


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

BuffCity said:


> I'm about sold on the 14-24mm f/2.8 (new) lens that Nikon released, it's pretty stiff on price but I know that. Also looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 thats another high priced chick...


Don't mean to add confusion to the issue, but haven't you considered a prime? For a thousand bucks I'm sure you'll find some outstanding glasses in the wide range.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Raleigh-NC said:


> I hear you... If money is not the issue, then it is wise to stick with the lenses you mentioned. I would do the same thing, although I would go for the 70-200mm instead


cheapest I can find the 70-200mm VR is $1624.95. The 80-200mm is $914.95

both are f/2.8 but I'm thinking that if I go with the 24-70mm the 70-200mm VR would be a great selection of lenses.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Moolio said:


> I'm purty sure, that Canon doesn't use NEF files, though.
> 
> On a more serious note, I believe both Canon 40D and Nikon D300 utilize 14bit A/D conversion, although I may be wrong.


Yes, Canon 40D uses 14 bit CR2. But the Nikon D300 is a compressed 14 bit NEF.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

I don't know if I would go with Canon just because they have 2bit more in the uncompressed file format.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

BuffCity said:


> I don't know if I would go with Canon just because they have 2bit more in the uncompressed file format.


Oh only by several million colours. 

* 8-bit color = 2^8 x 3 = 2^24 = 16.7 million colors
* 12-bit color = 2^12 x 3 = 2^36 = 68.7 billion colors

So what is 2^10 x 3? 

3 represents R-G-B


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

perhaps, but we can only see so many bud.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

BuffCity said:


> perhaps, but we can only see so many bud.


When the bits are compressed for the human eyes to see, the colours will be matched with the closest replacement, which is important why professional photographers retain the high bit data. It is why they save it in TIFF or DNG file instead of JPG. 

Also, higher bit means greater image processing. Less noise, sharper images and greater nighttime/shadow reproduction. 

When you adjust the 'exposure' level in RAW conversion software, higher bit photos will become much better in reproduction. You can test it out yourself by playing around jpeg file and TIFF file (converted from RAW) and play with histograms and levels. Remarkable difference.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

I know what it means but you are making the case that Canon is the only one worth looking at...which is wrong. Thats all.


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

Nikon D300 does in did have a 14 bit AD converter. But the sensor itself records 12bit information. There is always extra bits needed for processing.
Nikon D300 like all pricier Nikon models has two type of NEFs - lossy and lossless compressed, while cheaper models (up and including D80 I think) have only lossy compression


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I want my bits back :rant: :rofl:


----------



## Sergei (May 20, 2004)

Here I posted my first shots with the 50mm f/1.8 lens I just got:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=18209726&postcount=37

Tell me what you guys think!


----------



## SimFox (Jun 30, 2006)

The last one of those three is spectacular!


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Absolutely impressive photos!!! Thanks for sharing them, Sergei kay:


----------



## Sergei (May 20, 2004)

Thanks guys!
Here's a new one I posted today:


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

*Rebel XSi / 450D*

For those interested, a new iteration of the Canon Rebel is on the market: the XSi (450D). It features 12.2MP, a Digic III processor, 14-bit A/D conversion... and a very affordable price. 

Overview:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5067/hands-on-canon-eos-rebel-xsi450d.html


Sample images:
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/kis...sample1_j.html


----------



## Þróndeimr (Jan 14, 2003)

Bought a Nikon D80 (and Nikon 18-200mm lense), its a great camera and lense!

Got it in Hong Kong to a price 700 USD | 490 Euro, so saved some 400 euros from buying it in Norway.

But has any of you guys had any problems with the D80 and the memory card?

Because i bought a really good 8GB card, took about 500pics of Hong Kong and China, and now when i get home it sais [CHA] or [CHR] on the camera, which means the card can not be used. Have tried 3 other memory card drivers, but nobody open it, so looks like i lost the card and all my pictures from my vacation.  :bash:

Have tried other memory cards in it, and they work fine, so i hope its just the memory card, and not a fault at the camera which did this.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Þróndeimr said:


> Bought a Nikon D80 (and Nikon 18-200mm lense), its a great camera and lense!
> 
> Got it in Hong Kong to a price 700 USD | 490 Euro, so saved some 400 euros from buying it in Norway.
> 
> ...


sounds to me like you picked up a gray market camera...they are usually sold in countries where the camera was not intended to be sold originally. Someone else will have to go more in depth about "gray market" items but by the looks of the camera price you paid and what was advertised it only makes sense. The Nikon D80 w/ 18-200mm lens is a combo price of about 1100-1200 USD$ stateside...you won't find it cheaper than that with a US Warranty.

Gray market items are unknown to me about quality but they configure the unit to work in the country its not being sold in. They carry different configurations than the intended market camera so all you really have to do is go to a camera shop and have them find the configuration and have it reset to the a base that you can handle (Norwegian or Chinese) I dunno if you lost your photos, once you reconfigure you might see them work.

Do some research about gray market items and ask around.


----------



## Þróndeimr (Jan 14, 2003)

BuffCity said:


> sounds to me like you picked up a gray market camera...they are usually sold in countries where the camera was not intended to be sold originally. Someone else will have to go more in depth about "gray market" items but by the looks of the camera price you paid and what was advertised it only makes sense. The Nikon D80 w/ 18-200mm lens is a combo price of about 1100-1200 USD$ stateside...you won't find it cheaper than that with a US Warranty.
> 
> Gray market items are unknown to me about quality but they configure the unit to work in the country its not being sold in. They carry different configurations than the intended market camera so all you really have to do is go to a camera shop and have them find the configuration and have it reset to the a base that you can handle (Norwegian or Chinese) I dunno if you lost your photos, once you reconfigure you might see them work.
> 
> Do some research about gray market items and ask around.


The Nikon D80 has a price on 700 USD alone, the objective was a little more expencive. Bought it on a store which was serious, but one can never know for sure i guess. Most stores in HK sold the Nikon D80 and Nikon D40 (D40x) on sale nowadays, some Newyear sale it said etc.

The problem with the SD card is that its in RAW-format as i expected it would format it self to fat-16 or fat-32, but it didn't. But nothing happend, so i took loads of pictures without any problems, then suddenly the card became impossible to read, both in the camera or in any other memory-car readers. So i need to format the card to make it work again, but the big issue is that i can't get any contact with the card, whatsoever (even with recovery-programs). Thats the strange thing, and i can't find many who have had a similar problem. And if i format the card now i will lose all my pics, so i just have to find a way to see if my pics is actually still there and if its possible to get them out.


----------



## bohio (Nov 22, 2005)

Þróndeimr said:


> Have tried 3 other memory card drivers, but nobody open it, so looks like i lost the card and all my pictures from my vacation.  :bash:



Try a  memory card recovery software or a data recovery service shop in your area.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

There's usually no quality difference with grey market items, but they are not covered by warranty.


----------



## Þróndeimr (Jan 14, 2003)

bohio said:


> Try a  memory card recovery software or a data recovery service shop in your area.


Did, will try some more programs, but looks bad, as my first program jammed trying to read the card. Looks like my last chance will be a pro-shop somewhere.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> There's usually no quality difference with grey market items, but they are not covered by warranty.


in addition there are settings that are different.

they set the cameras up for places like Kuwait and sell them in Iowa. lol

perhaps this is part of the issue, perhaps its not.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

^^
I would also add that Nikon's kit (camera body + 18-55mm and 55-200mm, with VR) is/will be simply hard to beat kay:


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

D60 if you are a real trooper...D3 if you are cooler than Greenland


----------



## SarafIndian (Jul 13, 2007)

manbil777 said:


> CF (Compact flash) is a bulkier older form factor --size of an avg. matchbook, SD (secure disk) is the size of a US 25-cent coin.
> 
> CF is used in more semi-pro to pro SLR's like Canon EOS 5D (or 1D), Nikon D1 through D3 etc. (SD is getting more popular in amateur SLR's because of smaller size). Comparison here,
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. It is very helpful.


