SOT: Photography, Tips and Cameras you'd suggest... Options

[VaccaRabite]

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...

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1397/1070544567_174d63ec87.jpg)
Fire dancer. This was a tough shot. ASA kicked all the way up to 1600, and a slowish time setting - 30-45.

(IMG:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/122/304284280_1c385d8887.jpg)

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/864713069_2c1bf7732c.jpg)

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1174/865570772_0e1e9372f4.jpg)

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

(IMG:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/424160373_3f95a812cc.jpg)

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/1388776255_271a7941f1.jpg)
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.

(IMG:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2073896573_fe190a97fd.jpg)
One of my favorite all time shots.

Okay, I'm done.

Zach

[Thack]

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

[VaccaRabite]

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

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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

[dlo914]

Hmm...any of you guys got any Fish Eye Lense shots? Those are always interesting shots. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[PeeGreen 914]

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.

[brer]

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)

[PeeGreen 914]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[PeeGreen 914]

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)

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.

[wilchek]

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/Filt...000/1004/-1/1/A

[PeeGreen 914]

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.

[brer]

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.

[VaccaRabite]

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 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.

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.

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

[PeeGreen 914]

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.

[Bruce Allert]

Where's this??

........ b

[dlo914]

Brokeback? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) JK looks like Colorado. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Bruce Allert]

Think WCC

...b (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[RoadGlue]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

[Bruce Allert]

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

.....b

[RoadGlue]

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

.....b

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.

[RoadGlue]

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.

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)