Photography Discussion Thread

haha and it get's the "money shot".
I'm fine really with switching to a Canon. Really wanted to keep my 18-105mm Nikon lens though because I like it, but if I gotta sell the whole thing for a new setup, thats fine. I just hope Nikon doesn't all of a sudden realize what they've done and release an updated version...It will be a few months until I pick up some new gear.

Also thanks for the link Uncle. I'll check it out.

 

I just made a similar switch, although not for video purposes. The 28-135mm or 18-135mm canon lenses are a pretty good replacement for the 18-105mm VR.

I went from D3000, D90 + 18-105, 55-200, 28, 50, 85mm lenses to a 40D and 28-135 and 85 1.8 lenses - put away a lot of money into savings and haven't noticed a drop in quality.

 

That's interesting, as a canon user, I'd never have considered switching to canon from anything for their xx-135mm lenses, lol. The 85 1.8 is a different story altogether though I do want that lens, but I don't think I'm going to get it... If I get a 100mm macro, and a 50 1.4, it'll be too close to be of any use at all.

 

yeah, I said they are a good replacement for the 18-105, not that they are great! lol Neither is a great lens, but they cover the range that I take 90% of my pictures at, so it's basically a do it all lens. I owned the 18-105VR, and the 28-135mm blows it away on focusing speed.

For portraits, I love the 85mm so far, although I've not done a shoot with it yet. Also, my dad uses canon and has the 70-200 2.8L IS II :infinity: so I'll get to use that once in a while. Crazy lens, I'm jealous of you guys on here that own one!

I'm just making sure to only buy EF lenses so if I ever get a 5D they will still be usable. The original 5D is only going for around $800-900 in good condition, pretty good camera for that price. What is in your kit sirrith?

 

Ooh don't do that, you're missing out on tons of amazing lenses by doing that.. Remember you can always sell off the crop lenses when you do make the move. Don't buy for the future, buy for now

I use a 450D with the following lenses: canon 10-22, sigma 17-70 OS HSM, sigma 30 1.4, and canon 55-250. I had a canon 70-200 f4 IS, but I returned it because I didn't think I needed a $1300 lens, as I don't get paid to shoot, and for that amount of money, I think I'd rather just buy the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS in the future (or tamron 70-200 2.8 if I don't need IS/OS/VC, since its so much cheaper), since its better built, and has 2.8 (I didn't find it particularly useful to pay $1300 for an f4 lens, since my 55-250 is only half a stop to 1 stop slower, and paying an extra $1100 for USM, sharpness, and the not-so-impressive-for-an-L-lens build quality didn't really make sense). I've also got an Olympus E-P1 with a 17mm 2.8 pancake lens for when I don't want to carry my DSLR around.

I'm planning to add a tokina 100mm 2.8 macro, and a sigma 50 1.4 in the next year or so (probably around xmas), and as mentioned above, probably a 70-200 or some other telephoto when I feel the need to upgrade from my 55-250. Nowadays technology has improved so much that the quality we get from consumer lenses in some cases surpasses that of professional lenses from not too long ago (especially zooms), so I don't see the need to get top dollar equipment unless you're actually going pro, and even then you may not need to splurge four figures on your equipment.

 

how has your experience been with sigma lenses? I only had nikkors until now, and so far only had Canon lenses. the sigma 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 are definitely looking pretty good as far as price/performance goes.

I just feel like I can't justify lens purchases anymore, especially things over a few hundred (ahem L series...) The nice thing about the L series is that the total cost to own one for a few years is pretty small since they have such a high resale value.

 

in my experience i've found sigma lens tend to overexpose alot, here's a quick review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eLPEPw4Vk&feature=channel_video_title

 

Yeah my next lens purchase will probably hurt. I was originally looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8G, but the price went up recently (now $2000 from $1700) and now it seems really out of my range for an all in one lens.

 

Experience with sigma has been great in fact, I don't really see any reason to buy canon lenses anymore at the moment... both my sigmas cost less than their canon counterparts, and perform better in the case of the 30 1.4, and almost as good in the case of the 17-70 (when compared to the 15-85) and better when compared to the 17-85 which is around the same price, as well as having better build quality.

I haven't found any exposure problems with my sigmas, but I have heard of some people who have, but IMO, if your lens overexposes by a fixed amount, you can just compensate for it whenever using that particular lens.

