These are so great, love the wolf one
Rens bug pictures and Pauls city captures are awesome too.
Can't wait till I get back home, going to find some nice places to snap some shots
Jordan, im planning on going to france in a month or two, Gavarnie area,
visit some mountains and shoot some nature, get some equipment
I tried some more bugs, but fuck me i need some quality, im sick and tired of poor shots, even if it will cost me 1k for a lens, i dont feel like picking up a camera and getting shit resolds each time.
Too bad he was camping in this T split, could not get a good angle on him.
Butterfly garden opened, so i might revisit that to get some shots, i managed to asdf up my whole shoot.
I've a couple purchase opportunities in my area. I can get a Canon 20D with stock lens kit for $330 or a 350D with stock lens with an extra battery and 10GBs worth of CF cards for $300. Actually there are a couple other 350Ds with stock lenses available all hovering between $280-300.
They seem pretty comparable to me, but it looks like the 20D has a larger sensor at 22.5x15 vs 22.2x14.8? Is that going to make much of a difference?
I've a couple purchase opportunities in my area. I can get a Canon 20D with stock lens kit for $330 or a 350D with stock lens with an extra battery and 10GBs worth of CF cards for $300. Actually there are a couple other 350Ds with stock lenses available all hovering between $280-300.
They seem pretty comparable to me, but it looks like the 20D has a larger sensor at 22.5x15 vs 22.2x14.8? Is that going to make much of a difference?
The images will have a slight edge in quality, and the body itself is more durable and larger/easier to handel. Plus the 20D has a back wheel for controlling aperture, whereas the XXXd line has only one wheel on the front and you have to use a button modifier to control aperture instead of having a dedicated wheel. The 20D is rated for more shutter actuations before breaking than the 350 as well.
The images will have a slight edge in quality, and the body itself is more durable and larger/easier to handel. Plus the 20D has a back wheel for controlling aperture, whereas the XXXd line has only one wheel on the front and you have to use a button modifier to control aperture instead of having a dedicated wheel. The 20D is rated for more shutter actuations before breaking than the 350 as well.
I went with the 350D cause i got a decent deal(2 batteries, 4gb card, kit lens, and remote shutter for about $300) on it, and the 20d's i was watching were going out of my price range($300 was my absolute max) on ebay(was being impatient). I sort of regret it now for the reasons above, image quality between the two its really pretty negligible, however ergonomics and usability, along with the much longer shutter rating make me long for a 20D. The 350D is a little cramped and uncomfortable to hold, just a littttle too small, also i think the 20D has a bigger view finder? I find the 350D's viewfinder to be sort of terrible. At the time the only thing i was factoring in was image quality and price, and there didn't seem to be much of a difference, however i feel knowing what i know now, the extra $50 would have been worth it.
Also, another thing to consider is getting a body that can do video, which i think neither the 20D or 350D can do.
Randomly ended up at a dudes blacklight party. Really wish i had a tripod so the shots wouldnt be so blurry or noisy. The s90 may be a good compact but you can only push her so far.
I've got a second hand 350d from a friend of mine (User: Buddy), really great deal with few batteries, cards, pack, stock 18-55mm, etc.
Anyway, still pretty new to this photography thingie, but aside from Env. Art, which is my job and my hobby, I believe I definitely found my new hobby!
I went with the 350D cause i got a decent deal(2 batteries, 4gb card, kit lens, and remote shutter for about $300) on it, and the 20d's i was watching were going out of my price range($300 was my absolute max) on ebay(was being impatient). I sort of regret it now for the reasons above, image quality between the two its really pretty negligible, however ergonomics and usability, along with the much longer shutter rating make me long for a 20D. The 350D is a little cramped and uncomfortable to hold, just a littttle too small, also i think the 20D has a bigger view finder? I find the 350D's viewfinder to be sort of terrible. At the time the only thing i was factoring in was image quality and price, and there didn't seem to be much of a difference, however i feel knowing what i know now, the extra $50 would have been worth it.
Also, another thing to consider is getting a body that can do video, which i think neither the 20D or 350D can do.
You won't get a dslr that does video for under 400 dollars, the 550 is the cheapest one that does it in the canon line I believe.
