Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: dlo914 Nov 28 2007, 08:42 PM

Well on another forum i frequent a member brought a good thread about taking pictures and asking how and what cameras to use. And examples of pictures taken by fellow members and the camera they used.

So here's my submission:

Following pictures were taken with my Konica Minolta Dimage X60 5MP + 12" Mini Tripod. (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/x60.html)

***Tips: Play w/ angles, try taking a picture from ground level (on the floor), use Photoshop only to adjust lighting (contrast/brightness), try not to use flash when in dark situations try using artificial lighting, get a tripod (no matter what size) steadiness counts, to get those light streaks at night dont use flash and have a steady shot, good practice is taking pictures of inanimate objects, that's all ive got in my photo snapping arsenal***

Posted by: sendjonathanmail Nov 28 2007, 08:46 PM

canon sd450...a tripod at times

angles are your friend







-JON

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 28 2007, 08:49 PM

The best cameras to use are ones that allow you to change all you settings and allow different lenses to be used. I guess that reqires the user know what he is doing though.

Posted by: dlo914 Nov 28 2007, 08:56 PM

Which equals to a SLR (Single-Lens Reflex) Camera or DSLR (Digital SLR) Camera. I mean those are great n all but very very costly. The lenses sometimes cost more than the camera body itself. It's not necessary for amateurs. I myself have done quite well with my snap n shoot small digicam. I do long for a DSLR, but i dont take enough pictures to justify spending that much money on something i wont use that often or use to it's full potential.

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 28 2007, 08:59 PM

I know the feeling. A few of my lemses are way to much. I had to buy them to do the work, but I always think of the 914 I could have bought instead. Yes, you read that right

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Nov 28 2007, 11:08 PM

In a prior existance, I was a classically trained, published photographer. Now I only do it for fun and favors, and I have gotten a bit rusty.

Your gear does not a photographer make. The most expensive cameras and lenses won't help if you take boring pictures, don't have basic concepts of composition, speed, depth of field, etc. I have seen AMAZING pictures taken with $200 point and shoot digitals. Composition is way, WAY more important then the gear you use. Good gear does not really come into play until you know what you are doing - which is why just about intro to photography course still suggests the old Pentax K1000.

That said.
Here are some tips.
First tip: There are times when all of these tips should be ignored.

Never shoot on the Automatic mode. Never Ever! I tend to shoot by choosing my aperature, and let the camera choose the speed. This gives me control over depth of field (DoF). Your camera sucks at knowing what looks good.

Never center your subject. It creates a dead picture. This applies to cars, stones, boobies, whatever.

Never have the horizon (or any horizontal line) in the middle of your frame. It bisects the picture.

Always shoot at the slowest ASA the light will allow. For most cameras, thats 100, though some go to 50. A faster ASA will allow pictures to be taken in darker places, but at the expense of noise.

Be mindful of shadows, especially outside. They can be killers.

On composition...
You subject should be the subject and take up most of the frame. Zoom in or walk closer.

Your subject should be in focus. Use your DoF or other composition tricks to lead into the subject.

Don't over crop. Highly subjective, but when its over done, its over done.

Be mindful of what is around you. I have had hundreds of pictures ruined by something in the frame I had not seen when taking the picture.

Finally, when a pro goes out, he takes a LOT of pics. Roughly, for every 36 pictures taken, 1 or 2 are going to be keepers, the rest are garbage.


Zach

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 28 2007, 11:23 PM

I miss my old K1000 Very good tips and pointers.

I have my degree in commercial photography, and when some guy comes up to me while I'm shooting says "Oh, the D200. I have one of those." I wonder why. If people are going to buy a digital SLR they need to know what all the functions are. Why buy a camera that has over 1000 options when you only know 1? I still like to use medium and lagre format cameras, but they are more of a pain to carry when you have big jobs that require you to move around alot.

Posted by: Thack Nov 28 2007, 11:26 PM

Sometimes point and shoot cams will give you a good shot but they often agravated me. You have to wait for them to turn on and then focus and then trip the shutter. Too much waiting for my taste. I had to move up to a DSLR. At first I got a D50 then when I talked my way into shooting for Mazdasport Mag. I got a used Nikon D1H for $500. Super fast (5 frames per second) super fast start up and no waiting for the shutter to trip and excellent quality.
I shot the Grand Prix of Houston and got some awesome shots with $100 lenses. Equipment isn't everything but if you want to have consistently good shots, buy good equipment. And yeah angles are your friend!
Here are some shots of the race.


Attached thumbnail(s)

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 28 2007, 11:32 PM

Nice work and nice pick up. I have a D1H as well, and they are a great camera. I was a cannon guy before that camera, but I have seen the error in my ways.

I really like the King Taco pic.

