|
I should have been more clear, I just keep my camera in 16:9 and I wasn't sure why some photos had cropped while others hadn't despite being in this mode. Anyway, as far as I know I hadn't changed modes at all since I stay in manual but I guess it's possible. Now that I know it's there I'll just export/compare the raw if I care about the image but I'm still curious as to why the camera itself sometimes doesn't crop the jpeg.
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
So I'm buying my first DSLR soon and I was wondering if this would be a good or bad deal. Canon EOS 60D, a canon 50mm f/1.8, canon 55-250mm lens, a speedlite 320ex and a canon bag for 1099$ CAD (I'm Canadian). This is new by the way. From what I could tell looking around, the camera is cheaper in the US, but bringing one here would end up costing me the same. But I found this deal and it looks pretty good, a lot of places charge that same price for just the camera and the kit lens.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
I don't know enough about current prices to judge that side of it, but both lenses are pretty narrow on a crop sensor - APS-C is called "crop" because the sensor is smaller than the old standard of 35mm film. But this is only relevant if you're used to a 35mm camera. A 50mm lens on a 60D will provide a view too narrow for things like pictures of your friends sitting at a dinner table indoors. I suggest you get a wide zoom, like the kit 17-55mm lens. Also quite cheap, and rather useful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
I would try to get the double zoom kit, yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
I would get that deal and treat yourself to a Tamron 17-50 or whatever the better than kit lens one is. You're saving money so you might as well throw it all into a better lens.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Any major things to definitely avoid when buying my first 'real' camera? I'm not sure if I should just buy a $500-$600 Canon/Nikon package when I see one on sale, or if I should just buy a used slightly older model for $200-$300. Basically going to be taking pictures of food after/being cooked, plants in the garden, and maybe my dog.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
I know canon has some 20% off refurb sales which are excellent. Most things are there because the box was damaged and no one wanted to buy it so essentially it's a new camera. The sales come every few months. Keep an eye on slickdeals.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
I think it depends on what you want to take pictures of/any features you know you're going to need. For example, if you know you need video, that puts a bottom on what you can buy.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Go to a store and fondle the cameras. Each manufacturer's cameras feel different, you will most likely discover that you like the way one camera mashes against your face better than others. This is important. An upper-market ("prosumer") second-hand body that's 3-4 years old can be had for the same price as a new entry-level body, and will have some nice features. Things like how far into the menus you have to dig to turn something on vs. a dedicated button, or weathersealing, or built-in wireless control of flashes, or two control wheels. For Nikon, one difference between entry-level and a step or two up is the ability to auto-focus some lenses, due to the placement of the autofocus motor inside the body - some Nikon AF lenses don't have a motor, so the body has to supply the force. EDIT: I'd take the $300 used body over the $600 kit - you can get the kit lenses (or better) for that $300 difference, and since you already know you're going to be shooting food, you could put the money towards a good flash and a macro lens.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Was looking for an excuse to get back into photography and while casually perusing Keh, I found a 17-50 2.8 for $235. BGN, granted but I've had good experiences in the past so yay for impulse buys. Time to dust off that 20D (that's how long I've been gone).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Whatre your guys feelings on buying off eBay? I came across what appears to be a pretty slick deal for a Canon 60D and accessories. I realize that whats included are probably kit-quality lenses, but it still seems good to me. Thoughts? http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-E...27cfc8966a#shId For comparison, a Canon 60D at my local shop is 999.00 with a kit 18-135mm lense.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
AmericanGeeksta posted:Whatre your guys feelings on buying off eBay? I came across what appears to be a pretty slick deal for a Canon 60D and accessories. I realize that whats included are probably kit-quality lenses, but it still seems good to me. Thoughts? Be reeeeeal careful of "Brooklyn" sellers who end up just trying to upsell you on dumb poo poo until you cancel your order. There's quite a few. Alo with those cards thrown in for free I'd expect them to be counterfeit. Maybe not, but all the "bundle" deals seem vaguely suspect. The 'accessories' (tripod, etc) will of course all be total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Be reeeeeal careful of "Brooklyn" sellers who end up just trying to upsell you on dumb poo poo until you cancel your order. There's quite a few. Doing that upsell/cancel bait and switch bullshit as an eBay seller will get you powerfucked by eBay. The accessories are agreed to be pretty much complete poo poo, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Doing that upsell/cancel bait and switch bullshit as an eBay seller will get you powerfucked by eBay. The accessories are agreed to be pretty much complete poo poo, yes. Tell me more about getting 'powerfucked'. But yes, aside from camera body and lenses, assume that everything else will be either counterfeit or total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
Good to know, I thought it might be so. Thanks duders, I appreciate you saving me from getting powerfucked.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
I'm planning to get a zoom lens for my D3100 but I'm a bit lost to be honest. Three options below: Nikon AF-S 55-300mm Sigma 70-300mm Tamron 70-300mm I need a pretty versatile lens. As well as the usual wildlife stuff, I'd like to shoot some sports at high shutter speeds. The Nikon is a little more expensive but it has VR and I think the AF would be quicker? How would the other two lenses compare? This is the first lens I've bought so I'm not too sure what I should be looking for.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