You reminded me of another point, the XXXD line uses pentamirrors to show the viewfinder, whereas the XXD line and above use pentaprisms. This results in a larger and brighter viewfinder, another plus for the 20D
Muzz - I REALLY like the that first shot with the guy that appears to be on fire--with blue flame. VERY cool effect!
Toronto had one of its first awesome torrential storms about a week or two ago now, and I was out on my porch with my camera. Here's the most 'stormy' looking of the bunch I took:
With the crazy heat wave we've been having here, I'm expecting a very epic storm to come (the predictions are for Friday ). Should be tons of thunder and lighting. Woohoo!!!
This is a photo from my parents summerhouse. My father has planted some interesting plants on the roof, and when I saw it I thought it kinda looked like a landscape from an alien planet. Might try making an scene with these as inspiration. (did a slight manipulation to remove some trees tops in the background.)
I am about to buy a semi-pro camera for photographing textures and also references, any recommendations (as i have absolutely no idea what to look for etc)? Max ~250$ .
DaBeast: For $250-300 you can get either a Canon EOS 20D, or a Digital Rebel XT(350D). The 20d will cost a bit more, but if you're patient you can get a good deal for one on ebay. Usually you can even find them with the 18-55mm kit lens, but if not, you can pick up a variety of cheap lenses to go with it from ebay as well.
You can find a 28-80mm or 35-80mm kit lens(sometimes bundled with a EOS film camera, but they will work fine on digital) for around $20-60
You can find the 18-55mm EF-S kit for $30-60 or so
You can buy a 50mm 1.8 for $95 new, they dont sell for a whole lot less used, so its best to just get a new one. This is what i would recommend if you buy a body without a lens, as the 50mm is basically the sharpest lens Canon makes, sure it isn't as versatile as a zoom, but it is a very very good lens.
Last christmas i got a 350D + 18-55 + 2 Batterires + Remote shutter, shipped for about $300, and the promptly picked up the 50mm as well. They (both the 20D and 350D) should even be a little cheaper now, especially if you're patient(i really wasnt).
Oh, and if it means getting a real SLR over a "high-end" point and shoot, or a "SLR-LIKE" point and shoot camera, SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY. You'll kick yourself buying a "really nice" point and shoot for $250, only to realize its utter crap compared to a nice used SLR, for just a little more.
You won't get a dslr that does video for under 400 dollars, the 550 is the cheapest one that does it in the canon line I believe.
You reminded me of another point, the XXXD line uses pentamirrors to show the viewfinder, whereas the XXD line and above use pentaprisms. This results in a larger and brighter viewfinder, another plus for the 20D
Yeah i've swaped out my focus screen for a split image screen, and would REALLY REALLY like a larger and brighter viewfinder. I do a lot of messing about with older manual focus lenses and its.... Just hard as hell to use them! I've got a bunch of older film bodies laying around(that i bought for the lenses) and i get so jealous of the nice bright, fullframe finders on older cameras designed for MF lenses.
Hey EQ, was it difficult to swap the focus screen? I got a bunch of old manual lenses from my dad and it's a bit of a mess to focus. Some M42-EOS adapters have the chip so the camera can confirm focus, but unfortunately I don't have that one.
Also, one of the lenses has what seems to be a Nikon bayonet?
Anyone knows for sure what kind of adapter I need? The lever thing on the left is the shutter release.
Vcool: swapping it is easy, the instructions were a little tricky the first time, but i've since swapped them back and forth(if i want someone else to use the camera i'll throw the AF focus screen back in, otherwise people tend to get confused with the split prism). I got a cheap one on ebay, let me see if i can find it. People say the katzeye screens are brighter, but they're like 4x as expensive.
I think that is the one, i actually got the 45* split and i sort of regret it, its weird, i think the vertical(90* ?) split would be better. I ordered one from some seller in china too, i think it arrived in about 14 days, not bad, i've bought a couple cheap things like this(some m42 adapters etc too) from china without issue. You can usually spend a few more dollars and get a US seller however.