As for the 50 1.4, thats the lens to get, the canon version is simply not worth it now they've jacked the price up to within $50 of the sigma. the sigma is better in pretty much every way possible except size/weight if that matters to you, and I suppose QC reliability, since 3rd party lenses are never as good in that respect as OEM lenses.
The 70-200 2.8 is great value for the money I think, I'm also considering that, or the 50-150 since I'm using it on a crop, and the 100-300 f4, which gives stunning results from what I've seen, and all of them are very reasonable in terms of cost.

 

took a few today



i tried to get some photos of a dog in action but its harder than it would seem, i wanted to do something like this

PCTHUG
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=3967415&postcount=358

but well it dint happen quiet as planned heres the results

 

i think you may have oversharpened those pictures, i can see quite alot of grain for 400 iso..

 

yes i did mate, i used lens/motion sharpness to correct the little out of focus issue i had as even though i had a 550d + 70-200 L lens it still today had issues keeping up with the dig in action.. dont normally have an issue i think the light was alittle to low for the camera to deal with a dog running at a good mph lol

 

Damien, they dont look too bad, and certainly a good starting point for more practice.
Believe me, i get more poor ones than i do keepers, so keep at it.
Spaniels are so quick and turn in a flash, so not easy to photograph running.
Use a slightly small aperture for a greater depth of field, so more is in focus, This will allow for errors a little more.

 

HI ALL ok im think im finally getting the hang of my studio equipment what you think?

 

Those are some horrific freckles.

 

Keep the comments to the photography, not to the model. Atleast she is willing to pose and is a great looking girl. If you can do better then please post some up for us all to look at.

Damien, the first 2 are not too bad lightwise, but a little flat. Its best if you use a darker room, so you can let the light fall only where you want it to. Either that or use a smaller aperture and turn the lights up to cut a little ambient light. A light behind her head would have also give a wrap round effect.
Not keen on the pose (cutting feet/limbs off etc), or the facial expressions, but that will come in time.

When you take photos like this, stand back and take a photo of the light set up, so if it works you know what you did and if it doesnt you know where you went wrong.

The second 2 you have got a little lazy and didnt adjust the lighting from the first 2. That means the lights are far too low and have given her eyes that 'sinister' look as you used to get putting a torch under your chin as a child.
You have also used a wide angle making her bottom look larger than what it is. When using a crop camera dont go below 35mm, if you cant get everything in then change to a different location. Any less than this and it will look distorted (like these).

You will get there, just keep going at it, and remember to always have your lights higher than the models face.

 

not too keen on the poses as well damien, you should try looking through some fashion magazines and online for poses and stuff.
tell your model (if she's inexperienced) to do the same before coming to the shoot, so both of you have an idea on what to do and think about it before the shoot.

also, facial expression can make or break a photo, even if the pose or everything else is spot on.

 

I agree igor, but he first needs to nail his lighting.
When you have inexperienced models it is very difficult, but its great to have these as you can use them to practice on.
They may have a great look and facial expression, but if your lighting is way off then they will still look poor.
Its the complete package you need, but you also need to take it one step at a time.

Sort your lighting, then worry about the other things after this.

Take igors advice and look at magazines and modelling sites for help and inspiration and use what you have learnt. I have never seen any advice that suggest putting your lights lower than the models head.

 

Im thinking he should play around with the lighting prior to the model getting there(if he doesn't already) and plan out different positions and such in advance.

So when he is shooting the model, he doesn't need to spend alot of time adjusting lights and making sure everything is fine.

 

Yeah certainly.
Its a good idea, and i suggested months ago that he practice on something else before you even try a model.
I started off shooting the dogs toys, lol. But i then had an idea where the light was going to fall before i even spoke to a real life human model.

The wife does haidressing and has one of those manquin heads to practice on, he could even use something similar to work out lighting. But you cant beat the real thing.

Damien, i would suggest messing around with your lights in complete darkness (use blackout blinds or a big thick blanket over the widow, or shoot at night), whilst using your lights.
That way you will know EXACTLY where the light is falling before you even lift your camera, without any other distractions at all. Then introduce natural light to help the photo.

I am SURE that if you had set this up in darkness you would have noticed the poor low lighting and how unflattering it was and adjusted it.