----------



## SarafIndian (Jul 13, 2007)

paw25694 said:


> I want to buy a DSLR camera. But im not a pro and i'm new in DSLR world.. Could you guys suggest what best for me? Thanks


Think about Nikon D40, D40x, D60 and D80.


----------



## SpartaRoolz (Nov 27, 2007)

I hear Pentax isn't too bad for the price, but I use a Nikon D80 and Love it. Accessories are cheaper for the D80 than the D200 I have noticed so that helps. 

Canon Has good processors as does Nikon. I find that Nikon bodies are better on the lower end. (d40, d40x vs canon xti, xt.) 

When buying a camera think 2 things in your head.

1. What am i buying it for?
If you are using it for profit or hobby, and how much will you use it. Get something that can withstand a lot of use if thats the case.

2. Will I need to buy anything for it (e.g. lens, filters, flashes...)
Certain camera companies make more for the cameras than others. Canon has more accessories than any other in an affordable range. Nikon Has a plethora or options as well. 

Most importantly Learn how it works. If you are new to DSLR's they can be complicated if you are used to a point and shoot. The manual is a good thing to skim through.


----------



## urbanyte (Jan 30, 2008)

BuffCity said:


> Nikon D40x
> Nikon D60


Do both have the same handicap when it comes to the AF motor? That's one difference between the D40x/60 and the Canon Digital Rebel line. I've heard that having to search for AF-S and AF-I lenses can be a pain.

Note to poster who asked for the recommendation - if you're just upgrading to a DSLR, chances are that most of your photography can be accomplished with the kit lens.


----------



## paw25694 (Nov 21, 2006)

im thinking of D60, D40x and 400D. gotta compare the price here. thanks all 
but, oh well im sucks when using non-prosumer cam..


----------



## Ursyn (Jun 20, 2003)

paw25694 said:


> im thinking of D60, D40x and 400D. gotta compare the price here. thanks all
> but, oh well im sucks when using non-prosumer cam..


Check also Canon 450D (newer version of 400D) and 30D which belongs to the higher class than 400D/450D.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Well, I sold my 17-40mm f/4 L and 50mm f/1.4 to make a go at one of my "dream" lenses, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. She's a heavy bitch at 2 lbs, but packs a punch IQ-wise. I'll be placing an order tomorrow!

Taken by TheAztech at P.O.T.N.









Taken by bluebomerx at P.O.T.N.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Absolutely FANTASTIC photos!!!


----------



## Quall (Feb 15, 2006)

Has anyone used the Zuiko 70-300mm?


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

I just sold a photo...and I'm actually feeling kind of bad about it, cause its one of my older ones from the time when I wasn't even as skilled as now, and pretty crappy in terms of technical quality. I can only hope the buyer won't be dissappointed.


----------



## Hviid (Jan 8, 2005)

there must be a reason to why he baught it though...  Must mean he didn't think it was a bad photo...

And congrats :cheers2:


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

thanks, man.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I agree with Hviid. There are many famous photos that we would perceive as bad quality, yet they became famous for a reason. Composition is normally one of the key elements in purchasing an image, regardless of its "quality". Congratulations, and I hope you get to sell more.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

I have that same issue...people still like some of the work when I was less skilled and shooting with a much lesser camera as far as technical options. Just recently while working on a project in which I sell my photos, the person was interested in many of the photos I seemed to have taken like 2-3 years ago...new stuff as well but it surprises me.

good job Moolio


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

Thanks for your support, guys.


----------



## Sergei (May 20, 2004)

BuffCity said:


> I have that same issue...people still like some of the work when I was less skilled and shooting with a much lesser camera as far as technical options. Just recently while working on a project in which I sell my photos, the person was interested in many of the photos I seemed to have taken like 2-3 years ago...new stuff as well but it surprises me.
> 
> good job Moolio


Same here!


----------



## SarafIndian (Jul 13, 2007)

Hi Guys, 

I suddenly bought one Tamron AF19-35mm F/3.5-4.5 for my Nikon D50. Do you guys have any idea/comment on that lens. I was going through some test shots. It seems that it is quite good. I want to buy a Circular Polarizer Filter for that lens. I generally take landscape photos. I never used any circular PF before. Can you guys help, which kind of circular PF should I use?

Thanks


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

Hoya makes the highest quality polarisers, as I understand it. The actual model you need of course depends on the lens diameter - or whether it takes any filters at all. Some ultra wide angle lenses have the front element bulging to the point of protrusion, and as a result can't take filters. As for your lens I don't think this is a problem, since the wide end is only 19mm.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

^Yep. Ask for "personal articles" insurance, which should cover your gear at home and out in the field. Make sure to have serial numbers and the value of each item you want insured with you when you speak with an agent. It's pretty cheap, usually around $200-$400/year.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> ^Yep. Ask for "personal articles" insurance, which should cover your gear at home and out in the field. Make sure to have serial numbers and the value of each item you want insured with you when you speak with an agent. It's pretty cheap, usually around $200-$400/year.


by "value," do you mean the price i paid, or the current market value for the used equipment? if the latter, where do i go about pricing out my itmes?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Good question. I'd assume that when it comes to items which experience depreciation that you would base the value on the price paid. That way, in the event of a loss, you'd get a greater reimbursement because the market value is obviously less than what you paid. I sent an email to my brother-in-law, an insurance agent. I'll let you know what he says.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

^Thank you! I’ll stay in touch if I have any further questions.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Sure. You can also just hedge. Show up (or call) with the receipts offering proof of the price you paid AND also evidence of market value. You can probably get the latter from reputable sellers such Amazon.com or B&H Photo/Video.


----------



## Medo (Apr 7, 2004)

Anyone else thinking of buying the new Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f2.8 DX?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0711/07111601tokina116.asp


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

They are, but only inside your dwelling.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

arrived today:


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Medo said:


> Anyone else thinking of buying the new Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f2.8 DX?
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0711/07111601tokina116.asp


The 12-24 is a whole lot cheaper... wonder if that extra 1mm of focal length is worth doubling the price? 1mm at the wide end is a lot though.

My 12-24 is a whole lot of fun to use though - it also covers the full frame on 35mm film between 18mm and 24mm, the 11-16 might not be able to do that. EDIT: Actually, seems like there are reports that it does. So it'd probably be well worth the money.


----------



## Omaro (Dec 20, 2005)

I am wondering, I have the Canon 400D now and I am considering upgrading, should I go for the 40D or the 450D?


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

Hi all, I'll keep it simple, two options, nikon D80 or Canon 450 D,Price wise roughly the same ,canon has live view ,nikon does not. Its one or the other :bash: any opinions most welcome .


----------



## Omaro (Dec 20, 2005)

I am not so sure about the D80 v. 450D, but I know that the D80 is supposedly significantly better than the 400D...


----------



## Omaro (Dec 20, 2005)

What do you wanna use the camera for? And are you going to buy lenses afterwards? Check/research that a bit and see the lenses available for each model, the variety and prices in general


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

Hi Omaro, I,ve had my heart set on the D80 for some time and will probably buy one very soon, it will be used mainly for night exposures and just general pic taking,i wont be looking beyond the kit lens and a 75-200 zoom, lens wise, its just that my other camera panasonic p/s has got a 2 inch viewfinder ,which is great.Spec for both cameras is about the same,but its the live view on the canon thats turned my head, if the canon didnt have live view i'd buy the nikon, my head is scrambled,dont no what to do :bash:


----------



## Omaro (Dec 20, 2005)

Well to be honest I played a bit very briefly at a shop with the 450D, and I gotta say that it felt more like a point-and-shoot rather than an SLR with the fancy live view screen... I got my only DSLR a year ago (the 400D), it took me a while to get used to having to use the viewfinder... Don't bother a lot about the D80, by time you'll care more about the picture quality rather than 'how' you took it


----------



## LeB.Fr (Jun 11, 2007)

What do you think about the Canon 450D?