Posted by: Thack Nov 29 2007, 12:08 AM

Oh yeah, buy a lot of the memory cards and shoot your ass off. You can always delete pics. Try different apertures on the same subject and learn how to include and exclude the background/foreground. That alone will help catapult you into taking contest winning photos. I suck at composition but I'm getting better. Angles can't be improved with post processing but you can compose a bit with cropping in PS. Thanks Blood on the comments. More pics with Porsche content.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 29 2007, 12:19 AM

Again, very nice work.

It is true that shooting hundreds of pics does help to get that one amazing picture, but you need to learn in camera cropping and composition. Some of the shots I have to take you only get one chance, and you have to get that shot. It's a little more tricky working with large format cameras. You can learn a lot from shooting with medium or large format cameras, but if you really want to learn go to your local used camera store and buy a Pentax K1000. Learn all the functions of the camera. Then get your digital camera and start taking 100s of pictures or random stuff until you pictures of regular shit looks awsome without any photoshop.

Oh, when you take pictures to sell stuff... the pics should be terrible as to show that you didn't doctor anything. I am always hesitant to buy piture perfect stuff from people online as I know how easy it is to make something look perfect that is not.

Posted by: Thack Nov 29 2007, 12:32 AM

Your right Blood. I learned on an old Mamiya 500TL 35mm. My dad had the larger format stuff and even today high end pro shoots are done with large format cameras. The more time you take setting up a great shot (composing) the better your work will be.
I think you have the eye for photography D-lo, step up and buy a used DSLR.

Posted by: Hammy Nov 29 2007, 01:01 AM

Good advice here. Good info from Vacca as well. Equipment doesn't matter so much, it's the learning process and knowledge that matters.
I have gotten some fantastic images from the ol' manual-everything 35mm and some attentive darkroom work. Luckily now I have some medium and large format cameras to play with too.
I think digital has really shunned the artistic side of photography. It is great for the point and shooters, and can provide great results with a little know how. Manual mode! Learning the functions of the camera is very important.

Posted by: abbott295 Nov 29 2007, 06:28 AM

This has already been mentioned, but a piece of advice I was given by my cousin who is a professional photographer, "If you want to be known as a good photographer, make good use of the waste basket." Don't let anyone see your bad pictures, and there will be plenty of those. I never got good at it.

Posted by: jimkelly Nov 29 2007, 08:23 AM

first of all -you got some fine pics there - and photography is an expensive hobby.
equipment matters - or else all pros would just use a point and shoot. i used a canon 1dII for years to shoot sports, from high school to olympic level - day and night - and it was much better than my D60 and better than my 1d. skills too are important and will come with time. being able to control DOF and being able to use high iso and having great af system - really hep - as does having lots of FPS.
jim


Attached image(s)

Posted by: brer Nov 29 2007, 12:44 PM

My mentor told me once

You can shoot 30 rolls or 3 rolls and at the end of the day you will still be lucky to have had one opportunity for a truly great shot.

Take your time, look at your surroundings and anticipate where that one great shot might present itself. Its all in where you place yourself WITHIN the action.

Great photographers are not bystandards.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Todd Enlund Nov 29 2007, 01:12 PM

You don't take good photos, you make good photos.

The most important piece of advice that I can give is to USE YOUR FEET!!!

Walk to where the photograph is. Get closer. Get a better angle. Move to get a better background. Use light to your advantage.


The most common "fault" in photos is failure to pay attention to the background.


Zach has some good advice... in particular he refers to the "rule of thirds".

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/rule-of-thirds/

Posted by: dlo914 Nov 29 2007, 01:25 PM

Thanks! But $$$ I should've asked Santa for one this year!

Posted by: Thack Nov 29 2007, 01:27 PM

This is great advice too. I've had some awesome shots with crap in the background that ruined the shot. Also if you do go DLSR you can check your shot and look for items that you don't want in your shot.

Posted by: brer Nov 29 2007, 02:37 PM

ok kids, enough talk.
lets see some of your best work.












Attached image(s)

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Nov 29 2007, 03:53 PM

Some of my stuff (I'm totally whoring right now, and I don't even care).

I don't have a lot of pics of cars that arn't just snapshots... So...


Fire dancer. This was a tough shot. ASA kicked all the way up to 1600, and a slowish time setting - 30-45.







^^^That is probably one of my favorite pics taken in recent history.




You don't always need funky angles. At least for my tastes, funky angles look better for ricer cars, and classics tend to look better classically framed. Chris' car is also fuching amazing, which helps.


One of my favorite all time shots.

Okay, I'm done.

Zach

Posted by: Thack Nov 29 2007, 04:24 PM

Damn, you're good Zach. I have a fast eye and some reflexes for action but the artful shots are my weakness.