As far as the Nikon goes, Nikon has kept the same mount for a very long time, so there really is only one adapter. You just need the nikon-> ef adapter. I have two, one cheap generic one from ebay that was about $12 or so, and one "fotodiox" from amazon that i hoped would be a little better. Both sort of suck, they say the provide infinity focus but it seems to be just off, and they both are sort of hard to remove from the lens(not hard enough that i wouldn't suggest using them, but its annoying).
So you can definately use these, but if you plan on doing any landscapes or anything that requires infinity, they're a bit hard to use, as they seem to focus a little past infinity. Heres a list of lenses that i've tried(just to show it wasn't one off lense i have)
I've even tried a few Nikon AF lenses(a sigma and a quantaray) and they had the same infinity problem. Fotodiox has a "Pro" version of the converter, for about $80 i think and maybe that one is better, dunno, at that point it would be better to sell the lenses and just invest in a nice EF lens
Adaptors i have had great success with:
M42
Olympus OM
Pentax K, using pentax K lenses and a KPR lens(richo)
I also got a FD converter with cheap glass in it, that sucks, but i expected it to suck so, oh well!
[Edit] Oh as far as the "chiped" focus confirm adaptors, well i read a story where someone got a bad one and it fried his camera, so i'm a little leary. MF is hard tho.
[Edit2] Also, that is a Nikon NON-AI lens, or PRE-AI, which only really matters if you plan on using it with a nikon body, i dont think it even fits on the newer AF Film/Digital bodies.
katzeye are a crazy expensive but their optibrite feature is really worth it for those with cropped camera's (they tend to have really tiny viewfinders)
other than that, I've found the screens from http://www.focusingscreen.com/ to be good (tested on my D700). Just try to avoid the FSB/FSL/FSX standard matte screens as they are inferior compared to the canon/nikon cut screens.
katzeye are a crazy expensive but their optibrite feature is really worth it for those with cropped camera's (they tend to have really tiny viewfinders)
other than that, I've found the screens from http://www.focusingscreen.com/ to be good (tested on my D700). Just try to avoid the FSB/FSL/FSX standard matte screens as they are inferior compared to the canon/nikon cut screens.
Well, a friend of me who is a photographer, recommended the D40x (wich is slower then the D40, but has a higher resolusion, thus better for texture photographing). Is that any good? I also have to note that i will mostly use this camera for refference photographing, and texture photographing. So now i don't know wich once to buy, lol .
Both are not what you might call speed demons (2.5vs3fps)
For textures and references I find 6mp to be plenty enough, although 10mpx does allow you some leeway in cropping. However, the older D40 has a slightly better ISO performance. If you can get either one for roughly the same price, then the D40x might be better.
Well, a friend of me who is a photographer, recommended the D40x (wich is slower then the D40, but has a higher resolusion, thus better for texture photographing). Is that any good? I also have to note that i will mostly use this camera for refference photographing, and texture photographing. So now i don't know wich once to buy, lol .
A D40x would probably be fine. One thing to keep in mind about resolution, is more is not always better. A good expamle is the Canon 20D(someone asked about this earlier) with the 40D and 50D, they pack more, smaller pixels into the sensor to get more megapixels, when they do this, its going to give you more noise and thus worse image quality. So an argument can be made that on a crop body(anything but the $1000++ full frame Canon/Nikon bodies) around 8MP is ideal, anything over that and you start to get more noise, which decreases you "actual" resolution.... I may be making a bigger deal about this than needed, but its sort of a technical thing that many people overlook.
A D40x at 10 MP shouldn't suffer from this, but when you get to the 14MP + cameras with crop sensors, its can become an issue.
Next is sharpness, if you want to take pictures for photo reference, what is much more important than how many megapixels it has is the sharpness of your lens. If you have a cheap kit zoom lens, which tend to be a bit blurry, you're limited to the resolution of the lens, not the camera. So the best thing you can do here is to buy prime lenses (a 50mm 1.8 as i said before is a VERY sharp lens).
If you're going to stop down to f8-16 or so, sharpness of your lens becomes less of an issue, but then you're going to want to carry around a tripod as well. You want something that has great sharpness in the "usefull" range of f3.5-5.6 where you can generally shoot with available light outside and handhold. And the kit lenses tend to be pretty bad at those ranges.