Is it difficult to use?

Does it take high quality night shots?

And I'm always confused with the lenses/optical zoom thing...What's the differences between 2 lenses? And when you first buy the camera, what's its optical zoom?

I'm still new in the photography thing so some of my question might be ridiculous for some of you, but I can't find any answer on other websites...


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

Cheers Omaro, good advice


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

Beirut guy, to answer one of your questions about night photography my advice is to keep iso set to 100 and ALWAYS use a tripod,keeps everything nice and sharp


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

kennyrouge said:


> Cheers Omaro, good advice


don't forget to look at www.dpreview.com for in depth review of the cameras. i've been using D80 for almost a year now, and couldn't be happier. good luck with your purchase!


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

cheers for that HW.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

what is so special about the D3 ?


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

D3 is an amazing camera, in EVERY aspect. It is fast, accurate (focus) and certainly produces excellent images, even at higher ISO values. For Nikon's digital cameras, the full frame sensor, alone, is a huge step forward. More important, Nikon D3 is much cheaper than it's competition. I would love to see a D3x model with at least 16MP being introduced within a year from now, but I won't hold my breath. Still, I don't think that I could go out there and spend $5000 just for the body of D3. Unless you make money off of it - probably ideal for weddings and real estate interiors images - it is hard to justify the price. Getting good lens is probably a better investment for the average photographer, particularly those of us who already own Nikon dSLRs.

There are two D3 reviews I would recommend you to read, if you have the time. Both reviewers are knowledgeable and thorough in their review process:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm

There is one more web page that offers links to more reviews and sample photos:

http://www.noendpress.com/pvachier/cameras/nikon_D3.php

Hope you find the above links useful.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

thanks Raleigh. :cheers:


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

what is the absolute top of the line model when it comes to pro cams?? and those big ass lens one see on the sidelines of football games, for example???


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

There have been a lot of debates about what constitutes a pro camera. To me - and many more people out there - a Nikon D3 would be a pro camera, when we consider the latest models, along with Canon's Mark series (Canon EOS-1DS Mark III and Canon EOS-1D Mark III). Those big ass lenses are definitely high end material, mostly primes, each carrying a pretty hefty price tag. In the case of Nikon's lenses, the following are considered professional: 12-24mm, 14-24mm, 17-55mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and everything above them. The 200-400mm is an expensive telephoto lens I would drool over, but the price tag is prohibitive 

Anyway, I would definitely invest more on lenses rather than the camera body, unless I needed the extra performance features that real professional cameras offer. A D200 with good quality, fast lenses would be great. I own a D200 and I am VERY pleased with it, but I do not have any professional quality glass. I am considering the new 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. I heard that Nikon is coming up with the new and improved 80-400mm lens, but it is not a professional glass. A great alternative to the 70-200mm would be the previous version, the 80-200mm (AF-S, without VR).


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> what is the absolute top of the line model when it comes to pro cams?? and those big ass lens one see on the sidelines of football games, for example???


One more comment. If studio work is what you want to do, a Hasselblad, or a Mamiya would probably be better choices... assuming you have a ton of money to spend


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

Raleigh-NC said:


> One more comment. If studio work is what you want to do, a Hasselblad, or a Mamiya would probably be better choices... assuming you have a ton of money to spend


nah, I'm basically just a landscape, city scape, architecture, street/urban photographer. I don't have much interest in studio or people work.

I'm basically just curious about the highest end stuff.....body/lens. I probably would never need something that high end for what I do.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> nah, I'm basically just a landscape, city scape, architecture, street/urban photographer. I don't have much interest in studio or people work.
> 
> I'm basically just curious about the highest end stuff.....body/lens. I probably would never need something that high end for what I do.


i've actually seen a street photographer with a Hasselblad on the corner of Halsted and Milwaukee last year. sure, a 31 megapixel DSLR is nice, but for $20k, i think i would settle for a D3 and a nice set of glass. :cheers:


----------



## Moolio (Oct 3, 2004)

31mpix? pfff... the 160mpix Seitz - now that's a camera.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

hazardously_wasted said:


> i've actually seen a street photographer with a Hasselblad on the corner of Halsted and Milwaukee last year. sure, a 31 megapixel DSLR is nice, but for $20k, i think i would settle for a D3 and a nice set of glass. :cheers:





Moolio said:


> 31mpix? pfff... the 160mpix Seitz - now that's a camera.





ok how bout glass. america express is in hand :lol:


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

I did see a guy with a D3 in the loop (chicago) yesterday. I turned to ask him if it was a d300 cuz i saw a 3. he was like, nope is a D3 for the big boys. easyyyyyy fella.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

$30,000/30MP Hasselblad:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-12819_7-6656368-1.html


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

what I (all of us) could do with unlimited budgets. camera's, lens, servers, software, TIME. quick someone give me a billion dollars, I'll prove my point.


----------



## Medo (Apr 7, 2004)

$30K for a 31MP camera is way too expensive. You can achieve better results by shooting large format film photos and scanning them into the computer, in fact you can achieve 100MP images from 4x5 film scans. :yes: 

All you need is a large format camera ($1000-4000), and a decent film scanner. ($500)


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

Medo said:


> $30K for a 31MP camera is way too expensive. You can achieve better results by shooting large format film photos and scanning them into the computer, in fact you can achieve 100MP images from 4x5 film scans. :yes:
> 
> All you need is a large format camera ($1000-4000), and a decent film scanner. ($500)


:wtf: :dunno:


----------



## hubzilla (Jan 14, 2004)

*I got a new SLR, now what?*

My Dad is a professional sports photographer. He just upgraded to a Nikon D3, so asked me if I wanted some of his _old_ equipment.

Yeah, I suppose, Dad...



*Nikon D2H*











And the following should give me a good start:

# Nikkor ED AF 300mm 1:2.8 lens (pictured)
# AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 lens
# Tamron SP AF 35-105mm 1:2.8 lens
# AF Nikkor 85mm 1:1.8 lens
# Nikon TC-14B 1.4x Teleconverter
# Nikon Speedlight SB600 flash


I am still learning how to use it. There's a pretty good-sized learning curve

I am going to New York for a week in June and want to bring both my Point & Shoot (Canon S5 IS) and my SLR. I like to take shot of the skyline and plan on doing such things as Top of the Rock, Circle Line Cruise, Brooklyn Bridge, and other areas.

I like to use it to shoot my daughter (especially with a bokeh background). But other than the lenses zooming in, how would a SLR benefit me more for daytime skyline photos than my point and shoot?


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

Hi guys, is this term 'bokeh' just another word for out of focus back grounds?


