|
mekilljoydammit posted:Yeah, Nikon doesn't have a quick and dirty distinction like that; they have a variety of alphabet soup denoting specific features (ED, N, FL, autofocus type, etc) and the better ones have a gold band near the end but they totally missed a marketing trick there. Oh good. It's not just me then. The ex shot with Nikon and I never reeeeeaaaaally got to grips with all the alphabet soup. As an aside for anyone wondering, STM (STepper Motor) AF lenses are a Focus-by-wire motor that sacrifices speed for quiet. USM (UltraSonic Motor) are faster but noisier so thence even tho USM are the older tech, USM is found on the high end L-Glass today. Also USM lenses can be focus changed without power, the same cant be said for STM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyqwLiowZiU - STM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI1dVUORqLc - Ring type USM Canon have a new version of USM called nanoUSM. This has the speed of USM but the silence of STM - but it's focus-by-wire so it needs power to work as well.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:The ex shot with Nikon and I never reeeeeaaaaally got to grips with all the alphabet soup. In fairness, the pro lenses for all the systems are basically the same focal lengths between systems - you know that any 70-200 F2.8 zoom is going to be one of the showoff lenses no matter what. I think the cheap Nikon lenses may be better than the cheap Canon lenses though; I'm mainly using one of the cheap-to-midrange FX 70-300 zooms on my DX thing for racing shots and it's pretty good. (better than me, lol)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:In fairness, the pro lenses for all the systems are basically the same focal lengths between systems - you know that any 70-200 F2.8 zoom is going to be one of the showoff lenses no matter what. I think the cheap Nikon lenses may be better than the cheap Canon lenses though; I'm mainly using one of the cheap-to-midrange FX 70-300 zooms on my DX thing for racing shots and it's pretty good. (better than me, lol) Mostly the same focal length certainly and it does bear repeating as I said when introducing lenses - 70-200 is where the money is to be made as those are the biggest margin lenses and where you win people into your system.... which is exactly why Sigma and Tameron have worked to imporve their offerings and why Sony right out of the gate threw everything at 70-200 F2.8 G (F4 70-200's are also extremely good and feature packed - and a grand cheaper) And again bears repeating - for motorsport if you have one good lens, make it at least a F4 70-200. However...... it also bears repeating that cash aint the way to guarenttee a good image. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8LOoQxSi8M Think about the background, think about what surrounds the subject, take your time and experiment over a dozen frames. Also sometimes just ignore any rules and try things different.  - That one took 20 frames and I had no idea how to do it beforehand - Again, trying out time elapse for this one. This one is pretty easy if you want to try something similar, it's basically a really long exposure and a say ISO 200 - you want the sensor to not really be sensitive so the cars look like they arent there except for the lights of headlights / taillights but you want to make it as clean as possible noise-wise. I think this was 30 sec exposure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
http://alliancemotorsport.org/newgallery/index.php?/category/37 All my WRC pictures this year. Some good, some very good, some bleh. https://www.facebook.com/marcus.dunn.545/media_set?set=a.10157158032754575&type=3 Or just look there for the good stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
This is excellent thread. I just have one thing to add to CAT INTERCEPTOR's goodness. CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:70-200 f4 IS RECOMMENDED TO BE IN YOUR KIT I am a half assed amateur photographer ape, and my Canon 70-200 f4 IS L is just about the only photography thing of value that I own. It's basically sentient. I don't even take pictures with it, I just help it aim. People keep looking at me funny because I back away from them to frame a photo. They have no idea that this lens just completely trashes any other photography device they may know. And it is light (as far as lenses go), durable, waterproof, and a joy to use. You can get it for under a grand. You can get the one without IS for under $500. Do not underestimate the power of the 70-200.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
70 - 200 2.8L FTW 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:70 - 200 2.8L FTW Send me one, please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:70 - 200 2.8L FTW If you can afford it of course..... So while I recommend the f4 version, the f2.8 versions are always better ...... but TBH you also need to balance that against the a grand more price. I lucked out years ago getting my 70-200 f2.8 L USM IS as the AUD actually reached parity with the USD and I picked up mine for.... 1500? I think? It was a ridiculous price anyway, easily half what I would have paid otherwise. Awesome lens, always been packed first, first on a 40D then on a 7D then recently 7D mk II and a 1D mk IV. Is a 2.8 worth the price difference over a f4? For 98% of the photograhpers they wont notice a difference in image quality or even use the 2.8 where it has real advantages (Any L Glass is awesome glass)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Okay so while I'm working out the next section - which will finally start addressing how to take a car picture! - there was something I just learned myself that is an important difference between DSLR's and Mirrorless camera bodies annnnd it makes for a large difference DSLR - OVF or Optical ViewFinder. That of course is the point of a DSLR in that you can see down the guts of the camera / lens via the mirror system - what you see tho down it is NOT what the sensor will see esp with light exposure. It is also of course unpowered and can be used while the camera is off. OVF's do not drain batteries and personally less eye strain to use. Mirrorless - Electronic ViewFinder. This is a small screen that displays what the sensor sees because there is no mirror. This is powered and thence cant be used when the camera is off. Basically serves the same purpose as LiveView except the screen int he viewfinder is smaller to fit in the viewfinder - TBH LiveView kind sucks to use a camera with mostly. Uses battery power so your battery life WILL be lower. Also as hinted there's eyestrain issues esp if you are looking down a viewfinder for a long time. That last one is fairly important to me as my eyes don't like having electronic screens so close. It may be to you too. Also I personally dont think EVF's are as crisp to look through as OVF's can be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