So in reality, say you have a 10mp camera with the stock 18-55mm kit lens.
And i have a 8mp camera with a 50mm 1.8 prime lense.
Guess who will have more "real" resolution in their pictures?
Now, your 10mp camera with kit lens may take images that are "sharp enough" tho, sharpness can get very subjective....
Also, make sure you're shooting in RAW if you want the most sharpness and detail out of your images. Shooting in JPEG does 2 things:
1. Detail/Sharpness loss from jpeg compression, even at highest quality
2. Irreversible "noise reduction" is applied to your image, this is likely something you will want control over in photoshop instead of leaving to the camera to decide. The noise levels on my canon 350D are generally very acceptable, even at ISO 1600 i dont really do any noise reduction, as it generally just has that "film grain" effect that can look nice, as apposed to a super-noisey point and shoot camera that really needs the NR.
3. You get some more breathing room with your exposure as well, you can bump up or down a stop(EV +1 or -1) without losing any detail if you've over/underexposed. With Jpeg if you tried to bump your photo up a stop in post, you will lose a lot of the detail in the shadows that RAW retains.
One thing i would caution against with the cheaper Nikon bodies, they lack the focus pin that some lenses require, so getting a cheap nikon body means less lenses you can use, whereas with a cheap canon body, you can use the entire line of EF lenses.... Again, may not be an issue to you.
Replies
Black and white is really enjoyable, it reads well.
Even if i dont end up using it, i always check how it shows in black and white,
What type of cam/lenses do you use?
lake, dammed up by beavers, in algonquin park. Beavers are ace.
rapids on the niagara river with a bit of the old photomatix
and ... all together now .... awwwwwwww. WULLUF!
more going up on flickr when i have time to go through them, filled two 8gb cards
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmroberts/
Rens bug pictures and Pauls city captures are awesome too.
Can't wait till I get back home, going to find some nice places to snap some shots
Jordan, im planning on going to france in a month or two, Gavarnie area,
visit some mountains and shoot some nature, get some equipment
I tried some more bugs, but fuck me i need some quality, im sick and tired of poor shots, even if it will cost me 1k for a lens, i dont feel like picking up a camera and getting shit resolds each time.
Too bad he was camping in this T split, could not get a good angle on him.
Butterfly garden opened, so i might revisit that to get some shots, i managed to asdf up my whole shoot.
One more of hamilton but this one is a little covered in noise.
They seem pretty comparable to me, but it looks like the 20D has a larger sensor at 22.5x15 vs 22.2x14.8? Is that going to make much of a difference?
Get the 20D. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/281%7C0/(appareil2)/183%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon
The images will have a slight edge in quality, and the body itself is more durable and larger/easier to handel. Plus the 20D has a back wheel for controlling aperture, whereas the XXXd line has only one wheel on the front and you have to use a button modifier to control aperture instead of having a dedicated wheel. The 20D is rated for more shutter actuations before breaking than the 350 as well.
I went with the 350D cause i got a decent deal(2 batteries, 4gb card, kit lens, and remote shutter for about $300) on it, and the 20d's i was watching were going out of my price range($300 was my absolute max) on ebay(was being impatient). I sort of regret it now for the reasons above, image quality between the two its really pretty negligible, however ergonomics and usability, along with the much longer shutter rating make me long for a 20D. The 350D is a little cramped and uncomfortable to hold, just a littttle too small, also i think the 20D has a bigger view finder? I find the 350D's viewfinder to be sort of terrible. At the time the only thing i was factoring in was image quality and price, and there didn't seem to be much of a difference, however i feel knowing what i know now, the extra $50 would have been worth it.
Also, another thing to consider is getting a body that can do video, which i think neither the 20D or 350D can do.
Randomly ended up at a dudes blacklight party. Really wish i had a tripod so the shots wouldnt be so blurry or noisy. The s90 may be a good compact but you can only push her so far.
Anyway, still pretty new to this photography thingie, but aside from Env. Art, which is my job and my hobby, I believe I definitely found my new hobby!
Here's the link to my set
http://www.flickr.com/photos/helder_pinto/sets/
Posting a few photos here directly:
You won't get a dslr that does video for under 400 dollars, the 550 is the cheapest one that does it in the canon line I believe.