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Nov 29 2007, 04:40 PM

Thanks
My weakness is panning action. I never get to practice it, and when I do, it seems I'm more luck with it then skill, or the subject is too far away and I simply don't have enough lens to get in tight.

I wish I had some of my good stuff digitized. I used to put hours upon hours into darkroom work, but I have not had the time to do that in well over a decade.

Zach

Posted by: dlo914 Nov 29 2007, 04:55 PM

Hmm...any of you guys got any Fish Eye Lense shots? Those are always interesting shots.

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 29 2007, 04:57 PM

Very nice work Zach

Your panning would get much better if you used a new digital. My D200 locks on a subject and will keep it in focus. I like your timed shot. I like to do night shots, but now that I have a kid I haven't been able to.

Posted by: brer Nov 29 2007, 05:07 PM

the focus on my D200 sucks! I can't get the focus lock to stay on anything... in fact i'm manually focusing most of the time nowadays. Probably dont know how to use it right as i grew up with manual focus.

(Points for anyone who can name the track)


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 29 2007, 05:16 PM

Alright... Brer asked for some. Most of my photos are on my Mac, but here are a few that I have on this computer. My wife... My son... my nephew... the forth of July... and a fun nightime pic.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 29 2007, 05:18 PM

You need to program it to work the best. Look in the million page manual that came with it and it tells you have to st up the tracking.

Posted by: wilchek Nov 29 2007, 05:48 PM

I am hoping for a Nikon D40X for Christmas. Nice camera for a beginner and for $600.

These guys have good prices and actually have a brick and motar store

http://www.butterflyphoto.com/process/Filter/1000/1004/-1/1/A

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 29 2007, 06:19 PM

That's a good price on the kit. Good starter camera too. I would suggest you try to get a book on light meter and apature settings. It will help you to understand how to create a dramatic depth of field.

Oh, and for those who are beginners. If you are getting an SLR for family pics you should invest in a good 80mm lens. That is the idea lens for portraits. If you buy a good lens it will have a low F stop too.

Posted by: brer Nov 29 2007, 09:01 PM

Speaking of 80mm lens... if you happen into a D200 which accepts earlier nikon manual focus lenses the bog standard manual focus 50mm lens becomes nearly an 80mm when stuck on it (due to the DX format). So pick up a late 80's 50mm f1.2 for a couple hundy and you'll be in love.

Good portraits are better with manual focus anyway, its kinda hot.

Manual focus is the primary reason to buy the D200. otherwise I would have had the D70/D80.




Attached image(s)

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Nov 29 2007, 09:49 PM

I would not be surprised if my Canon 350D had a similar feature. I probably know about 1/2 of the stuff it can do. When I was shooting more sports, I was pretty good a panning the old fashioned way. I'm just way rusty, and don't get a lot of chances to practice the technique.



The Canon have the same 1.6 form factor. I keep 35mm prime lens on hand for portraits and snap-shots - actually, that is what I use for my every day lens. 35mm becomes a 50mm lens on most of the non-pro DSLRs, and a 50mm lens is my favorite lens hands down. Fast, light, small, and cheap even with good glass.

A 50mm lens (80mm with the 1.6 multiplier) is too much zoom for my taste, unless you are taking your picture from across the room. If my 50mm prime was not a maco lens, I'd probably sell it. I almost never use it.

While a lot of guys like the 1.6 multiplier, I really hate it. However, getting a DSLR that does not have it is much more money then I have to spend, and my XT does all that I need it to be able to do.

Zach

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 29 2007, 09:55 PM

I agree. I hate the 1.6 multiplier, but what are you gunna do? I don't so much as like that you have to be so far away with the 80mm, but it is a very flatering lens. All of the shots above that are of people are with a 50mm, and it works well.

Yes, your Cannon has it, but like I said.. You need to program it properly. It takes a lot of time and patence.

Posted by: Bruce Allert Nov 29 2007, 10:06 PM

Where's this??

........ b


Attached image(s)

Posted by: dlo914 Nov 29 2007, 10:21 PM

Brokeback? JK looks like Colorado.

Posted by: Bruce Allert Nov 29 2007, 11:39 PM

Think WCC

...b

Posted by: RoadGlue Nov 30 2007, 12:04 AM

Oh no, you've opened a real can of worms!

Really, you need two cameras. A pocket point-and-shoot that you can just take anywhere. If you're using an iPhone, then you've got that built in already. Take a look at the photos people are getting with iPhones:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/takenwithiphone/pool/

If that doesn't suffice, or you find yourself being limited by your camera's feature set, then you should probably consider diving into the DSLR market. If you're on a super tight budget (under $500), then you may want to looking into buying a used Nikon D70 or a Canon Digital Rebel (depending on your preference). You can find them on Craigslist.org with a lens in great condition for $400 +/- if you just have a little patience. You don't want to end up with something that's been abused or stolen. Photographers are habitual upgraders, so there's a lot of great used gear out there.