AmericanGeeksta posted:Good to know, I thought it might be so. Thanks duders, I appreciate you saving me from getting powerfucked. One think to also consider is what happens if something breaks or is faulty. Personally, I only buy camera stuff from an internet seller with a rock solid reputation or from a bricks and mortar shop where I can deal with someone face-to-face. If that bumps up the price by a few percent, I figure it is worth the extra cost.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
adamarama posted:I'm planning to get a zoom lens for my D3100 but I'm a bit lost to be honest. Three options below:
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Dorkroom, I'm going after a flash for my T3i next...are there any good sub-$100 ones? I recall some Chinese knockoffs being posted in the old thread somewhere that were supposedly good basic ones and only $70ish on Amazon, does anyone know which ones I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:Dorkroom, I'm going after a flash for my T3i next...are there any good sub-$100 ones? Probably the Yongnuo YN-560. There's a Mark I, II and III version. As I understand it, all have the same flash unit - the Mark II adds an LCD screen for settings, and the Mark III adds a built-in wireless triggere receiver. Pick the best deal for the features you need. Ebay is cheaper than Amazon, especially for the III.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
I also just picked up a Neewer TT560 which is even cheaper - haven't had a chance to use it a ton but it seems pretty solid for 40 bucks, and has a built-in optical slave and sync port.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
This might be a long post, so I apologize in advance but I doubt I should make my own thread. I want to get into photography as a side job, eventually a full-time gig doing the gamut: weddings, senior portraits, couples, events, the works. My current job I am a staff writer for several Midwestern newspapers. We have a skeleton crew, so I am often one of the lead photographers as well for city festivals and always responsible for my own art for my stories. In college, when I worked at the student newspaper, I took my student loans and bough a Nikon D40. Ten bucks a photo in the paper paid it back pretty quick, and that was my first inclination that I really, really enjoyed photography. I stuck with writing primarily. Then I graduated and got my job here, where I've been writing and shooting for the past year and a half. My current camera is a Canon EOS 5D MK I, with a Sigma 24-70 as my standard though I have access to a Sigma 70-300 telephoto but I rarely need it for up close stuff. I know my photography is decent. Decent enough for the newspaper and get compliments from my coworkers but I know I'm not that good at it. I only, the last few months, from reading these threads and talking with a lot of other photographers who do what I want to do, realized I'm still at square one in the knowledge department. My photog friends have basically told me I know how I want the photo to look, but not how to achieve it, etc. I know they are right. My current plan is I'm saving for a 7D, which my friend has and I get to test it out this weekend first, but buying the sucker is a way's off (freshly divorced reporters don't have alotta cash  )I bought the handy guidebooks in the OP, hope they're still relevant, can't wait to read them when they get to my mailbox. I'm buddying up with a couple photographers in my area who said they'd love to have me as a second string. Unpaid, but it would give me a chance to flex and learn without worrying I hosed up a wedding or something. So I'm asking, what else can I do beyond taking classes and the like? Am I going about it the wrong way or should I stop while I'm ahead and concentrate on something else? Here's my Flickr, so criticize away. Remember, I'm basically self-taught from the moment they shoved a camera in my hands when I got the job: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94568078@N05/ Again, sorry sorry if this should be posted elsewhere, I figure this is the most general thread for it 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
I'm not a pro photographer, but here's my two cents: Always keep trying to learn more, and always keep practising. Try to find photos you like & figure out how they achieved the shot. Whether it's the composition, the lighting, the camera, whatever... once you find out how they did it, you can try implementing parts of that into your own work. It sounds like you're on the right track. Just keep learning and practising and you will come out better than you were before.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Talk to the person in charge of that 5D - you might be surprised by how willing they are to let you take it home to practice. And by "practice" I mean whatever you'd be doing with your 7D. Just keep your own cards etc. After all, the better you are with it the better it is for them; talk to the right person and maybe they'll even send you to a few weekend classes. If you're already taking photos, it's a very low-cost, win-win proposition for them - they get improved content for next to nothing in corporate dollars. You just need to sell it in the right way to the right manager. Also, remember that you can write all of this off your taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Talk to the person in charge of that 5D - you might be surprised by how willing they are to let you take it home to practice. And by "practice" I mean whatever you'd be doing with your 7D. Just keep your own cards etc. After all, the better you are with it the better it is for them; talk to the right person and maybe they'll even send you to a few weekend classes. If you're already taking photos, it's a very low-cost, win-win proposition for them - they get improved content for next to nothing in corporate dollars. You just need to sell it in the right way to the right manager. I asked about classes before, it's a no go. I had to fight tooth and nail just to expense report my new camera bag. It's a low-budget game we have here.