----------



## walrus357 (Oct 22, 2006)

^yeah...and that's japanese term


----------



## kennyrouge (Aug 25, 2007)

Cheers Walrus, any idea how you pronounce the word :nuts:


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

hubzilla said:


> My Dad is a professional sports photographer. He just upgraded to a Nikon D3, so asked me if I wanted some of his _old_ equipment.
> 
> Yeah, I suppose, Dad...
> 
> ...


you lucky SOB


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

none, really. the crop factor is still in effect (1.5x for Nikon, making your 50mm prime into 75mm prime effective) but you maintain the number of pixels and nothing gets lost. it's the other way around (FF body, non-FF lens) when you'll begin to get angry. 12.1MP is nice for FF, but it becomes a 5.1MP camera the moment you put a DX lens on it. that's part of the reason, why i'm waiting for Nikon to release a ~24MP FF body. this should crop DX at about 10-12MP (which i think is a sweet spot for DX), and have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

Thanks... That is what I thought, but I was wondering. This is why I will invest on FF lenses from now on. I wonder if Nikon will add VR to their 14-24mm and 24-70mm offers. Both lenses would benefit significantly from VR. Also important will be for Nikon to push the resolution to 20MP+, without sacrificing other features. If the D3x turns out to be a 24MP camera, or even more, I will definitely consider it, assuming the money is there.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

i hope you're kidding about the VR on the wide angle lens. even with 85mm i have yet to go "damn... i wish this lens came with a VR". same with the 14-24 that i've been using for a while now. VR is great with tele-zooms for obvious reasons, but at the short end it's more harm then good. besides... this will bump the price of each lens to $2k, and add some extra weight to an already heavy glass. 

the only reason you see something like 18-55mmVR these days is because other manufacturers' (ex. Pentax, Sony...) selling point is "built-in VR". so now, Canon and Nikon had to counter that by adding IS/VR respectively to their consumer based glass to have their gear be more appealing to the average Joe. this is also the reason why those companies also include "this will make your pictures look like shit"-pop-up-flash unit with cameras like D200/D300


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

No, I am not kidding... My hand is not as steady as other people's, not that there is anything physically wrong with me  Since I have never used either 14-24mm or 24-70mm, I will not insist, and I am glad to know that they perform well even without VR. Taking wedding photos, though, may be a challenge, particularly when you have to move around so much, to follow the groom, the bride, and whoever your target is. This is only an assumption on my part. BTW, I own Nikon's non-VR 70-300mm (not the cheapest model) and I have had a lot of success, even without a tripod, but having the VR as an option would not hurt. How much heavier would the lens be if they were to add VR?


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

that's what the SB-800/900's are for. TTL for indoor (-2/3), TTL-BL for outdoor(-1 2/3), both with rear curtain to let the ambient light come in, at 1/15 (or whatever you need) and you're gold. well exposed, sharp images all the time. also, the speedlight freezes the frames, neglecting the need for the VR. 

how much weight does VR contribute to overall weight of the less? the ratio is probably negligible. i'd be more concern about the costs (which i'm sure you are well aware off). at +300mm you're better off using a tripod anyway. but that also depends on the situation. obviously you won't be carrying tripods/monopads/umbrellas with you the whole time.


----------



## Raleigh-NC (May 17, 2004)

I own an SB-800, though I am not using its true capabilities. I regret not having it - and the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 - during a couple of my friends' weddings. They would have provided me with some decent, non-blurred images... Oh well, I am definitely happy to have the SB-800. However, it doesn't address non-stable hand outdoors (urban photography). No, I am not as bad, but I am still wondering!!! I should go to my local store and ask them if I can try it in front of them... That way I will know whether VR would help me, or not.

Sorry for going on and on about VR... It is not really a show stopper for me when the time comes to purchase a professional quality lens, particularly the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm. I just want to have the option, that's all. On the other hand, a good tripod may be worth spending the additional dollars


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

what the most any of u have sold a photo for?


----------



## Medo (Apr 7, 2004)

So how about that new Nikon D90? First DSLR to shoot video.


----------



## Sumeet (Dec 19, 2004)

Hi guys, hope you are all well.
I am planning on buying my first DSLR this coming week, the options i have laid out for myself are the Canon 450D or the Sony a300, as this is within the range of my budget. I have read a number of reviews online in regards to both the cameras and can't really decide which one to pick.

Shall i get the standard Canon 450D body and the EF-S 55-250mm IS, or the Standard 450D kit EF-S 18-55mm IS (as a starter, as Ive still got to master the common lens) or the Sony alpha a300

If any of you all have suggestions or recommendations, i will highly appreciate them. All the best and happy clicking!


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

^^if Canon 450D and Sony a300 are the only two cameras on your list, then i'll suggest going with Canon. pick up the kit with the 18-55 lens, but perhaps Canon users have better ideas.


----------



## Sumeet (Dec 19, 2004)

Thank you from the prompt response - i picked it up last night...its a great camera


----------



## seven13 (Aug 30, 2008)

Good Day! I'm a newbie here, I just recently bought a Canon 450D. I just read the starters manual. I would like to ask how can I get a clear nightshot? Aside from setting the ISO to 1600, what other settings should apply?

Thanks You in Advance!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

^Don't set the ISO to 1600 or your photo will be horribly noisy. Keep it at 100-200. Also, make sure to use a tripod or solid surface to avoid blurriness.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

^if you want to get the clearest and sharpest possible exposures, then you MUST pick up a good tripod. bumping an ISO to 1600+ isn't going to do the trick. as it is, i rarely go over ISO200 at night, all thanks to the tripod. set the camera to long exposure - depending on how much light there is (moon light, light posts, etc.), it could be anywhere from 2 seconds to 30 seconds - hence why you need a tripod. it's impossible to do this handheld.

edit: i_am_hydrogen with his ninja skills beat me to it.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

24mm, f/1.4, 1/60, 400ISO

No tripod needed. See how sharp the people are.


----------



## Medo (Apr 7, 2004)

50mm f/1.4, 1/60, ISO500 Nikon D300 hand held.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

Medo said:


> 50mm f/1.4, 1/60, ISO500 Nikon D300 hand held.


- Canon 450D and Nikon D300 are not really in the same league  
- f1.4 will only get you so far. 

@MILIUX
-can't see the picture.









14mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 4sec. on D80


----------



## seven13 (Aug 30, 2008)

THank You guys!! It's a big help!


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

hazardously_wasted said:


> ^if you want to get the clearest and sharpest possible exposures, then you MUST pick up a good tripod. bumping an ISO to 1600+ isn't going to do the trick. as it is, i rarely go over ISO200 at night, all thanks to the tripod. set the camera to long exposure - depending on how much light there is (moon light, light posts, etc.), it could be anywhere from 2 seconds to 30 seconds - hence why you need a tripod. it's impossible to do this handheld.


It might be a good idea to manually set the shutter speed because at night, a lot of things can confuse the camera's built in meter. If you're using digital, trial and error works great. 

For example, a street light can make the camera think that there is a lot of light in the photo and the overall exposure will be lower. Meters also differ between cameras - comparing the two DSLRs I have, the D70 picks a fairly natural looking exposure at night but the D80 exposes a bit more, bringing out foreground elements (like the grass in hazardously_wasted's picture) - the downside is that the skies aren't very black because the longer exposure catches all the light pollution.


VR/IS lenses are good too - I usually get a couple of acceptable images at 1/4 or even 1/2 seconds handheld. It's handy when you don't want to carry a tripod or heavily loaded camera bag with you.


----------



## dattebayo (Mar 21, 2007)

ey guys, Im currently using a sony dsc H9 point and shoot camera and planning to purchase a nikon D40. can you guys post some sample photos of nikon d40 without any photo enhancements? By the way, I read reviews that D40 is better than D40x and D60. Thanks


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

go check www.dpreview.com


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

I finally joined the "pack"










I will really be interested in a low-light condition lens, I think the 50mm 1.4 is good at that (as well as portraits), right?


----------



## Medo (Apr 7, 2004)

Yep, the 50mm f/1.4 is good at that.

Have fun with the new camera. :cheers:


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

dattebayo said:


> ey guys, Im currently using a sony dsc H9 point and shoot camera and planning to purchase a nikon D40. can you guys post some sample photos of nikon d40 without any photo enhancements? By the way, I read reviews that D40 is better than D40x and D60. Thanks


Sample photos don't really mean much IMO. A lot of the image quality depends on the lens and even not counting that, there are so many variables which can affect the look of an image. The image quality with any DSLR is excellent anyway, it's more up to your technique.


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

some spoof has just poped up on dpreview haha and its got every one laughing so far









the specs mentioned lol

Pentax K1D specs.