If you've got more cash burning a hole in your pocket, then you're coming into this world of digital SLRs at a fantastic time. Both Nikon (my preference) and Canon (really just as good) have some great entry level and semi-pro DSLRs that are totally fantastic and can be had at what I think are reasonable prices. These are the Porsches 914s of the Camera world, so there may be a little learning curve with some models (though some are suprisingly automatic).

Off the top of my head, here's what I recommend. I'm sticking with Nikon and Canon, as though are the only DSLRs I really know anything about:

- Nikon D40X: Nikon's Entry Level DSLR, 10.2 Megapixels, you have to use Nikon DX Lenses if you want auto-focus. I've found new, non-graymarket (don't buy graymarket!) kits (body, lens, memory) for $600.

- Nkon D80: Nikon's next step up from the D40X. Also 10.2 MegaPixels, but more features and you have more lens choices. Better performance all round. Kits (body, lens, memory) for around $1k

- Canon Digial Rebel XTi: 10.1 MegaPixels, better low light performance than the entry level Nikons. My gripe is that they're made of plastic, so they feel a little toy-like to me. I'm also not a big fan of Canon's entry-level lenses for the same reasons. However, this camera takes awesome photos and it's priced around the same as the Nikon D40X

- Canon EOS 40D: New, 10 MegaPixel, Semi-Pro for a great price (around $1500 in kit form). I don't know a whole lot about it, but I'm sure it's awesome.

- Nikon D300: Nikon's new 12.3 MegaPixel camera. Better low light performance than the D200, huge LCD on the back with Live View and 640 x 480 resolution, semi-pro, good for studio and field work. You'll be out 2k smackaroos for a kit.

Nikon and Canon have also both released new top of the line, pro cameras. But if you're that serious about photography, then you already new that. Just the bodies alone will set you back over $5,000 and because they're full frame, you'll probably need to replace your lenses as well to get the full benifits that each has to offer.

If that's still not good enough, then you can go spend $40k on a nice 40 MegaPixel medium format Hasselblad digial camera. All the cool kids have those.

I have to also recommend that you invest in a nice shoe-mount flash if you plan on doing any indoor, low light photography. Being able to bounce light off of the ceiling or the wall is a million times more natural looking than firing straight at the subject. The results are the difference between a mug shot and... um, something nice to look at.

I've been shooting with a D200 for the past six months or so, and I'm in love. The D300 would be on my wish list, but it's not a big enough of a step up, and then next step up would set me out of pocket at least $5k (not including glass). I shoot with a 18 - 70 mm lens most of the time, but prefer the image quality of my 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. It's cheap, shoots super fast and is great in low light. You can also get some pretty extreme DOF effects with it as well. I have a lousy 70 - 300 for the long shots, but it's not very sharp. I've borrowed macro lenses and I can't get enough. Currently looking at the Sigma 150mm macro lens and it will probably be my next big purchase.

I have lots of favs, but I don't want to use up too much space here.



Attached image(s)

Posted by: Bruce Allert Nov 30 2007, 12:15 AM

Randy... did you shoot most of those with your 50mm?

.....b

Posted by: RoadGlue Nov 30 2007, 12:25 AM

Top 3, Sylvie's portrait (the white face), and the smoke, were all done with the 50 f/1.8. That top photo of Scott's 914 at Ledson Winery here in Sonoma County would have been a lot better had I shot it at f/7 or thereabouts. I had it set to something like f/2 for some of the other shots I had been taking earlier and blanked out about changing it for that shot. I think I was trying to soak in more light from my SB-600 flash (mounted on a tripod to the left of the shot), but I should have just used a higher ISO setting. Boo.

Posted by: RoadGlue Nov 30 2007, 12:31 AM

Nice shot Brer. Before I bought the 50 f/1.8, I used my friends old 50 f/1.4 (manual focus) on my D200. You're right, it's wonderful. However, I suck at nailing focus manually and ended up with a bunch of soft shots. With all the focus zones the D200 offers, it's hard to see why focusing manually would really be better in most cases.

Posted by: brer Nov 30 2007, 02:11 AM

manual focus isn't better for most. I bought a KATZEYE focus screen for my camera to assist with that. Its part of my process and I cant get away from it without feeling out of touch.

Another good tip for a super nice camera would be the Nikon D2H . Only 4.1 Megapixel but thats great for most amatuer shooters. Dont think it wont print nice large prints as it will 12x16 no problem. It will capture a nicer image than my D200 alot of people think, CMOS I think?? Anyway, its a professional level camera that is only slightly outdated now, but still an AWESOME rig for the money. I have had to resist buying one myself.

