Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[SVNTI]

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

Originally Posted by Kickmatic23

soo follow up the nikon v canon war i started.. i went to circuit city and both the d40x and xti were sold out... so dissapointed...

how is it the d40x is on clearance but the d40 isn't?

anyways back to the hunt for a good deal for a starter dSLR...

Correct me if I am wrong but i think the reason why the D40X is on clearance is because it is a discontinued model. (D60 replaced the D40X)
I think you might want to check Adorama, B&H, Ritz Camera, and J&R . Personally I like Adorama and Ritz they usually have pretty good deals.

On another note...(Nikon users) So I don't think I can wait anymore...but im still confused between the D90 and D200. But something is telling me that I should just save up and copp the D300. damn it.

Or should I just stick out with the D40 and buy lenses. I think I've mentioned it before that I was gonna buy the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 wide angle lens and the Sigma 30mm f/2. So either 2 lenses or a new camera body.

And I still want the Bogen-Manfrotto tripod + head.

I dont know what to do...I just dont want to do anything that I will regret. that's a lot of money.

Buy lenses man. If you don't NEED a new body.

 

[lovefortheair23]

 

[rap sizzle]

Originally Posted by elboricua 6

Should I pull the trigger on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L for $1100?

That's a good price on an amazing lens but you should ask yourself how often you'll be using those long focal lengths. Spending more thana grand on a lens that will collect dust would be a waste. In my opinion the 70-200 range is a lot more versatile on a full-frame body but of course, some feelthe opposite.

 

[elboricua 6]

^^Thats what Im thinking .. I bought the 55-250 out of impulse and I have used it once ... So maybe I just save on that money ..

on another hand - I'm looking to take a couple of classes soon or even read a few books .. any recommendations?

I feel like my pictures arent as sharp as other using the same equipment and I need to understand what am I doing wrong!

 

[rap sizzle]

To get absolute sharpness on non-L Canon lenses (aside from the 17-55), you really have to stop it down. Most of them are soft wide open. What lenses do youhave?

 

[elboricua 6]

17-55 - sigma 30 1.4 - canon 10-22 - canon 55-250

wat you mean stop it down?

 

[rap sizzle]

^ Use smaller apertures

Looking at what you have, you have a good set of lenses to cover the wide, medium and long focal ranges. Unless you start shooting indoor sports under fairlylow light, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't really needed. Again, this all really depends on what you prefer to shoot.

One tip though...if you don't already have one, I suggest getting a high quality filter like the 77mm B+W 010 MRC UV for your 17-55. You really don'twant to have dust get in there. Don't settle for some cheap $10 filter.

 

[elboricua 6]

so what apertures do you recommend on those lenses to get the super sharp pictures?

also the 17-55 has a canon filter since day one ..

I need to invest on some circular polarized filter for the sigma and the 10-22 and 17-55 .. I seen some before and after pics and its incredible the differenceespecially in the sky exposures ...

but yeah please explain the stop it down (to what aperture)?

 

[rap sizzle]

The 17-55 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses when wide open (at it's widest aperture which is 2.8 ). I don't see how you're having troublegetting sharp photos with it. The 10-22 should be fairly sharp at the center when wide open. The only two lenses I'd assume that's giving you anyproblems is the Sigma 30 and the 55-250. The 55-250 is a budget telephoto so you can't expect too much from it. Perhaps using f8 or more...but images wouldstill probably be fairly soft in the corners. As for the Sigma 30, I've read that there have been numerous complaints of back/front focus issues.

Personally, sharpness is overrated to me. I prefer to isolate my subject and get as much background blur as possible. The only thing I want to be sharp is mysubject. However when you start shooting at apertures below 2.0, depth of field becomes very narrow so you can't expect highly sharp subjects.

 

[pullupj8]

Man, everyone has a Canon or Nikon DSLR!

My GF got me my first DSLR for Christmas, a Sony A300 with the 18-70mm and 75-300mm lens. Lenses are ok, beginner lenses. They will do for now. I have aMinolta Maxxum AF 50mm/f1.7 on the way though. Looking forward to shooting with it. I'm also looking at picking up a Sony 42am or 56am external flash. Thena tripod after that.

 

[kix4kix]

Everybody has to start somewhere

 

[elboricua 6]

...

 

[kickmatic23]

ok so d40 kit for $410 or should i get the d40 kit+ 55-200mm vr lens for $510

does the VR really make a difference vs non VR lens or is it more of a gimmick?

 

[elboricua 6]

search CL n buy n XSi w/ kit lens 4 bout $550. imo that d40 is overprice

 

[SVNTI]

Originally Posted by elboricua 6

search CL n buy n XSi w/ kit lens 4 bout $550. imo that d40 is overprice

How is $510 for a D40 Kit which comes with the 18-55mm + 55-200mm VR overpriced? The 55-200mm VR alone is $200, and it's a hell of a lens.

That D40 kit + 55-200mm VR is a good deal, go for it.

 

[elboricua 6]

Found this within my 1st pictures ..

Thought I should share with them Nikons owners ..

 

[elboricua 6]

SaNTi0321 wrote:

---

elboricua 6 wrote:

---

search CL n buy n XSi w/ kit lens 4 bout $550. imo that d40 is overprice
How is $510 for a D40 Kit which comes with the 18-55mm + 55-200mm VR overpriced? The 55-200mm VR alone is $200, and it's a hell of a lens.

That D40 kit + 55-250mm VR is a good deal, go for it.



upps .. didnt read it completely .. thought it was just the 55-250mm lens

 

[backtotheknown]

boring sky today but i was still fooling around with HDR

 

[brooklynnyc3000]

I'm just starting to get into photography, so don't cap on me too hard.

 

[nealraj006]

brooklynnyc3000, don't take this the wrong way, but what are you shots really trying to portray? Because when I look at them, they seemlike they were just snapped out of nowhere.
I suggest that you analyze everything that's happening around you and take photos that have meaning. You need to learn what's happening and what'sgoing to happen. That's a great characteristic of a photographer. Read a book or two about photography and you should do fine. I used to take really randompictures before, but eventually you'll start taking more interesting photos.

 

[brooklynnyc3000]

Originally Posted by nealraj006

brooklynnyc3000, don't take this the wrong way, but what are you shots really trying to portray? Because when I look at them, they seem like they were just snapped out of nowhere.
I suggest that you analyze everything that's happening around you and take photos that have meaning. You need to learn what's happening and what's going to happen. That's a great characteristic of a photographer. Read a book or two about photography and you should do fine. I used to take really random pictures before, but eventually you'll start taking more interesting photos.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[seniosoul]

bookmarked... why have I been sleeping on this this...to broke to buy a good camera right now.

 

[i just got lucky]

Kickmatic...VR stands Vibration Reduction, pretty much the same as Canon's IS and Sigma's OS. What it does is it helps you take picswith less camera shake (not sure if this is the official term but that is what I call it)...from what I noticed VR is very usefull at night and when takingpictures in-doors with low lighting.

 

[abstract success]

just some random pics i found on my flickr

​

 

[abstract success]

forgot i had these. i did a behind the scenes of a calender shoot.

​