  Out shooting at cars legally. I... dont think I could have nailed that any better CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
   I'm fully prepared to believe even the pros that do motorbike photography for a living have a 1 in 10 keeper rate now. 500 odd photos, outright threw out 60, about half after that have issues, 25% are what I would call decent and 15% that are really good and what I was looking to capture. I was looking to go as low as 1/60th whiiiiiich isnt advised. 1/160th should be enough to get a good background blur at the kinds of speeds the bikes were doing. http://alliancemotorsport.org/newgallery/index.php?/category/45 CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Guys, I could use your advice. Father in law wanted a toy DSLR, a canon sx60, because a local retailer had a sale. I missed the window to buy it for him and the sx60 is no longer available there. I could upgrade him to the sx70, which from my understanding is a high end toy point & shoot I suppose, but I feel like it might be a waste as he mostly wanted it for the optical zoom capability (65x). I think this would be a good opportunity for me to get him an entry level dslr like a canon t7 and a decent lens and then I'd have something that the wife and I can supply him with birthday/christmas presents for the next 5 years. My personal bias is usually to get an entry level "pro" device over a top level "toy" device, but I know very little about different cameras so I would appreciate any words of wisdom from you guys who use them regularly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
^^^ Already answered offline But basically, what his father wanted was a Super Bridge camera - a point and shoot with huge change in focal lengths allowed. We worked out a Canon (I think 800D) was going to be only a touch more expensive with a super zoom kit lens THinking of lenses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lep-YZtAZ20 A visual guide to various lens types that is a great primer. The next part of this guide should be - or will be AF modes and zones, but I'm trying to work through more recent cameras and developments as the cameras I have are oldish and also Canon. Which isnt too much of a problem until we get to last years' group of mirrorless bodies and ooooooo gently caress what a rabbit hole. It's a good rabbit hole but also a lot to consume - the days of just centre focus are well and truly gone esp with fuzzy logic creeping into AF areas and also the expansion of AF points to cover the entire sensor, Eye AF and other smartish focus modes that will actively track subjects. This also really changes the video side as well but for camera nerds that have been around a long time it's headache inducing trying to understand what it all means. (It probably means in the end we just ignore all the new AF modes and stick to centre focus) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXCHBEEZeS4 See how silly this all gets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
What is this open-wheeled thing I spotted in San Diego?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:What is this open-wheeled thing I spotted in San Diego? I'm pretty sure it's not a BLUE Subaru Baja 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I doubt it's a BLUE HYUNDAI EXCEL that was at a rally I photographed recently either
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:I'm pretty sure it's not a BLUE Subaru Baja Open tubular steel frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Hmmm well then I suspect its a BLUE VETTE KART Srspost - actually I think it is that exact car. It's a Corvette that's stripped back in the style of Roadkill's Vette Kart / Cleetus MacFarlaine's "Leeroy" drag vette Kart
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
 apart from the wheels. otherwise absolutely would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Hmmm well then I suspect its a BLUE VETTE KART Exactly correct. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
http://alliancemotorsport.org/newgallery/index.php?/category/67 Ahhh didnt realise I hadnt osted this one yet - Rayy Des Femmes, with KB's wife behind the wheel of the WRC Tank       [timg]http://alliancemotorsport.org/newgallery/_data/i/upload/2019/02/23/20190223055805-69f91ba8-xx.jpg[timg]     
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
I know the photography business is pretty hard to break into if you want a consistent income, but do the pros in this thread have any advice for someone looking to do automotive photography for a living? I used to be in the photography industry, but never into cars. I have a buddy from those days looking to get out of the senior portraits and family portrait hellworld and pursuing his dream. I believe he has the technical skills, and will shoot from time to time for a little cash, but doesn't really know what to do past that. He has no real connection to the podunk hometown he's living in right now, which I'm pretty sure is important because you gotta be where the work is, right? I wouldn't know who pays for this stuff, though. Stock? News? Help me help my friend before he does something stupid like getting into bitcoin like he's been making noises about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Zapf Dingbat posted:I know the photography business is pretty hard to break into if you want a consistent income, but do the pros in this thread have any advice for someone looking to do automotive photography for a living? I used to be in the photography industry, but never into cars. I have a buddy from those days looking to get out of the senior portraits and family portrait hellworld and pursuing his dream. I believe he has the technical skills, and will shoot from time to time for a little cash, but doesn't really know what to do past