(fix car, dont need camera)

Posted by: RoadGlue Nov 30 2007, 02:29 AM

I don't think I'd be happy with just 4 MP at this point. 10 gives you such terrific cropping and printing power. It's also good to have those extra pixels when doing certain image sharpening techniques.

I've had perverted thoughts of selling the 914 for the new Nikon D3:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond3/

It's 12 MP if you use the good lenses and just 5 MP if you use DX lenses. I can't justify making the leap as I don't feel I've hit any real limits with the D200 yet. I think my only complaint is with the amount of noise you get in photos when using higher ISO settings. The D3 doesn't have that problem... One can dream a little, right?

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 04:13 AM

Elsa Case sits and weeps as a lifetime of posessions are hauled away by a demolition crew hired by the city, thursday. Case's home was in violation of city fire codes which forced her eviction.



Jerry Rice Jr. doesn't live in his father's shaddow. He is marching to the beat of his own drum. Even though Rice Sr. can bee seen at most of his son's footall games Jerry Jr. says "My dad loves to come watch me play basketball"



San Mateo quarterback Nate Davidson had a 90-yard touchdown run in his 129-yard rushing performance against Capuchino.

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 04:28 AM

Oracle complex 11/29/07
14mm F3.5 1/2 sec. ISO-100 +3 step




Know your camera, know your subject matter and shoot, shoot, shoot....

Nothing beats practise...... Other than a bit of luck.

All shots were taken with the Olympus E-Volt 410

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 04:37 AM

Sure wish I had the funds for a D3. Not yet but maybe next year. I started saving for one a couple of months ago. If saving goes the same as it has for the past couple of months I will have the camera by, let's say...... 2023.... Yikes

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 04:42 AM

OK, last one.

Posted by: dkos Nov 30 2007, 08:35 AM

here are some of my photos:

Posted by: Demick Nov 30 2007, 10:02 AM

Before digital, you used to be able to spend $500-$1000 to get a very nice Nikon (or other) SLR that would last you a lifetime. Now you spend $3000 for a professional DLSR and it's considered outdated in a couple of years. Useful life of a good camera has gone from 30 years down to 5 years.

Posted by: brer Nov 30 2007, 10:12 AM

Its a joke isn't it. but the camera companies are loving it.


My normal response to someone asking me what camera to buy would be to get an old 35mm and a home BW darkroom setup, but even that advice is kinda unrealistic considering the flexibility and instant nature of digital shooting and storage.

That said, the only photographers I know that are making bucks today still shoot film.


-Koozy your first two pics are exceptionally human. very nice.

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 11:16 AM

Thank you. For film I use a Minolta 7000i and a Minolta 400si. Both are very capable and nice cameras. I get over a dozen photos published every week and the E-Volt has stepped up to the plate. If I were to suggest buying an entry level DSLR with pro capabilities, the E-Volt would be my pic. If you wanted to step up but still not break the bank I would go with the E-3. Fastest, lightest camera out there for the price point.

Posted by: cooltimes Nov 30 2007, 11:27 AM

Good thread.

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 30 2007, 12:25 PM

Yes, it's true that most of us are using film, but most of us also have very nice digital camers too. However, the biggest reason for that is you will never be able to get a shot with a 35mm camera that you can with a 4x5. I also shoot much of my stuff with a Hasselblad H1, and to get something like that in digital is about $30,000.00. I don't think I could justify buying a camera body that cost the price of a nice 914-6 . I got the D200 because it was easy to do weddings with if the people were looking for something a little less expensive. Shooting weddings with my MF camera I charge almost double as there is soooo much more involved.

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 12:43 PM

What does an average wedding go for in digital?

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Nov 30 2007, 12:54 PM

About the same as they go for in film. You are buying the photographers expertise, the actual materials fee is pretty small.

Zach

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 01:05 PM

so how much is that doller wise?

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 01:08 PM

geez, can I spell? I meant to ask what the average price would be for wedding photography. Not post with cost of prints, just labor.

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Nov 30 2007, 01:12 PM

I depends person to person. Lots of wedding shoots are farmed out for all the print processing, and you pay extra for whatever prints you order. Any post production work (photoshop) is also usually extra.

Zach

Posted by: koozy Nov 30 2007, 01:18 PM

I'm seeing $1500 - $2500 with 3 to 6 hours coverage for moderate photography. Sound about right?

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Nov 30 2007, 03:28 PM

It really depends on the package. If it is digital and they are just using your time I only charge 1000 and give them the disk. If they want me to get the prints I charge the price of the printing and 100 more for time. I also use a company that specializes in wedding and portrait printing as they can crank the stuff out and it still be on very nice paper. Film I charge much more for as the package is much more inclusive. In other words, they are getting more of a work of art put together for their special day. My price for those now are around 4000, but I only do three or four a year. I am getting tired of them

Like Zach said. you are paying for the expertise. I started doing weddings for 500 just doing the digital

Posted by: Todd Enlund Nov 30 2007, 04:14 PM

I got to shoot a few frames with a D3 about a month ago. ISO 4000 on the D3 looks as good as ISO 400 on my D2X. I don't like going past 400 on my D2X.

