|
Thoogsby posted:bayphoto.com RangerScum posted:I like adoramapix.com Thanks!
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
huhu posted:I've got almost no photography books in my collection. What should I get for Christmas? I was already thinking something by Robert Frank, Dorthea Lange, Henri Cartier Bresson, and Vivian Maier. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3572853
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
So there's a My FIRST DLSR link in the OP but it's in the archives and I can't read it. I'm looking to buy my dad a DLSR (his first) for his birthday. He's retiring and is very interested in photography, and is smart and patient enough to learn the intricacies of a complex camera even as a relative novice to photography. What do you guys recommend as the current best first camera that will last a long time? Price is not really an object. If it's really smart to buy separate glass, I'm also interested in doing so (but wouldn't know what to get first)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Convergence posted:So there's a My FIRST DLSR link in the OP but it's in the archives and I can't read it. Nikon D7200 is a great choice. All DSLR's have 'seperate' glass. You should be able to find a kit that includes a starter lens like an 18-55mm. e: Here's what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Convergence posted:So there's a My FIRST DLSR link in the OP but it's in the archives and I can't read it. The links in the OP are outdated, the current my first dslr thread is here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3533640&perpage=40&pagenumber=43
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
I have a Sony A55 with a stuck shutter which seems to be a common issue. My choices are to have it repair for like $200, which is almost the price of another one on eBay, repair it myself with a new shutter for $50, or sell it for parts. Is replacing the shutter a difficult thing to do? I tried looking for guides to replace it but all I find are people whining about the same thing and not offering solutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Perhaps if you looked for a more general teardown you can have a better idea of what it looks like inside, giving you a better estimate of the difficulty involved? I'd personally give fixing it a go, since you could still sell it for parts or have it professionally repaired if you gently caress it up. Does anyone have good tips/resources on taking better travel photos? I tried googling and all I could find were blogspammy fluff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Travel photos are just photos you took while on a trip. Trips can be anything; I "went on a trip" today to the liquor store (but didn't take any pictures, despite having my camera with me, in the car). Photos of the exotic locale to prove you were there? Look for ways to take better landscape photos. Stuff in museums? Look for ways to take better still-life photos (without being able to do much about lighting). Shots from the plane as you fly over wherever? Aerial photography, again without much of the control and with the bonus of shooting through a crappy plastic airliner window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Does anyone have good tips/resources on taking better travel photos? I tried googling and all I could find were blogspammy fluff. If you've taken pictures of 'named' places, then chances are a million other people have too. I like to go on to Flickr, and click the keyword name and bring up said million photos and compare to what I took, then 'rank' mine in comparison. It's interesting to look at the images I think are better than mine, and work out why. My most recent trip I did, my favourite photo spot was the Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi, and the main difference I see between my shots and the ones I like best are due to time of day (and hence, light). It's also a two-edged sword, however. If I find that my photos match the same composition that photos I like have, then I think "I have taken the photographically correct picture"... but in reality I should be thinking "This was the obvious angle, and I should've worked harder to taken something different to other people". The main drawback I find with travel is, if I'm somewhere interesting I'm generally with other people. That can make life difficult because people like doing the tours smack bang in the middle of the day, and for some reason they don't have any interest in standing in the same spot, waiting for the light to get interesting to get the one magical photo you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
It sort of depends what you want to get out of your travel photography, too. I mean, I take a million mindless snapshots when I'm travelling with minimal consideration of light and composition etc. It's nice to have photographic proof that I went someplace, but I know I'm not about to find a magical shot of say the Great Wall when I'm there for two hours in the middle of the day. But then it'll be 6am and the streets will be quiet and I'll go exploring around the hotel and that's when I'll take the shots that I really love - the unique, well lit moments that set your adventure apart from every other person who visited the same place. If you REALLY need that rad shot of the famous landmark, stay in a hotel right next to it and visit when the crowds haven't descended on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
When I travel, I don't even think about photography at all but when I see an interesting scene, I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:When I travel, I don't even think about photography at all but when I see an interesting scene, I'll take it. This is pretty much how I feel about it too, that's why I prioritize traveling light because I hate carrying a bunch of camera gear around with me. I got some amazing photos in the Philippines last year when I went with a 5D3, but there were times where I just left it in my room because I thought: "screw it, I don't want to carry that thing around with me right now".