that. You wont make money (apart from scraps) from auto photography these days. Even the "pros" don't do motorsport expecting much of a return - they have other jobs and other work to pay the bills. You wont get anything from the news sites unless the shot is truly extraordinary (Like a massive parts spewing wreck) Here's a tip - if you want to make some money with your cameras, start with event agencies like Finisherpix or Marathonphotos. That's where the weekend money is and yes you will get the contacts and you can make the jump from work for hire to full freelance. I've done work for one such agency for five years and I basically get my choice of jobs and also locations. My bucks from photography come from Triathlon and MTB, where I'll get more on one day than a year doing motorsport. I'm booked for a Ironman later this year and the base is 700 a day for the bulk work. Stock agencies might pay a couple bucks for a day at bigger events but you ain't making poo poo otherwise. Most of the good motorsport photographers do it because they love the sport, rather than for money. But if he does want to persist, go to local tracks and take shots, post them for people to download, network, work towards bigger tracks or find a series without a photographer. Talk to race directors for access - agree to do work the course in return for access. For rallying, do a road closure. After a couple of years you get to the point where you have a name and access comes easier. Like right now I have half a dozen clubs and series that all I have to do is pick up the phone, tell I want to take photos and I get the location I want. Also take photos of the backmarkers - they are ones who will pay for a CD or USB stick with images. Also doing agency work proves you arent just some dickhead, even if said agency isnt motorsport related Ohterwise you are more likely to make living money with Butts. CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Zapf Dingbat posted:I know the photography business is pretty hard to break into if you want a consistent income, but do the pros in this thread have any advice for someone looking to do automotive photography for a living? I used to be in the photography industry, but never into cars. I have a buddy from those days looking to get out of the senior portraits and family portrait hellworld and pursuing his dream. I believe he has the technical skills, and will shoot from time to time for a little cash, but doesn't really know what to do past that. Just go to events and take pictures and send them out to agencies, if they like the stuff they will call him. But yeah not much money to be made, there wasn't when I was doing it in 2004 so it has to be even worse now. There's just such a saturation of event photogs these days it's really hard to break into it at all much less make any worthwhile money at it, so you really gotta love what you're doing. I didn't love it enough to keep at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Good to know. At least he won't feel like a loser not making it work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
It depends on his expectations, if he's looking to make a living solely on motorsports photography that's a REALLY tall order. But if it's just part time making some money on the side it's much more achievable. The main problem imo with making a living at motorsports photography is the logistics. If you're doing it full time that means you're traveling across the country or even around the world and you can imagine the expenses that would come with that. I started shooting on spec building up my stock, driving for up to 12 hours to get to tracks and camping in a tent to save money because I wasn't even getting paid until my images sold. Once my stock built up and i was making money I splurged on a hotel room now and then but still camped to save money even up to the day I quit doing it. I also stayed in the southeast to limit travel time and expenses, because any more than that I'm just losing money. Add in time spent on the computer editing, captioning and transmitting, when you start doing the math on your hourly "wage" it's pretty depressing 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
I feel like photography as a way of making money is dying in general. Good quality photography gear and editing software is available to everyone. Getting good photos is still an art form, but with the easy accessibility there's just less motivation for people to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Pretty much, and I realized that a decade ago. No one is willing to pay for photography anymore because anyone can do it "good enough". Very few are willing to pay a pro enough these days in order for them to make a living. The only lucrative photography now days is weddings because nobody else wants to do it I've said it many times that if digital photography didn't exist I'd be doing pretty well because I know how to get a correct exposure the first time without looking at a screen. Most photogs these days would poo poo if they weren't able to check their images immediately for proper exposure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:I feel like photography as a way of making money is dying in general. Good quality photography gear and editing software is available to everyone. Getting good photos is still an art form, but with the easy accessibility there's just less motivation for people to pay for it. Unrelated, but your avatar still makes me smile every time. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:Pretty much, and I realized that a decade ago. No one is willing to pay for photography anymore because anyone can do it "good enough". Very few are willing to pay a pro enough these days in order for them to make a living. The only lucrative photography now days is weddings because nobody else wants to do it I kinda disagree. If you are lookign to be a specific kind of shooter, then yeah you are SOL. If you want to be a full time photojournalist, well given the camera phones all over the place now, you will get beaten by someone on the scene. However otherwise there's actually a decent amount of work out there, the difference is it's not something people would want to do as a hobby. Real estate is a big one for instance - that takes a lot of knowledge to get right. Event imagery is def still there. Portraits and sports are still there as well, there might be 100 people with good cameras in the stands but nothing beats access - agencies dont cover all of that. Agency work def is there (and as I ave said I can make good money on weekends). And yes weddings. You also have people making money talking poo poo about cameras One difference between how it was 20 years ago and today is the "I do imagery for a second income" like me. Honestly, it's enough to pay rent in Sydney and Sydney rents are savage. Okay sure there's no job adds for photographers but wind back to my last post, that's how you get an in on the industry these days. Go do some work for event photgraphy - it's not exciting but hey, 300-400 for 6 hours? Your regular 9-5 pay 50+ dollars an hour? quote:Good quality photography gear and editing software is available to everyone Interestingly, there's less people with good equipment these days. Given the rise of smart phones doing a good enough job, there's less enthusists carrying around huge glass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Well must be different over there then, because real estate doesn't pay poo poo here. And if you want to do portraits you gotta start your own business to make a living and gently caress that because then your life revolves around it. I've known and worked for friends with portrait studios, the time spent constantly marketing and running the business (with little time behind an actual camera) is not worth it. Customers don't want to pay the amount of money on photography that it takes to keep a portrait business afloat so it's a constant struggle, and the guys I mentioned didn't last that long. The only worthwhile money I've seen is weddings but you have to be a special person to want to do that. If you're lucky you can get into the commercial field but that depends on who you know/blow. I worked for a guy that had a pretty good gig doing strictly commercial but he was one of the few in the area that made a living at it and he was drat good. Good luck trying to take that guy's work, he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Work is still there, I never said it wasn't, it just doesn't pay poo poo to do full time. Part time sure, but you can't depend on it to make a living there's no way, not in the area I live in. CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Go do some work for event photgraphy - it's not exciting but hey, 300-400 for 6 hours? Your regular 9-5 pay 50+ dollars an hour? Lol I wish, if that was the case I'd still be doing it. Event photography doesn't pay diddly squat anymore around here. Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Apr 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:
35 USD an hour minimum for smaller events with the event photograpy I work with. After currency conversion thats pretty much 50AUD. Bigger events they do is indeed getting up to 50 USD an hour. It's not motorpsort but I'll take the money
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:Well must be different over there then, because real estate doesn't pay poo poo here. And if you want to do portraits you gotta start your own business to make a living and gently caress that because then your life revolves around it. I've known and worked for friends with portrait studios, the time spent constantly marketing and running the business (with little time behind an actual camera) is not worth it. Customers don't want to pay the amount of money on photography that it takes to keep a portrait business afloat so it's a constant struggle, and the guys I mentioned didn't last that long. The only worthwhile money I've seen is weddings but you have to be a special person to want to do that. If you're lucky you can get into the commercial field but that depends on who you know/blow. I worked for a guy that had a pretty good gig doing strictly commercial but he was one of the few in the area that made a living at it and he was drat good. Good luck trying to take that guy's work, he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Real estate here is getting hard on the HDR EVERYTHING bandwagon too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Real estate here is getting hard on the HDR EVERYTHING bandwagon too. I HDR my dick pics. quote:The next part of this guide should be - or will be AF modes and zones, but I'm trying to work through more recent cameras and developments as the cameras I have are oldish and also Canon. Which isnt too much of a problem until we get to last years' group of mirrorless bodies and ooooooo gently caress what a rabbit hole. It's a good rabbit hole but also a lot to consume - the days of just centre focus are well and truly gone esp with fuzzy logic creeping into AF areas and also the expansion of AF points to cover the entire sensor, Eye AF and other smartish focus modes that will actively track subjects. This also really changes the video side as well but for camera nerds that have been around a long time it's headache inducing trying to understand what it all means. Sloooooowly working through it. The new Sony's really are amazing abeit still with their drawbacks for motorsport.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:I HDR my dick pics. It really brings out the wrinkles and dried urine.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
I was shooting at night and got a bunch of lens flares. Would this be caused by my UV filter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:I was shooting at night and got a bunch of lens flares. Would this be caused by my UV filter? Possibly (and most likely) but also could just be light reflecting off the different elements in your lens. What lens were you using?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Canon 70-200 f4 nonIS lens, 50d body Both are fairly new to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
That was most likely caused by the UV filter. 70-200 doesnt bounce reflections like that. Worth repeating here that UV filters are in general useless and don't bother with them. Your lens wont be hurt by UV rays and they do ... not much to protect the lens otherwise. I'll only really use them in seriously dusty enviroments
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
I use them to protect the lens from scratches and physical damage, and I've broken a couple of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 22:07
|
|