I'm hoping to buy a D3 before next wedding season. With fast glass and a D3, you could shoot by candle light.

Posted by: RoadGlue Nov 30 2007, 05:42 PM

Ditto with the D200. If you really get the exposure close, then it's usually bearable up to 800 if you promise yourself not to view the image full size. I was stuck shooting at high ISO at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Monday and I cringed with each shot. However, the results were pretty good.

You can see for yourself:

http://pixelrandy.zenfolio.com/p229988018/?customize=2




Lucky guy!

Posted by: cooltimes Nov 30 2007, 08:25 PM

Amateur that I am, I am very pleased with this shot. I shot with a $100 digital and used Gimp to put on canvas. I was trying to get a watercolor effect. Had to reduce the pix to get 914world to allow pasting.



Basically, anyone can take a great photo with any camera if they really try. Compose the scene you would like and then shoot a roll using different fstops. Make numbered notes of each frame. Anyone can learn to do anything anyone else does. It just takes practice.
Don't forget, the 1st cameras were just pin holes that captured the light of all those historical photos you have seen.

Posted by: Todd Enlund Dec 1 2007, 02:34 PM

Finally have a few minutes at my home computer... here ya go:

Peter Iredale:

A Bug:

Another Bug:

Crater Lake:

Blue Heron Fledgeling:



And there's this:

http://www.photografik.net/reno/

Todd

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Dec 1 2007, 02:37 PM

Nice work Todd

You and I have similar taste in photography. I love shooting nature and anything other than people, but people pay more generally

Posted by: Todd Enlund Dec 1 2007, 04:16 PM

You got that right

I enjoy weddings when everything goes well.



But when you get a bridezilla or an irate M.O.B. it's not any fun at all. For anyone.

Motorsports are fun too:

Posted by: koozy Dec 1 2007, 05:39 PM

Frogs are fun

Posted by: koozy Dec 1 2007, 05:51 PM

kids are fun too

Posted by: Bruce Allert Dec 1 2007, 06:00 PM

Hey Todd, where abouts are ya in Boring? I just moved off Kelso Rd. to Eagle Creek. Was in Boring for 7 years.

.....b




Attached image(s)

Posted by: koozy Dec 1 2007, 06:01 PM

Posted by: Todd Enlund Dec 1 2007, 06:09 PM

I'm actually just north of Boring near 282nd and Orient. I tell people Boring because when you say "Gresham" they think "Rockwood"... I'm much closer to Boring than Gresham, but my address is Gresham.

I'm in the wrong county.

Posted by: koozy Dec 1 2007, 06:15 PM

Nice shots everyone. Great thread. Lots of fun. Good photos Todd. I love the one with the butterfly. fantastic lighting.

Posted by: cooltimes Dec 1 2007, 11:04 PM

I like your frog. Brer probably does too. LOL

Most interesting photos are those nobody else bothers to shoot and the viewer uses their imagination to capture what the camera actually didn't.

I think Chux Davis (CD), a private member, should have shared a few in this thread too. He takes beautiful photos of nature and inanimate objects.
Lots of talent in all of the photos seen.
Thanks.

Posted by: stepuptotheMike Dec 2 2007, 06:45 PM

Here are a few of my favorites. I've had a Canon Digital Rebel for about 4 years now and have enjoyed every minute of it. I'm thinking of stepping up to the XTi before too long as it has some really nice features that mine doesn't.

Lens is either the 18-55 kit lens or a Sigma 75-300mm that I got cheap off of ebay.

Posted by: Thoward914 Dec 2 2007, 10:44 PM

You guys posted some great pictures. Very interesting subjects and composition.

This thread started just as I began looking for a DSLR. My first SLR was a Pentax K1000 back in 1980, I moved up to a Canon AE-1 and then to a A-1. Until recently I haven't look for a DSLR I just took the A-1 when a wanted to use something better than my wife's Sony digital point and shoot. I started reading reviews about the Nikon D40X, Canon Rebel XTI, Pentax K10D and Olympus E-510. All these cameras had their good points and some negatives. I was leaning toward the Canon hope my manual focus lens would work with the Rebel, they won't. But after talking with the local camera shop about the type of photos I was after, I decided on the Olympus E-510. It seems like its built good and will be a easy to use camera.

My background in photography is very casual, I had a couple photography classes in highschool and was a yearbook photographer. I diffinitely will enjoy having the instant feedback on how the picture looks instead of waiting for the film to be developed.