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I asked about classes before, it's a no go. I had to fight tooth and nail just to expense report my new camera bag. It's a low-budget game we have here. Yikes. And I thought my company was stingy. Well, at least ask if you can take the camera home to practice on. That's free for them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Yikes. And I thought my company was stingy. You'd think it'd be better with Warren Buffett owning my paper but nooooo. E:Hell, the plastic casing around my last lens cracked from wear and tear and my editor looked at me like I just stabbed his son. I'm surprised they didn't make me pay for it! crime fighting hog fucked around with this message at 16:54 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Here's my Flickr, so criticize away. Remember, I'm basically self-taught from the moment they shoved a camera in my hands when I got the job: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94568078@N05/ I dunno if this is the right thread either, but you invited criticism from anywhere in your photostream, so here's a little: (I'm posting small pics so as not to fill this thread with images, and to encourage others to click through to your flickr. Also, this is entirely my own opinions.)  IMG_8109 by Middleshoes, on Flickr This is good. Good timing, good position, good composition all around. My only problem with it is the shadow around the player - obviously you used a flash, the gym was probably pretty dark and you needed to keep your shutter speed up. You say you have no money, but what about post-processing software? What are you using to edit your shots?  IMG_5094 by Middleshoes, on Flickr "Decent but not outstanding". The comment there about a polarizer is good, you can pick one up for less than $100 and it will come in handy in lots of places. Composition-wise, GET LOW. LOWER. There's something about getting right down so the subject is at eye level or higher that makes lots of different subjects very interesting. For this car-show Mustang, I'd have liked to see this same shot but from about a foot closer to the ground. Getting wide and up close is also good, really emphasizes some things - you could make the front tires seem enormous, or the Pony emblem, or the custom license plate.  IMG_3613 by Middleshoes, on Flickr This is tricky. I like the subject matter, I like the bokeh. But something is missing. Maybe it's the lighting? You probably had to shoot this in the middle of the day, when this kind of thing would really benefit from some subdued, low-angle, red-orange light (i.e. golden hour, where everything always looks wonderful!). I know approximately nothing about lighting, but perhaps some fill flash, or a shade? Post some shots that you have some feelings about (I just picked more-or-less at random from your photostream) in PAD if you haven't already.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Sure, I'll pick some I'm proud of and some I'm not so happy about in that thread, I've been meaning to. Post processing is handled by my photo editor. We use Photoshop 4 for everything. Something that others have told me is weird is that we don't shoot in RAW, but large, due to our capacities in our archives and something about how our printers for the paper don't need that much detail anyways. I'm taking photos of some friends Saturday and plan to shoot in RAW for the first time and edit them myself. Funny enough those first two photos were when I just started shooting a lot more often so I was really flying by the seat of my pants in those situations. Gyms are the worst!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
RAW vs JPG is more about detail you can recover from the image when making the final JPG than it is about detail present in the final JPG. RAWs are way bigger than JPG so lack of archive space is probably the real issue.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Dren posted:RAW vs JPG is more about detail you can recover from the image when making the final JPG than it is about detail present in the final JPG. RAWs are way bigger than JPG so lack of archive space is probably the real issue. It used to be that in-camera processors were awful terrible and you got markedly better quality from a RAW you could process yourself. Recent generations of cameras seem to have ironed out this issue to some degree, but I think there is some residual feeling that an OOC JPEG is going to have quality issues like artifacting, etc. Also, it's pretty well standard practice for quick moving news organizations to work largely in JPEG vice RAW, due to time, processing, and storage constraints.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Especially since we have to edit the photos and send them onto the server downtown to be added to the system, which already gets overloaded with our page layout pdfs and such.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:(i.e. golden hour, where everything always looks wonderful!). It's funny you post this, it reminds me of how recently my wife and I were on our honeymoon taking some photos before we had to leave, bright and early in the morning. And god drat, even with a crappy little point & shoot, our photos were looking way better than anything we did during the previous week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
The Golden Hour was pretty much my first sperg-out as a photographer. "Ah man, the sun's going down. Pretty soon I won't have enough light to take any pictures at all. Might as well head for home." *10 minutes pass* "Holy crap! This is awesome! *holds down shutter button, fills memory card with 100's of near-identical poorly-composed images of boring landscapes*
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Golden hour is basically photography cheat codes. Vegas strip looks really nice at golden hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Dren posted:Golden hour is basically photography cheat codes. Vegas strip looks really nice at golden hour. Except for the fact that when you're trying to set up a specific shot, "golden hour" is more often "golden three and a half minutes".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Once something really weird happened where all the light had a pink tint. It was awesome, though I've never seen anything like it again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
fivre posted:Once something really weird happened where all the light had a pink tint. It was awesome, though I've never seen anything like it again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
I have noticed it when the sun is setting and a storm has just passed (the weather here usually moves from west to east). It happens from time to time, it just happened last week, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Just got notification that my first ever DSLR has been delivered. Canon 7D, Nifty 50 and Canon 15-85mm. Both excited as all hell and daunted by the amount of practice, reading and fundamentals that I am going to have to learn. Can't wait though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:36
|
|