30 megapixel 23.9x35.9mm Samsung 64 bit CMOS
ISO 25-164,000
in-body stabilization, x,y,z axis
pitch and yaw indicator
Live View, ported Live View
GPS support
built-in intervalometer
movie mode, 24fps,30 fps &60 fps HD1080p
optional Cannon Jack adapter
5.1 surround sound
built-in audio mixing board
ionic field dust repulsion on low pass filter
switchable to UV and IR shooting
waterproof to 33'
beam-splitter reflex system
K, KA,KA/P,KA/F and M42 with adapter
optional adapters for M39, Angénieux, and Panavison lenses
Magnesium body with Kevlar skin
SDM support
in camera editing
SDK available
PEF, PEF2 and DNG support
Still picture mode.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

:nuts::weird::wtf:

the "Still picture mode." line made me lol the most.


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

yea i know its prity funny i figure someone made this to get people laughing cause of the lack of leaks pre photonica from pentax


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Amazing stuff from the Canon 5D Mark II. 1080p HD movies in ISO3200!

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Hey, a quick question for the DSLR users here.
I'm interested in picking up a camera + lens package in the sub-$1000 range.

Any recommendations?


----------



## emagdnim (May 13, 2008)

^^ I'd say Canon Rebel XTI, what kind of photography are you going to be doing? Low light situations require lenses with large apertures which means big $$$ or large sensors such as full frame dslr where you can just bump up the ISO without to much noise.

Henry's has the body for 599.99. If you want a high quality general walk around lens I'd go with the EF-S 17-85MM F4-5.6 IS USM LENS (649.99) Although it's quite expensive, image quality is on par with L glass. 

Or if you don't need the extra range maybe 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS (249.99)

Henry's is the place to go, the staff is very well informed, they always help suggest something for your needs, never pressure and they usually whip up pretty good deals.

http://www.henrys.com


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

ElChancho said:


> ^^ I'd say Canon Rebel XTI, what kind of photography are you going to be doing? Low light situations require lenses with large apertures which means big $$$ or large sensors such as full frame dslr where you can just bump up the ISO without to much noise.


Thanks for the recommendation. By "low-light", I don't need to bump up to high exposures.

I'll check out Henry's.

One qualm I've heard about Canon vs. Nikon: the light meter in ambient light for Nikon as well as the flash exposure is (apparently) superior.
Should I consider, say, a Nikon D40x or possibly D80 over a Canon?


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

Mahratta said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. By "low-light", I don't need to bump up to high exposures.
> 
> I'll check out Henry's.
> 
> ...


D80 packs the same sensor as D200, so essentially, by getting a D80, you're actually getting a D200 with fewer features. stay away from anything below D80, as those cameras don't have the screwdriver motor built in them. you'll still be able to use just about all the lenses from Nikon, but with no AF. and for low light, you can pick up a great 50mm 1.8 for $100 new (or 1.4 for just under $300), and you'll be gold.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Thanks! I think I'll go for the D80...will keep you posted


----------



## Vascilli (Oct 29, 2008)

If it wasn't for the sub-$1000 range, I'd say used 5D without hesitation.


----------



## manbil777 (Oct 15, 2004)

Mahratta said:


> Thanks! I think I'll go for the D80...will keep you posted


You might want to check out B&H in New York -- they offer the same thing for about $200 less plus you get 2 2GB SD cards with the deal. Is $200 worth it for the drive or flight to NYC? You decide....

(Of course I assumed USD and CAD are equivalent these days).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/494367-REG/Nikon__D80_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/st...rtmentId=10404&categoryId=10429&itemID=177773


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

manbil777 said:


> Is $200 worth it for the drive or flight to NYC? You decide....


or, you can have it shipped for about $20 (or have free shipping from B&H on all orders if you're a NAPP member :cheers: )


----------



## mvtm (Aug 14, 2008)

Hi all:

I have a Nikon D50.AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm Lenses.18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO Sigma lenses.A Nikon Speedlight SB-600 & a Nikon D80.

I plan upgrading to a Nikon D90 by Christmas.Or a Canon EOS 50D (I've always wanted an EOS..)

Anyways hi all :lol:


----------



## Rae (Apr 16, 2006)

Just saying hello. Nikon dSLR user here.


----------



## SirAdrian (Jun 3, 2008)

Hi from me too. I have a 450D (Rebel XTi) and a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. My first (D)SLR ever and i enjoy it tremendously. So many useful bells and whistles, it still amazes me.


----------



## alexandros1984 (Nov 22, 2005)

im thinking of buying a sony A350, is it a good camera ? what do you think ?


----------



## emagdnim (May 13, 2008)

alexandros1984 said:


> im thinking of buying a sony A350, is it a good camera ? what do you think ?


I would stick with either Canon or Nikon. From DPreview



*Conclusion - Pros*

* Good detail at lowest sensitivities, competitive with best in class
* Reliable metering
* JPEG output makes good use of the sensor's dynamic range
* Most seamless live view system of current DSLRs
* Probably the easiest DSLR to use for a compact camera user
* Super SteadyShot helps keep snaps sharp
* External ISO button
* Above-average ergonomics for its class
* Well-featured and usable software included
* Very good battery life
* Wireless flash capability
* Solid-feeling construction

*Conclusion - Cons*

* Soft JPEGs with poor low-contrast detail
* Smallest viewfinder to appear on an APS-C DSLR
* Screen obstructs use of viewfinder
* Image quality suffers above ISO 400 (from both noise and excessive noise reduction)
* Long exposure noise reduction turns hot pixels black
* Slower and less responsive than its contemporaries
* Poor continuous shooting rate
* Most convenient button on body given least useful function

It's certainly a competitively-priced, well-specified camera and one that feels better-constructed than many of its rivals. It's also one that smoothes down the learning curve while still offering a huge step up in all-round performance compared to compact cameras - and one that will satisfy a lot of buyers. Unfortunately, it can't quite compete with the all-round performance the best modern DSLRs are capable of. *Had the image quality been of the same standard as the leaders in its class, that would have been enough to award it our highest rating. As it stands, it's a camera we feel too equivocal about to award more than a 'Recommended.'*
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/page31.asp


----------



## SuburbanWalker (Jun 23, 2007)

What's the opinion on the Canon EOS 1000D for a price of 450 euros? Would it be too ambitious for me to jump to it from an aged Ixus model? (I know little about the technical aspects of photography)


----------



## SirAdrian (Jun 3, 2008)

SuburbanWalker said:


> What's the opinion on the Canon EOS 1000D for a price of 450 euros? Would it be too ambitious for me to jump to it from an aged Ixus model? (I know little about the technical aspects of photography)


Well, it is said to have the best image sensor of its class. You should compare it to the 450D though and see if the little extra money isn't worth going for that. It really depends on what your needs are. Keep in mind that the most common kit lens (about $170 worth) isn't necessarily better than that of a small point-and-shoot. I used to have a Kodak C875, and its lens was better in many regards, than some of the SLR ones.

If you go for a DSLR, definitely learn about the _technical aspects of photography_, there's much to gain in regards to image quality and overall results. I wish some of the skyscraper photographers on location would take their time (and a tripod ) to make good photos .


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

^^
I bought the 450D on sale so it was actually cheaper than the 1000D which i at first intended to buy. So go and have a look and see if you can't get the 450D cheaper


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

I ended up buying the D60 with the 18-55mm lens, just figuring out how to use it properly at the moment...
I want to pick up a tripod soon, any recommendations? Maybe a monopod?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

A new friend arrived last night... 

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L:


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

^congrats on the glass i_am_hydrogen. :cheers: 



Mahratta said:


> I ended up buying the D60 with the 18-55mm lens, just figuring out how to use it properly at the moment...
> I want to pick up a tripod soon, any recommendations? Maybe a monopod?


what's your budget?


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

hazardously_wasted said:


> what's your budget?


Erm...as little as possible


----------



## SirAdrian (Jun 3, 2008)

Mahratta said:


> Erm...as little as possible


I'm more than satisfied with my *Velbon CX-560*. Has all you'd normally need, is light and sturdy. Been using it for a while now in outdoor action, and the way it's built, it looks like it's gonna last a very long time.

Don't know if Velbon is sold internationally.