Posted by: Bruce Allert Dec 2 2007, 11:30 PM

That was my first camera too. Do you remember what you paid for it? I got the full kit for around $125 way back in the late 70's.

.......b




Attached image(s)

Posted by: koozy Dec 3 2007, 12:03 AM

The Olympus E-510 is a great camera for the price. I shoot with the 410 every day. Shooting sports at night games is challenging with these cameras as they don't do as well in low light but I still get the job done. You get the in-camera stability control with the 510. Although I must say that shooting with the e series cameras feels slightly unbalanced when shooting with a larger lens because the bodys are so light. I like the cameras and am going to get the E-3 when the Christmas rush is over. I hope to find someone with an overstock so I can shave a couple of hundred off of the price.

These were shot last night at the CCS Championship game with an Olympus E-410 at 1600 ISO and flash. The E-3 would have had dramatically better photos as it goes up to 3200 ISO. With 3200 I could have shot this game without a flash.

Posted by: koozy Dec 3 2007, 12:03 AM

Posted by: brer Dec 3 2007, 11:26 AM

some from last year



Attached image(s)

Posted by: brer Dec 3 2007, 11:29 AM

the one of the guy on the bus was caught in the middle of the street, pulling focus as it went by at about 30mph. tough trick but sometimes you get lucky.



BE A PART OF HISTORY


Attached image(s)

Posted by: brer Dec 3 2007, 11:30 AM

i'm an architecture nut as well.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: brer Dec 3 2007, 11:33 AM

Blue Hair
morning on the top of St. Pauls
and the infamous Rupert Clervaux


Attached image(s)

Posted by: dlo914 Dec 5 2007, 01:09 AM

O!

Posted by: koozy Dec 5 2007, 03:31 AM

Shot these on an assignment today. It was a dreary day so the colors are a bit muted on the cats.

Posted by: koozy Dec 5 2007, 03:32 AM

Posted by: koozy Dec 5 2007, 03:33 AM

Posted by: Bruce Allert Dec 5 2007, 08:19 AM

Those Kitties sure look huggable!

.......b

Posted by: Thomas J Bliznik Dec 5 2007, 08:37 AM

Great photo's & great advise. I learned a lot & will try your suggestions. The only thing I would add "use a tripod". I know it looks dorky, but you will like the results. Here's a few photo's taken on my NIKON D-50 camera (without tripod) during my Santa Rosa Beach, FL vacation a few weeks ago.

Tom


Attached thumbnail(s)

Posted by: Thomas J Bliznik Dec 5 2007, 08:53 AM

One more post from my NIKON D-50 camera.

When I go to the beach, I play with big toys (trucks & planes)

Tom


Attached thumbnail(s)

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Dec 5 2007, 12:12 PM

Love the pics of the trees Tom. Reminds me of one of my pieces of art I did.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: koozy Dec 18 2007, 01:38 AM

Just when you thought this thread was dead...... Got this one today.

Posted by: johannes Dec 18 2007, 02:37 AM

My trip in the USA in 1999. Theese places are just magic...

My advice will be, no matter the Camera.

What you need is :
1 Your eyes
2 Your brain
3 Good light

Camera is a Canon EOS 300 (not digital)
Slides Velvia 50 ISO

I sold this camera and bought a Canon 350D. Same qualty as the old one.


Attached thumbnail(s)


Attached image(s)

Posted by: RoadGlue Dec 18 2007, 02:38 AM

Great capture!

Posted by: Demick Dec 18 2007, 11:44 AM

It's been 10 years since I packed up my Nikon FG and put it on the shelf. Recently, I've been thinking about getting a DSLR. I already have a Canon point and shoot (which I hate), as well as a 'tween' camera Canon S2IS (which I love), but it's still no SLR. Speed and flexibility are the main things I miss. A DSLR would not replace those, but rather supplement them depending on conditions.

I noticed that Nikon has retained compability with their old F-mount lens system, so Nikon would be a natural choice for me because I could use my 50mm and 70-210 Nikon lenses (all manual focus).

I looked at the D40x and the D80 the other day. I actually preferred the D40X due to it's smaller size & weight & simplicity. The D80 was simply overwhelming - and truthfully, the D40X was a bit overwhelming too. Neither of these cameras was intuitive and both would take a thorough reading of the owners manual to begin to understand.

Then I looked online. I was very surprised at the price differences. I mean, a D80 with Nikon 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for just over $600??

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=706463&up=679296

This seems unbelieveably cheap. But the store is highly rated, says everything is new with full US warranties, etc, etc. The D40X actually costs more at this store, so it makes it awfully hard to justify buying the D40X over the D80. Actually, the D40 might be a possibilty since I'm not sold on the concept that more megapixels is always better.

