General Photography Chat - Page 3

toyota74 · #41 Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 8:31 PM**

thanks for the info lads,will have a look at d40 on ebay,probaly better off ,can always upgrade later on....cheers

1ajs · #42 Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 9:23 PM**

for a first dslr a d40 is all yea really need

ue · #43 Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 10:07 PM**

Not to mention the body does NOT matter as much as the lenses. I'd suggest starting with 18-55mm kit, but definitely later look at other lenses as they will truly help your photography.

I've heard cases where people use the D40 right into where they actually do professional photography (with a business).

toyota74 · #44 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 11:25 AM**

Ta very much,will scout for D40

Aleks · #45 Posted **Apr 9, 2009, 7:21 AM**

Well I'm joining a photography competition for all Washington State high school students. Hope I win something.

I plan on submitting

And maybe this one...

I heard not many students turn in HDR's and three of the ones I might submit are HDR's. Maybe that'll impress the judges. Who knows...

bulliver · #46 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 1:50 AM**

Those are all great shots Aleks, how far away were you from that bear?

Aleks · #47 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 2:39 AM**

I was pretty far. The zoom was at 200mm. It was taken at a zoo!

Anyways, that airplane picture sold for 40 bucks today. I participated in a youth gallery at the Y[MCA]. I was the only student who did HDR but some students had pictures that looked like HDR. I saw a lot of good pictures today!

bulliver · #48 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 6:32 PM**

Wow, never would have thought that was a zoo...

Aleks · #49 Posted **Apr 12, 2009, 3:13 AM**

Yet another reason why RAW is better! You can "create" HDR images on RAW processors. Well, they're not really HDR but they sort of look like it. It all has to do with the Fill Light tool. You crank it up above 50 and you set Blacks, Contrast, really high as well.

Example, same picture but different edit. Image 1 looks like an HDR while Image 2 looks just like, well... a picture...

Of course a real HDR would look better but faking it looks pretty good too!

initiald · #50 Posted **Apr 16, 2009, 6:29 AM**

Been reading up on the new Nikon D5000. I was wanting the D90, but the D5000 is a good bit cheaper. It seems like the middle model between the incredibly popular gen1 D40 and gen2 D90. My biggest issue is, unlike the D90, the D5000 won't autofocus with AF lens - just AF-S lens like the D40 does.

olga · #51 Posted **Apr 24, 2009, 10:52 AM**

Great photos Aleks! I love the plane and the bear. The blue skies are a bit too HDR for my taste though. But I'm not a fan of HDR at all, so don't listen to me if you are.

HomeInMyShoes · #52 Posted **Apr 24, 2009, 11:30 AM**

@aleks: nice photos. I'd toss one and throw in a decent person shot if you have it. It's good to have a well-rounded range

Quote:

Originally Posted by initiald

Been reading up on the new Nikon D5000. I was wanting the D90, but the D5000 is a good bit cheaper. It seems like the middle model between the incredibly popular gen1 D40 and gen2 D90. My biggest issue is, unlike the D90, the D5000 won't autofocus with AF lens - just AF-S lens like the D40 does.

It is a bit of a kludge on that one, but if you don't have any glass then it's less of an issues. Just check to see what the costs on comparable lenses are between -S and straight AF lenses. That should tell you what the better option is.

On a personal experience level, it might be worthwhile to go with the newer -S lenses, depending on how well the autofocus works. I struggle with autofocus hunting with my F/1.4 50mm AF lens on a D50. Generally it fails to find focus in shaded light or lacking contrast flat viewpoint photos. Not a good combination for me given my love of shooting store and house fronts in a straight-on portraiture style.

It looks like a beautiful sunny day today. Hoping for a couple of quality hours with my second favourite pasttime.

i_am_hydrogen · #53 Posted **May 25, 2009, 4:31 AM**

A new friend arrived:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L

Source

bulliver · #54 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 8:57 PM**

OK, so my 55-200mm tele came with a bayonette hood. Guessing here, but I would imagine it blocks some ambient light from hitting the sensor and as such I may want to use it on bright sunny days, but I don't know for sure.

Can someone help me understand under which conditions I would want to use this hood?

Jimby · #55 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulliver

OK, so my 55-200mm tele came with a bayonette hood. Guessing here, but I would imagine it blocks some ambient light from hitting the sensor and as such I may want to use it on bright sunny days, but I don't know for sure.

Can someone help me understand under which conditions I would want to use this hood?

Yes for bright sun and for precipitation. Not a good idea to get your camera wet, but if it is a light rain or heavy mist or snow flakes it will help keep the lens from getting spotted.

bulliver · #56 Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 3:43 AM**

^ Cool, thanks Jimby

ue · #57 Posted **Jun 19, 2009, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulliver

OK, so my 55-200mm tele came with a bayonette hood. Guessing here, but I would imagine it blocks some ambient light from hitting the sensor and as such I may want to use it on bright sunny days, but I don't know for sure.

Can someone help me understand under which conditions I would want to use this hood?

Is that lens really worth it? I mean I've been looking into it for a while but I don't know. I've seen some great photos using telephoto by bulliver and Sekkle, so it is tempting to go out and get the 290 dollar lens (especially for that price).

But from somebodies personal experience? Are they really worth it? What advantages do they have? Are they great even in places without high rises?

Thanks in advance,

EE.

bulliver · #58 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 2:39 AM**

Oh yeah, it's worth it. Besides the obvious 'they make small things look bigger and make far things look closer' there are some shots that you just can't get without the tele.

I had been trying to get pictures of hares, but with the kit lens the photos always looked like a little bit of fuzz on a huge frame of grass, so the subject was lost. With the tele, I was able to remain at a distance where the hare didn't flee and get a decent shot:

I went to the FIFA U19 tournament at Commonwealth a few years back, and took several pictures, all which disappointed me because the players looked like ants on the pitch. Sometimes a tele is the only way to get a good shot when it is impossible to move physically closer to your subject.

ue · #59 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 4:50 AM**

Do you use it in stuff even when you don't need to see from far away? I'm just trying to see all the positives cause I'm seriously considering it. Do you still use the 18-55mm lens bulliver? Thanks for your help it helps cause I'm looking into the same one you got. I just can't believe how expensive SLR lenses are :O!

bulliver · #60 Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 12:37 AM**

Oh yeah, I still use the kit lens, especially on a street tour/walkabout, otherwise you have to be a block away to get a building completely in frame.

One thing I have noticed though, and this may be personal preference, but the tele seems to be a better quality lens than the kit lens. The pictures I take with it just seem to be that much crisper, perhaps it is because the tele has VR and the kit lens doesn't, I don't know.

I say, if you have the money, just go ahead and get it, I am sure you will not be dissapopinted. Plus, it is really a great price for a 200mm...