----------



## emagdnim (May 13, 2008)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> A new friend arrived last night...
> 
> Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L:


ahyaaaakay:


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

Mahratta said:


> Erm...as little as possible


have your pick

also, you might want to read this article about tripods.


----------



## Quall (Feb 15, 2006)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> A new friend arrived last night...
> 
> Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L:


Cool, my friend just bought one of these.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Ribarca said:


> Amazing stuff from the Canon 5D Mark II. 1080p HD movies in ISO3200!
> 
> http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/


Does look pretty good. I put my name down on a preorder and my supplier just contacted me to say it's here next week for me to pick up. Looking forward to this camera, I just hope it's as good as it's cracked up to be!


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

hazardously_wasted said:


> have your pick
> 
> also, you might want to read this article about tripods.


Thom Hogan claims to save you $700 by basically getting the most expensive gear out there. I question whether most people ever need that in the first place. And if they do, $700 over a few years is really a miniscule amount of money if you have any ability to save money. Owning a car loses you more money through depreciation.

He's suggesting that you start off with $1000 total in a tripod, head and plates, or $600 for the budget option. I think for a starting or intermediate photographer, that's just a ridiculous waste of money. I get by using fence posts, ledges, walls, miscellaneous junk in my bag and anything else on hand to support my camera. I don't get perfect sharpness but I don't waste my time looking at photos with a microscope either.

A lens like the 18-55 won't require a monopod. A tripod is useful at night of course, but with that gear a budget tripod will provide reasonable support. The best way is to go to a store with your camera and test each of the tripods... it's better than any advice in writing.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

^I do agree with you. it's a matter of commitment and how serious are you about your hobby. obviously a lot of us can't afford to spend $1000 on a camera to begin with, let alone another $1000 on a tripod. so it really all comes down to, what does a person want to get out of this and what can one afford. 

despite all this, i still think Hogan's article can be helpful to everyone. while he does come across strongly about spending top dollar on a top of a line equipment, he does provide some useful information of what a good tripod should consist of, and what are some advantages of X in comparison with Y.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

invincible said:


> Thom Hogan claims to save you $700 by basically getting the most expensive gear out there. I question whether most people ever need that in the first place. And if they do, $700 over a few years is really a miniscule amount of money if you have any ability to save money. Owning a car loses you more money through depreciation.
> 
> He's suggesting that you start off with $1000 total in a tripod, head and plates, or $600 for the budget option. I think for a starting or intermediate photographer, that's just a ridiculous waste of money. I get by using fence posts, ledges, walls, miscellaneous junk in my bag and anything else on hand to support my camera. *I don't get perfect sharpness but I don't waste my time looking at photos with a microscope either.*
> 
> A lens like the 18-55 won't require a monopod. A tripod is useful at night of course, but with that gear a budget tripod will provide reasonable support. The best way is to go to a store with your camera and test each of the tripods... it's better than any advice in writing.


Although I agree that not everyone needs an expensive tripod, I don't agree with what you write at all. You make it quite clear that sharp pictures are not terribly important to you, and by all means, I respect that. Each to their own.

But other people may think of things differently. There is a _vast_ (and I can't emphasize that word more) difference between a budget tripod and quality one. It's not only in the sturdiness of a quality tripod, it's also in it's stability combined with weight.

My tripod (and ball head) is in excess of €1200. However, it is incredibly sturdy and weights much less than the same sized tripod for half that weight. Since I carry around at leaset 5kg of camera and lenses wherever I go, it is also nice to keep the weight of the tripod down, yet at the same time know confidently that lugging it around is worth it as it will actually work.

I upgraded my tripod because I lost a once in a lifetime shot. You know the type, being in the right place at the right time when a bolt of lightning strikes out perfectly framed in your viewfinder, with perfect exposure preset, perfect light in the sky and the bolt of lightning striking center of frame right onto the conductor on top of the cities tallest building, lighting up everything around it in an unholy light. (Actually, we all know that center of frame is never really best but in this case, branches of lightning flung out to the side in an also perfect rule of thirds). Yeap, the perfect shot except for camera shake on my budget tripod. 

Since I upgraded my tripod I have _never_ lost a shot due to camera shake _and_ my back thanks me for the lighter weight.

So is it a waste of money even for a starting photographer? Well, it depends on whether you take photography seriously. Many starting photographers do, and then they have a tripod which will last them many many years and not bring disappointments.

Photography isn't a cheap hobby. If you want to take snap shots of your family or vacations and need a tripod so that you can fit in the frame on a self timer, then by all means a nice cheap one will suffice. If you take photography seriously, even as a beginner, and require a tripod for your style of photography (and this is an important _if_, after all, not all styles require tripods) then go for quality.

By the way, I highlighted that phrase as it is quite important to me. I don't waste my time looking at photos over a microscope. But I do look at pixel level and so do my agents. Many intermediate photographers are also interested in starting to sell their work, even if only on a small part time basis. But for commerical photography, if they don't examine their photos on a pixel level, then they will be wasting their time as their photos will be rejected.

This is very different for artistic photographers where blur is often part of the art and not such an important issue.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Another addition to the team:


----------



## alexandros1984 (Nov 22, 2005)

Nikon D90 or Sony A350 ? wich one of them gives me the best image quality ?


----------



## SirAdrian (Jun 3, 2008)

The Nikon has a larger, and probably less noisy sensor and you have to consider the lens selection. You can get a ton of high quality Nikkor (and 3rd party lenses), even used ones. Sony isn't anywhere near as popular when it comes to SLRs.

If you put a low quality lens on either of them, you're gonna regret it.


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> Another addition to the team:


aww man


----------



## SaRaJeVo-City (Dec 6, 2004)

anyone here own the canon 7D?

I am thinking of buying this, its between the 7D and the Nikon D300s. 

any comments would be appreciated! thank you


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

both cameras are good. instead looking at the specs, go to the store and see how each of them feels in your hands. also, if this is your first dslr, think of the type of photography you're interested in, and have a look at the lens line up for both manufacturers. each of them offer a slightly different selection catering different styles.


----------



## SaRaJeVo-City (Dec 6, 2004)

aleph_null said:


> both cameras are good. instead looking at the specs, go to the store and see how each of them feels in your hands. also, if this is your first dslr, think of the type of photography you're interested in, and have a look at the lens line up for both manufacturers. each of them offer a slightly different selection catering different styles.


thanks for the help, will check them both out.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

this is promising - i use a bridge - i wish could change the lens but its does alright these sound good though

*5 Reasons to Ditch Your Digital SLR*

There’s a new camera category in town. It’s EVIL, and it’s going to kick your DSLR’s ass. EVIL stands for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens, and is our favorite acronym for cameras like the Olympus Pen, the Lumix GF1 and the Samsung NX10. These small, mirrorless, finderless cameras can fit in a pocket and outperform bulky DSLRs. Here’s why your next camera will probably be EVIL.

They’re Small

DSLRs are bulky. Their design comes from the film days when the only way to see the exact image that would hit the film was to divert the light coming through the lens with a mirror and send it to a viewfinder. This mirror meant the body needed to be deep, and the lenses — further away from the film than those in a mirrorless rangefinder — were also bigger.

Now we can see what the sensor sees either on a screen, or through an electronic finder. With the mirror gone, the body can be a lot smaller, just like a compact digicam. This means you can carry it with you everywhere, fit it in a jacket pocket and be ready for *that* picture, wherever you are.

They Take Great Pictures

The trick with the new EVIL cams is that they have large sensors. In the case of the Samsung NX10, this sensor is the same size as you’d find in a DSLR, and the others use the Micro Four Thirds format, a sensor which is half the size of a 35mm frame, but a lot bigger than the pinkie-nail-sized sensor in a typical compact. This gives the high image quality and low-light sensitivity of a DSLR. And because they have large sensors, the depth of field is shallower, and you can throw a distracting background out of focus.

For most people, that is more than good enough.