I know my limitations when it comes to photography. I don't need a high-end camera. My SLR's have always been 'entry level' and that has always met my needs. I prefer simplicity over tons of features I will never use. If I could buy a digital version of my old FG, I would do it in a second. So simple to use, yet still flexible.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: RoadGlue Dec 18 2007, 01:16 PM

Hi Demick,

I agree that something seems very fishy about that D80 deal. I think that it's so cheap because it's likely a gray market product. They say it's offered with a "USA Warranty", but they don't specify that it's a Nikon Warranty. I'd slowly walk away, and then run to a more reputable store.

I bought my Nikon D200 through Cameta Camera. They're an east coast retailer who sells most of their product online through their eBay store. They're completely legit, and are one of the only eBay sellers that's actually an authorized Nikon dealer. Check out their "About" page: http://stores.ebay.com/Cameta-Camera/About-Me.html

It's rare that I'll find a legit deal online that's cheaper than Cameta. You can usually negotiate with them a bit too. What I do is find the item I want in their store, get the auction ID, and then call 'em up and made modifications. For example, the kit I wanted had the 17-50 lens and I wanted the 18-70. I also had them throw in the shipping for free. I've heard you can usually have them send it express too (I HATED waiting).

The D40X is a great little camera and you don't need to worry about it being too complicated. Both it and the D80 have "P" (auto) modes, just like your point and shoot. However, they'll both give you something to grow into in case you decide you want to start tweaking with settings. My only small gripe with the D40X is that you're stuck using Nikon's dedicated digital lenses if you want auto focus, you have to make sure the lens you're buying has a focus drive motor built-in, as the camera body doesn't have a drive motor. That's not a big deal as there as there are a LOT of compatible lenses still.

Here's the kit I think you should buy:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D40x-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-Lens-2GB-NEW-USA_W0QQitemZ350007029888QQihZ022QQcategoryZ43456QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

One last recommendation if you do decide to get into the DSLR world and plan on doing any indoor photography - Get yourself a real speedlight (nikon's word for flash). Built-in flashes are very week and create "Mug Shots", not photographs. A real speedlight will allow you to tilt and rotate the head of the flash so that it's pointing away from the subject. This allows you to bounce the light off the wall or ceiling (or bounce card, etc) giving you a lot of lovely indirect light to work with. Here's a photo I took last night at a party using that method:



I'm using a Nikon SB-600. They're $184 everywhere online. I bought mine from Samy's:
http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=6961

Let me know if you have any questions, and you'll never regret buying a DSLR, especially if you enjoyed your film SLR.

Posted by: koozy Dec 18 2007, 01:49 PM

Randy, what did you shoot that last photo at (ISO, shutter, F-stop) Perfect exposure. Did you use a card?

I have the Olympus E-series 410. I like it. I shoot daily for a local paper (sports, news and A and E) and it is very light, fast focus and not too expensive. I'm going to go with the E3 as my upgrade as the 4/5 format works well for me and I can keep my expensive glass.

Sports:

Posted by: koozy Dec 18 2007, 01:55 PM

Can you believe the quality of fotos from such an inexpensive camera?

Posted by: RoadGlue Dec 18 2007, 02:01 PM

I just bounced off wall and ceiling. The building has a lot of angles, so the light was doing some fun stuff.

Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/2.5
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 200

Nice sports shot! I shot one college football game for fun over the summer and got a few good shots. They let us right onto the field because we were "photographers", so that was a lot of fun. Your shot is awesome!

Posted by: Demick Dec 18 2007, 03:08 PM

Thanks for the info Randy. I will definitely also need a new flash, as my old Nikon Speedlight is barely better than a built-in flash.

Demick

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Dec 18 2007, 05:05 PM

Nikon has some cool flash systems too. You can make a very nice umbrella arrangement that is all cordless with them. I think they start at 300 for the low end ones and 600 for the better ones. I bought one of the 300 ones and then the rest I bought the 600 as they can do more. I love Nikon.

Posted by: koozy Dec 18 2007, 06:09 PM

I've never shot with the Nikon products. I should rent one for a day. I do like their frame rate and ISO range. I was a Minolta man from childhood. (Dad got me into it) Then just went with the features of Olympus. The E3 is the fastest focus DSLR made. (11 points too) And Zuiko makes a damn good lens for the money.

Posted by: koozy Dec 20 2007, 02:36 AM

Got this one at the zoo today. I think he was trying to tell me something.....
No, really. I shot this at the SF zoo today when I was there to shoot an assignment and I didn't photoshop his fingers. This is the actual photo. ha ha ha

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Dec 20 2007, 02:45 AM

They say baboons are honery

Posted by: koozy Dec 20 2007, 02:51 AM

Indeed....... I was like