You reminded me of another point, the XXXD line uses pentamirrors to show the viewfinder, whereas the XXD line and above use pentaprisms. This results in a larger and brighter viewfinder, another plus for the 20D
Not my best stitch by a long shot. meh.
If anybody wants the absurdly huge original version for backgrounds or whatever, you can get it here: http://nicholaikropat.com/NIXPIX/KROPAT_BEACH_PANO_lg.jpg
Toronto had one of its first awesome torrential storms about a week or two ago now, and I was out on my porch with my camera. Here's the most 'stormy' looking of the bunch I took:
With the crazy heat wave we've been having here, I'm expecting a very epic storm to come (the predictions are for Friday
not really a recent photo, but I finally got around to put the set online, because of this thread
Larger version on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/urgaffel/4805871244/
all of my yellowstone photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mutantspoon/collections/72157624536131822/
I am about to buy a semi-pro camera for photographing textures and also references, any recommendations (as i have absolutely no idea what to look for etc)? Max ~250$ .
You can find a 28-80mm or 35-80mm kit lens(sometimes bundled with a EOS film camera, but they will work fine on digital) for around $20-60
You can find the 18-55mm EF-S kit for $30-60 or so
You can buy a 50mm 1.8 for $95 new, they dont sell for a whole lot less used, so its best to just get a new one. This is what i would recommend if you buy a body without a lens, as the 50mm is basically the sharpest lens Canon makes, sure it isn't as versatile as a zoom, but it is a very very good lens.
Last christmas i got a 350D + 18-55 + 2 Batterires + Remote shutter, shipped for about $300, and the promptly picked up the 50mm as well. They (both the 20D and 350D) should even be a little cheaper now, especially if you're patient(i really wasnt).
Oh, and if it means getting a real SLR over a "high-end" point and shoot, or a "SLR-LIKE" point and shoot camera, SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY. You'll kick yourself buying a "really nice" point and shoot for $250, only to realize its utter crap compared to a nice used SLR, for just a little more.
Yeah i've swaped out my focus screen for a split image screen, and would REALLY REALLY like a larger and brighter viewfinder. I do a lot of messing about with older manual focus lenses and its.... Just hard as hell to use them! I've got a bunch of older film bodies laying around(that i bought for the lenses) and i get so jealous of the nice bright, fullframe finders on older cameras designed for MF lenses.
Also, one of the lenses has what seems to be a Nikon bayonet?
Anyone knows for sure what kind of adapter I need? The lever thing on the left is the shutter release.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Single-180-Split-Image-Focus-Screen-fr-Canon-350D-400D-/320464197019?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4a9d27959b#ht_1331wt_1005
I think that is the one, i actually got the 45* split and i sort of regret it, its weird, i think the vertical(90* ?) split would be better. I ordered one from some seller in china too, i think it arrived in about 14 days, not bad, i've bought a couple cheap things like this(some m42 adapters etc too) from china without issue. You can usually spend a few more dollars and get a US seller however.
As far as the Nikon goes, Nikon has kept the same mount for a very long time, so there really is only one adapter. You just need the nikon-> ef adapter. I have two, one cheap generic one from ebay that was about $12 or so, and one "fotodiox" from amazon that i hoped would be a little better. Both sort of suck, they say the provide infinity focus but it seems to be just off, and they both are sort of hard to remove from the lens(not hard enough that i wouldn't suggest using them, but its annoying).
So you can definately use these, but if you plan on doing any landscapes or anything that requires infinity, they're a bit hard to use, as they seem to focus a little past infinity. Heres a list of lenses that i've tried(just to show it wasn't one off lense i have)
Nikkor Micro 55mm 2.8 AI
Nikkor Micro 55mm 3.5 NON-AI
Nikkor-S 50mm 1.4 NON-AI
Nikkor 50mm 1.4 NON-AI
Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AI
Nikkor-Q 135mm 3.5 NON-AI
I've even tried a few Nikon AF lenses(a sigma and a quantaray) and they had the same infinity problem. Fotodiox has a "Pro" version of the converter, for about $80 i think and maybe that one is better, dunno, at that point it would be better to sell the lenses and just invest in a nice EF lens
Adaptors i have had great success with:
M42
Olympus OM
Pentax K, using pentax K lenses and a KPR lens(richo)
I also got a FD converter with cheap glass in it, that sucks, but i expected it to suck so, oh well!