You Can Change Lenses

Let’s be honest. If you’re not a pro, you probably bought your fancy DSLR, fixed on the kit zoom lens, and that was it. You probably spend 90 percent, if not all of your time, shooting with this on your camera.

With an EVIL camera, you can do this too. It’s more likely though, given the tiny pocket-sized lenses for these cameras, that you will actually carry them with you. Better still, with an adapter you can use all your current DSLR lenses on the newer, smaller body.

They’re Fast

Compacts have lost out to DSLRs by being slow. Slow to power up, slow to zoom and slow to actually respond to your trigger finger. EVIL cameras have fixed this, and are as responsive as any entry-level DSLR. Watch out which model you go for, though. The current generation still has some trouble focusing as fast as a bigger camera, although some models, like the Panasonic GF1, have this nailed.

They Don’t Scream “Look at Me”

With a smaller camera, you can blend in. With an EVIL camera, you can blend in and still get great shots. This combination of size and quality was the reason the Leica M series was the camera of choice for both street shooters and war reporters, from Henri Cartier Bresson to Sebastião Salgado. And because there is no mirror to flip, they’re quiet, too.

The Con

As a new category, the EVIL is still relatively expensive, and you’ll pay as much for a body and lens as you would for a prosumer level DSLR. For many, even pros, the size difference alone is enough to justify this. For everyone else, you could wait until the likes of Canon and Nikon inevitably enter this sector. Then prices will start to fall, and things will get really interesting.

Unless you have a specific use that these cameras can’t meet, or you need the very highest level of performance only a Canon 1D or Nikon D3 can bring, you have no reason to buy a DSLR. Instead, consider being EVIL. You might like it.









Photo: Jon Snyder

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ Sounds interesting, but I won't be giving up my Canon 5DII quite yet. I can't find any information if those sensors are as large as a full frame sensor, but I guess not, and if not, they will still suffer from noise which would be a major problem. The Samsung NX10 mentioned above is not a full frame sensor.

Also, I don't really like the idea of a digital view finder. I still prefer in most cases to use the optical one on my DSLR. It is simply nicer and doesn't suffer from the jumping and slow frame rate of digital viewers.

I think once the technology improves, as I am sure it will, these maybe interesting camera's. But they are not yet replacements for a DSLR. And I don't even mean just the high level ones. The mid range DSLR's still take far higher quality images than these EVIL devices as well as still being more responsive.

The smaller body does have some benefits such as being less obtrusive, and I wouldn't mind dropping the 6kg of camera's and lenses I lug around, but at the same time, that extra body weight and length of lens does assist controlling camera shake by having a better grip. 

But let's be honest. The big change many serious photographers are looking for are proper major improvements to the current design of sensor. What I would like to see is a sensor not only capable of silky smooth images without digital noise reduction at ISO12000 but also dynamic ISO on sensors, i.e. a sensor where each individual pixel can switch it's ISO rating. This would create the most amazing dynamic range that has never yet been seen.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

Justme said:


> But let's be honest. The big change many serious photographers are looking for are proper major improvements to the current design of sensor. What I would like to see is a sensor not only capable of silky smooth images without digital noise reduction at ISO12000 but also dynamic ISO on sensors, i.e. a sensor where each individual pixel can switch it's ISO rating. This would create the most amazing dynamic range that has never yet been seen.


Eh? hno: 

Higher ISO is just an amplified version of the lower ISO. Meaning, every time you bump the ISO you lose dynamic range and tonality in the image. Also, the image recorded isn't always accurate. This dynamic ISO you speak of doesn't really solve anything. If anything, the tonality of the image wouldn't be constant. Also, there are physical limits to what can be done with the sensor and ISO.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

aleph_null said:


> Eh? hno:
> 
> Higher ISO is just an amplified version of the lower ISO. Meaning, every time you bump the ISO you lose dynamic range and tonality in the image. Also, the image recorded isn't always accurate. This dynamic ISO you speak of doesn't really solve anything. If anything, the tonality of the image wouldn't be constant. Also, there are physical limits to what can be done with the sensor and ISO.


Dynamic ISO is not some little puff of imagination that I just had, it has been talked about in the tech labs of sensor manufactorers for a few years now. There are certainly technical barriers to overcome, but it would be amazing when it is completed.

The beauty of it, when it is perfected is that your "RAW" image would have the tolerance to adjust the exposure in both the bright areas as well as the shadows in a way that is only possible with HDR photography today requiring multiple shops.

How far away is it? Well, the technology has probably already been developed and just needs final perfections. But it is likely it will be held back until the major companies feel they need another leap to jump ahead of their competitors. It also maybe that they when they are first released, they will have lower resolutions than current sensors and since the marketing world has dominated this particular specification claiming it is the most important, many firms will hesitate in releasing a camera with a much lower resolution even though the images will be much higher in quality.

Another problem is that as the major companies are in almost a cartel with each other to stem the flow of expensive development. Which is why there is so few big changes to digital photograhy and only incremental improvements at each next camera.

I wouldn't be surprised if when it does come out, it will be by a company like Red rather than Canon or Nikon, who does seem to distance itself from the big players and is just starting to enter the world of professional still cameras. That said, Red doesn't have the potential size of R&D that Canon and Nikon have.


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

Can anybody give tips on how to take good pictures of the moon? With a DSLR of course.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

^sturdy tripod, teleconverters and a long telephoto lens (500mm with a 1.7 or even 2.0 TC is a good place to start). cable or wireless shutter release, some patience and good luck.


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

Hmm a good place to start with a 500mm lens? I didn't mean a close up picture. Just a scenery picture with a full moon without the moon getting blurred.


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

maybe this will help:

200mm on a DX Nikon camera:









400mm on a DX Nikon camera:









straight out of the camera without any post processing. again, taken on a tripod with a cable release.


----------



## xdexina (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi there i'm new to DSLR world... what of these DSLR's should i get?!
Nikon D90
Nikon D5000
Canon 500D

Cheers! :cheers:


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

get a D90, but keep in mind I'm a Nikon user, so my opinion is a bit biased


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

get a Canon 500D, but keep in mind I'm a Canon user, so my opinion is a bit biased


----------



## aleph_null (Aug 19, 2004)

lol, well played sir.


----------



## xdexina (Jun 30, 2008)

ahhhah nice... really i am getting a canon... the new Canon EOS 550D (Rebel t2i in USA) is brilliant! 

Can wait for my canon EOS 550D Late february!

Anyway thanks! :lol::lol:


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

Remember to buy it with a proper lens with the cam.


----------



## xdexina (Jun 30, 2008)

ØlandDK said:


> Remember to buy it with a proper lens with the cam.


thanks! i will do it :cheers:


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Does anybody have an explanation for the sort of grey veil that I sometimes have in RAW pics (taken with a polarizer). Is that a common problem?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Kampflamm said:


> Does anybody have an explanation for the sort of grey veil that I sometimes have in RAW pics (taken with a polarizer). Is that a common problem?


Possibly, but I would need to see an example. What camera are you using as well, and what lens.

When you say in RAW, do you mean that when you convert to JPG it goes away? What setting is your camera colour space set to? Keep in mind that JPG uses the sRGB colour space which is different from Adobe RGB.

What software do you use for RAW conversions?


----------



## urbanyte (Jan 30, 2008)

So.... rumored release date on Feb 23rd for Canon :

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/announcement-day-february-23-2010/

Opinions? 60D or 1DsMKIV?