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Does anyone have good tips/resources on taking better travel photos? I tried googling and all I could find were blogspammy fluff. For travel photography and also really for photography in general, I'd highly recommend http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/national-geographic-masters-of-photography.html. If you search on Ebay you could probably find the DVD set for cheap or hold out until they do a sale on the digital download which happens at least once a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
I make a promise to myself that the camera stays in the hotel/accommodation for about 50% of the time. 2 week stays are the best, because I can get it out of my system during the first week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
I'm terrible about developing pictures for my family that refuses to use digital, so I figured for Christmas I'd put together an few albums. Any recommendations for online print shops or are they all pretty much the same?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Kamakaze9 posted:I'm terrible about developing pictures for my family that refuses to use digital, so I figured for Christmas I'd put together an few albums. Any recommendations for online print shops or are they all pretty much the same? Wait who refuses to use digital? Is this like your parents? Drug store no longer develops film so they send it to you? That's kind of amusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
akadajet posted:Wait who refuses to use digital? Is this like your parents? Drug store no longer develops film so they send it to you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvu2QPQLlYA
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
I think he means printing instead of dev'ing
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
I've been procrastinating at work again and came across this discussion of photography-on-holiday http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/aug/16/how-to-take-better-holiday-photos-science I don't particularly like the writing style, but that's just me - it's oversimplified, but the points he makes are actually pretty good. It's not explicit, but one important point is that he's taking pictures of things that are distinctive or unique about the place he visited - red tile roofs and shiny marble streets, as well as the usual shots of cathedrals and harbours and sunsets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
close enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
man, this is the most depressing commercial "inexpensive film" smh
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
That's a pretty great commercial. Yeah, I meant printing. And yes it's for parents and other elder people (still to young to be as obstinate as they are).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
I'm not sure where to put this, but here seems OK. The 1980's TV show "World of Photography" has a Youtube channel (because of course it does), and around 200 segments of the show have been uploaded. I'd never heard of this show before, but they brought it up on Petapixel and I have a soft spot for 80's cameras and lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
I currently have a 30D and I'm trying to decide if I should get a 70D or if I should save up more and go to a full-frame model and lenses next. Most of my photography revolves around landscapes and sometimes wildlife, and I have done some photoshoots with friends (mostly with their pets). Beyond photoshoot prints I offer friends and family, I'm also hoping to sell prints of my non-client-specific photos (i.e., mostly landscape and wildlife). My goal for the coming year is to travel more (a trip to Colombia is in the works) and hopefully get more experience with portraiture as well. My initial thought is to go with the 70D and get more experienced with it first. Is there an advantage to jumping to full-frame at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
tau posted:I currently have a 30D and I'm trying to decide if I should get a 70D or if I should save up more and go to a full-frame model and lenses next. Most of my photography revolves around landscapes and sometimes wildlife, and I have done some photoshoots with friends (mostly with their pets). Beyond photoshoot prints I offer friends and family, I'm also hoping to sell prints of my non-client-specific photos (i.e., mostly landscape and wildlife). My goal for the coming year is to travel more (a trip to Colombia is in the works) and hopefully get more experience with portraiture as well. What lenses do you already have? The 6D is a great camera but if you currently have ef-s (crop sensor only) lenses you'll need to upgrade those. Also, keep in mind the 6D is not a wildlife camera first, particularly when paired with a 300mm lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
tau posted:I currently have a 30D and I'm trying to decide if I should get a 70D or if I should save up more and go to a full-frame model and lenses next. Most of my photography revolves around landscapes and sometimes wildlife, and I have done some photoshoots with friends (mostly with their pets). Beyond photoshoot prints I offer friends and family, I'm also hoping to sell prints of my non-client-specific photos (i.e., mostly landscape and wildlife). My goal for the coming year is to travel more (a trip to Colombia is in the works) and hopefully get more experience with portraiture as well. 5D2s are pretty cheap right now for how much camera you're getting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Yeah check the buy/sell thread if you're interested in upgrading to FF. Do note though I'm trying to sell off my 5D2 specifically because I want something with a crop factor and fast AF for bird photography, although for larger wildlife it's been very good. I have now also have a different camera that's dedicated to landscape photography, so haven't had as much use for a 5D, even though it's pretty great for landscapes, itself. Edit: I'll also note that, having seen what else is out there now, I personally wouldn't buy into Canon aps-c cameras for serious landscape and architecture work. I'm looking to get a 7D specifically for sports and wildlife. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:5D2s are pretty cheap right now for how much camera you're getting. edit: Though at SMERSH Mouth's price, it's a fair fight between the two. Nomenclature fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:What lenses do you already have? The 6D is a great camera but if you currently have ef-s (crop sensor only) lenses you'll need to upgrade those. Also, keep in mind the 6D is not a wildlife camera first, particularly when paired with a 300mm lens. I only have EF-S lenses (Canon nifty fifty and the 17-55; I often rent lenses). I realize that I'd have to start anew with the lenses, which is why I'm not sure if I would be better served getting a 70D now if I want to eventually try FF (i.e., I just put the all the money towards a decent lens and a used 5D2 instead of getting the 70D).  I have definitely considered getting a used 5D2, but again, I'm currently sitting with two EF-S lenses, so I'd have to do some additional upgrading on the lens front. Trying to think ahead, etc. That said, I would likely keep my 30D and the EF-S lenses as my alternates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I'm contemplating picking up the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for my D7100. I have an old Sigma 70-300 that doesn't have image stabilization, the lack of which I was noticing this fall as I used it to take photos at my kids soccer game. This lens would be mainly for taking pictures of my kids at their sporting events, and maybe as we hike around local parks (where generally the light will be good) -- not much indoors stuff, not serious birding, etc. I've heard good things about the Tamron, particularly for the price point, which with a current Tamron rebate are $350 on Amazon right now. So I basically was all set with this, but then started poking around reviews for the newer Tamron super-zoom -- the 16-300 F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD. I was on a trip with my family this weekend with just a 17-50mm on my camera, and didn't really want to lug around another lens or change lenses as we were walking around Colonial Williamsburg, but found myself missing some reach. I realize super-zooms entail certain trade offs and compromises compared having a dedicated zoom that covers 70-300, but this dpreview review of the lens seems relatively positive, while noting the tradeoffs. Does anyone have any hands-on experience comparing these two lenses? Any thoughts on whether the 16-300 would really be unsatisfying for photos at, say, a kid's soccer game or little league? I'm still leaning towards the 70-300, which seems like it would definitely be good for my initial plan (kids' sporting event), but having realized some instances where I would use a 16-300, I'm wondering if it's worth considering. Any advice would be welcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
tau posted:I only have EF-S lenses (Canon nifty fifty and the 17-55; I often rent lenses). I realize that I'd have to start anew with the lenses, which is why I'm not sure if I would be better served getting a 70D now if I want to eventually try FF (i.e., I just put the all the money towards a decent lens and a used 5D2 instead of getting the 70D). Nifty fifty is a FF lens so you've only got the one crop lens
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
What happens if you put an efs on a full frame? Itd mount right, seeing as you can out both on a crop Periscope vision or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:What happens if you put an efs on a full frame? Itd mount right, seeing as you can out both on a crop Vignetting, I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:What happens if you put an efs on a full frame? Itd mount right, seeing as you can out both on a crop You can put EF lenses on the EF-S mount but not EF-S lenses on EF mounts. You can however put 3rd party "EF-S" lenses (e.g. Sigma) on EF bodies. You will probably get vignetting and some might possibly damage the mirror.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I thougnt maybe you get a gimmicky effect that might be cool but nah not worth it if it can damage the mirror. I'm guessing its cause they are mounted much closer or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
You can put the Nikon crop lenses on FF bodies. Some of them cover the whole image circle wide open. I believe the 35mm 1.8g is one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:I thougnt maybe you get a gimmicky effect that might be cool but nah not worth it if it can damage the mirror. I'm guessing its cause they are mounted much closer or something? Yeah some of them have a rear element that might go deeper into the mirror box when focusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Dren posted:You can put the Nikon crop lenses on FF bodies. Some of them cover the whole image circle wide open. I believe the 35mm 1.8g is one. And the ff range has a 'DX mode' to auto crop out the vignette. You still see the full thing in the viewfinder but I think it has an outline to show you your final frame. Not too shabby if you have an 810 where the MP count it through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Does anyone have any hands-on experience comparing these two lenses? Any thoughts on whether the 16-300 would really be unsatisfying for photos at, say, a kid's soccer game or little league? I'm still leaning towards the 70-300, which seems like it would definitely be good for my initial plan (kids' sporting event), but having realized some instances where I would use a 16-300, I'm wondering if it's worth considering. Any advice would be welcome. You will encounter situations where you'd really like to quickly go from wide to very narrow (or the other way) and thus regret not having that enormous range in one lens. However, I think the image quality benefits of having two, purpose-specific lenses will outweigh that momentary regret. You'll miss a few shots (very few, I would think), but if you have that superzoom you'll miss MORE shots due to crappy image quality and the need to adjust settings - the exposure triangle - on the fly. In particular, the f/6.3 maximum aperture at 300mm of that superzoom is probably effectively unuseable. Variable-aperture zooms get a double-hit against their quality - in my experience - by being soft as hell wide-open, especially at their longest focal length. You'd have to stop down to at least f/8, probably further, to get even close to the sharpness you'll get out of a better-quality telezoom with a long-end maximum aperture of 5.6 (shooting at f/8, because that lens won't be great wide-open, either). It's hard to say for sure, especially given my lack of experience with any of those lenses - I could be flat wrong, and that 16-300 might be a stellar performer. But that's not where I'd bet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:10
|
|