[Edit] Oh as far as the "chiped" focus confirm adaptors, well i read a story where someone got a bad one and it fried his camera, so i'm a little leary. MF is hard tho.
[Edit2] Also, that is a Nikon NON-AI lens, or PRE-AI, which only really matters if you plan on using it with a nikon body, i dont think it even fits on the newer AF Film/Digital bodies.
I was a bit worried about the chinese stuff, but it looks like it's safe.
other than that, I've found the screens from http://www.focusingscreen.com/ to be good (tested on my D700). Just try to avoid the FSB/FSL/FSX standard matte screens as they are inferior compared to the canon/nikon cut screens.
An average price of 80 dollars
Well, a friend of me who is a photographer, recommended the D40x (wich is slower then the D40, but has a higher resolusion, thus better for texture photographing). Is that any good? I also have to note that i will mostly use this camera for refference photographing, and texture photographing. So now i don't know wich once to buy, lol .
For textures and references I find 6mp to be plenty enough, although 10mpx does allow you some leeway in cropping. However, the older D40 has a slightly better ISO performance. If you can get either one for roughly the same price, then the D40x might be better.
A D40x would probably be fine. One thing to keep in mind about resolution, is more is not always better. A good expamle is the Canon 20D(someone asked about this earlier) with the 40D and 50D, they pack more, smaller pixels into the sensor to get more megapixels, when they do this, its going to give you more noise and thus worse image quality. So an argument can be made that on a crop body(anything but the $1000++ full frame Canon/Nikon bodies) around 8MP is ideal, anything over that and you start to get more noise, which decreases you "actual" resolution.... I may be making a bigger deal about this than needed, but its sort of a technical thing that many people overlook.
A D40x at 10 MP shouldn't suffer from this, but when you get to the 14MP + cameras with crop sensors, its can become an issue.
Next is sharpness, if you want to take pictures for photo reference, what is much more important than how many megapixels it has is the sharpness of your lens. If you have a cheap kit zoom lens, which tend to be a bit blurry, you're limited to the resolution of the lens, not the camera. So the best thing you can do here is to buy prime lenses (a 50mm 1.8 as i said before is a VERY sharp lens).
If you're going to stop down to f8-16 or so, sharpness of your lens becomes less of an issue, but then you're going to want to carry around a tripod as well. You want something that has great sharpness in the "usefull" range of f3.5-5.6 where you can generally shoot with available light outside and handhold. And the kit lenses tend to be pretty bad at those ranges.
So in reality, say you have a 10mp camera with the stock 18-55mm kit lens.
And i have a 8mp camera with a 50mm 1.8 prime lense.
Guess who will have more "real" resolution in their pictures?
Now, your 10mp camera with kit lens may take images that are "sharp enough" tho, sharpness can get very subjective....
Also, make sure you're shooting in RAW if you want the most sharpness and detail out of your images. Shooting in JPEG does 2 things:
1. Detail/Sharpness loss from jpeg compression, even at highest quality
2. Irreversible "noise reduction" is applied to your image, this is likely something you will want control over in photoshop instead of leaving to the camera to decide. The noise levels on my canon 350D are generally very acceptable, even at ISO 1600 i dont really do any noise reduction, as it generally just has that "film grain" effect that can look nice, as apposed to a super-noisey point and shoot camera that really needs the NR.
3. You get some more breathing room with your exposure as well, you can bump up or down a stop(EV +1 or -1) without losing any detail if you've over/underexposed. With Jpeg if you tried to bump your photo up a stop in post, you will lose a lot of the detail in the shadows that RAW retains.
One thing i would caution against with the cheaper Nikon bodies, they lack the focus pin that some lenses require, so getting a cheap nikon body means less lenses you can use, whereas with a cheap canon body, you can use the entire line of EF lenses.... Again, may not be an issue to you.
last night is Australia (10th july)
picking up some pretty cute chicks
Tiger, Tiger cafe, Perth.