Also what do the Nikon users think about the new 16-35 f/4? $300 less than the Canon equivalent but it IS slightly slower.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I love my new Canon 85mm 1.8 lens.
Snapshots i have taken yesteray.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

Hey guys I'm not sure if this is the right thread or not since I guess it's technically not DSLR...anyway what do you think of this camera? I currently own a Cannon powershot SD1200 and I want to upgrade my camera..so I've been considering this one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0208/Canon-T2i-The-Goldilocks-of-digital-cameras











> The new Canon T2i falls somewhere in between a weighty professional SLR and a shove-in-your-pocket amateur camera. It focuses on the growing market of enthusiasts – people with a good eye but little training, prepared to spend money on their passion but not more than $1,000.
> 
> Due out in March, the EOS Rebel T2i gives last year's T1i an improved megapixel count, faster shutter, and stronger HD video features. Plus, fans of the T1i will be happy to learn that its simple body and clear interface will carry over to the new generation.
> 
> ...


Main selling point for me is the HD video, what do you guys think?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Love the photos Tom!


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

Looks like alot of fun:

http://gizmodo.com/5482943/noktor-0...es-your-micro-four-thirds-camera-night-vision

http://noktor.com/index.php


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Justme said:


> Possibly, but I would need to see an example. What camera are you using as well, and what lens.
> 
> When you say in RAW, do you mean that when you convert to JPG it goes away? What setting is your camera colour space set to? Keep in mind that JPG uses the sRGB colour space which is different from Adobe RGB.
> 
> What software do you use for RAW conversions?


Sorry for not answering for such a long time. Here's an example (I'm suing Canon's Zoom Browser)


















Adjusted the "grad":


















Don't think it's a lens problem since it's been this way from day one.


----------



## Puinkabouter (Jan 8, 2007)

That's not a raw-specific issue. A lot of photos simply have that kind of veil first. Removing that veil happens with the 'levels' tool.

For better results, you shouldn't click "auto levels", but you should slide the outer arrows to their respective edges of the histogram. If you do this in PS while holding the 'alt'-key, it will show you from what point you're starting to loose detail.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

I know. I always drag the white arrow from 255 to the outer edge of the histogram (eg 235) and do the same with the black one (say from 0 to 15). Is that the right approach? :dunno:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Hi Kampflamm,

Interesting that this happens with a Polarizing filter, as that should improve contrast and bring out deep blues and other colours instead of giving a washed out tone. The thing to keep in mind with RAW is that it is as it says on the box. Raw. Usually the JPG out of the camera will have various effects added, including colour and contrast adjustments. In RAW it is up to you, the human, to decide which is best for the photo. Often, with practice, something that can be better than expecting a machine to know.

But it does mean starting from scratch.

I'm not terribly familiar with Zoom Browser, as I use either Photoshop CS4 or Canon's D.P.P. software for RAW conversions. Since you have D.P.P, I'll concentrate on that.

The JPG setting on your camera could be an issue here. Even though you are shooting RAW, when opening the RAW image in D.P.P. the first picture setting it will preview it in is the JPG setting on the camera. So, if you have it set to faithful, that is the processing that D.P.P will preview. Open up the image and try changing the picture style to "Landscape" which I think has the most saturated settings. See if it looks any different.

Also, the colour will be different if set to sRGB or Adobe RGB on the camera. sRGB has a more limited colour gamut than Adobe as you can see by the diagram below. I always set my camera colour space to Adobe RGB but it is very important to remember to convert in to sRGB at the end of processing if you want to save as a JPG, otherwise the colours will be different in the JPG from the TIFF or RAW










What is the effect when not using a polarizing filter? Do you still have washed out colours? And what lens are you using? Some cheaper third party lenses do contain various colour casts like Sigma which has a yellow tone to many of their lenses.

Also, what brand of polarizing filter are you using. This is an important question. Good Polarizing filters are quite expensive, expect to pay for a 72mm one over €100. The cheaper ones will almost certainly have image quality issues. When it comes to glass, there is usually a very big difference between the more expensive brands and budget brands and I'm not just talking about price. A good polarizing filter is somewhat difficult to make and cutting corners will certainly decrease quality. Basically, anything between you and your subject will decrease quality. 

If you have a good lens and a quality filter, then the issues are likely to be technique and that is certainly something we can help with :cheers:


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

I have a Hoya 72mm polarizer and a Sigma 17-70mm lens. The thing is that this effect can't be found on all pics. Sometimes this grey veil is quite noticeable while on other pics the histogramm goes from 0-255.

Anyway, it appears to be a problem that can be solved in postprocessing. I was just wondering if this was a problem particular to my cam or if it's somewhat more widespread.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Kampflamm said:


> I have a Hoya 72mm polarizer and a Sigma 17-70mm lens. The thing is that this effect can't be found on all pics. Sometimes this grey veil is quite noticeable while on other pics the histogramm goes from 0-255.
> 
> Anyway, it appears to be a problem that can be solved in postprocessing. I was just wondering if this was a problem particular to my cam or if it's somewhat more widespread.


Does the veil fade away as you spin the polarizer? The Hoya 72mm is a budget filter, but Hoya is still a well known brand and there shouldn't be a serious issue with it.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

To be honest, I've never paid much attention to when the veil is at its strongest. It does seem more pronounced in pics with overcast skies though (when I probably should be taking pics wo a polarizer anyway).


----------



## urbanyte (Jan 30, 2008)

NihonKitty said:


> Hey guys I'm not sure if this is the right thread or not since I guess it's technically not DSLR...anyway what do you think of this camera? I currently own a Cannon powershot SD1200 and I want to upgrade my camera..so I've been considering this one.
> 
> Main selling point for me is the HD video, what do you guys think?


It is a DSLR  What do you currently shoot? At this point the HD video is more of a gimmick than selling point since the technology is in it's infancy and is pretty much full manual focus for serious video work.


----------



## urbanyte (Jan 30, 2008)

Kampflamm said:


> To be honest, I've never paid much attention to when the veil is at its strongest. It does seem more pronounced in pics with overcast skies though (when I probably should be taking pics wo a polarizer anyway).


Yeah, try takings pics without the polarizer on overcast days. The darkening won't be as apparent in darker areas as it is in brighter areas so you might want to look into using a lens with a non-rotating front element if you have one, set the filter to what looks good and leave it there (of course adjust as needed).


----------



## Joka (Feb 7, 2006)

Nevermind.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

urbanyte said:


> It is a DSLR  What do you currently shoot? At this point the HD video is more of a gimmick than selling point since the technology is in it's infancy and is pretty much full manual focus for serious video work.


Right now my camera is Cannon PowerShot SD1100 IS. If you look at my threads in signature it takes pretty good pictures but not good videos, and I've always wanted to have a "professional" camera but maybe I don't need one. Maybe it's better for me to just buy an HD video camera? I think it would be annoying to bring 2 cameras with me when I travel anywhere..

Thanks for the reply


----------



## urbanyte (Jan 30, 2008)

No problem 

If you want the best quality video, a camcorder is probably the best way to go, however the camera is likely to provide better low light filming and of course the wide selection of lenses. The only real issue with the camera is the focus, you'll record the sound of the focus motor which sounds like a dull clicking sound when you leave autofocus on. With pictures there will be a learning curve since the camera will produce images with editing or post processing in mind but you can also shoot JPEG when you find settings you like and just be done with the image right there and then. If your budget allows, there are a couple of good lenses that you can use for low-light stuff but since most of your shots are in good light the kit lens should be fine.


----------



## kerel (Oct 18, 2006)

@Kampflamm; your first picture simply looks underexposed to me, if you just use exposure compensation while taking the pictures you will save alot of time which you would need for photoshop otherwise.


----------



## 1ajs (Jul 21, 2005)

drools new toy out from penta took em long enuff
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp


----------



## SaRaJeVo-City (Dec 6, 2004)

Nikon is not coming out with any new models are they? I am waiting, if nothing happens im gonna get the D3s


----------



## Travelonashoestring (Oct 27, 2010)

I don't know where to post this;-)

Please visit my blogspot with my photos and skycraper structures
travel-on-a-shoe-string.blogspot.com


----------



## quynhvietnam (Oct 27, 2010)

i also have some nice pictures to show you but its in flick
here the link http://www.flickriver.com/search/trek+asie/


----------

