Photography tips

[delayedinsanity]

I have to jump in and support the previous statement 'Proof that your camera doesn't really matter'... There are professional and even quite famous photographers that have never in their life picked up an SLR. National Geographic once told all their photographers that they couldn't use a high end DSLR for a month and handed out D40's to everybody. At first they were all mighty upset, until they remembered that it's not the equipment, it's the photographer that makes the biggest difference.

second i would never buy something thats going to touch my eye

Heh, no offense guy but you're not eating the camera. Also, it's easier to find new cameras on eBay than used anyways.

 

[Draiman]

I have to jump in and support the previous statement 'Proof that your camera doesn't really matter'... There are professional and even quite famous photographers that have never in their life picked up an SLR. National Geographic once told all their photographers that they couldn't use a high end DSLR for a month and handed out D40's to everybody. At first they were all mighty upset, until they remembered that it's not the equipment, it's the photographer that makes the biggest difference.

^

Hmm...Famous? Let's see some names. Tell me which photographer does a photoshoot or a wedding event, for instance, with a compact (= point-and-shoot) camera.

 

[Talkenlate04]

Putting money in glass is always the best way to go imo. I have close to 10k invested in glass right now with a few more lenses in my future and my whole setup has it's own insurance policy covering the entire value.
Those lenses will stand the test of time, (so long as I take care of them) 10k in lenses would make most people pucker but I do more then tinker with photos of spiders and they have paid for themselves a few times over already.

 

[Talkenlate04]

Proof that your camera doesn't really matter

Lol that is the most ridiculous comparison ever.
You had to change settings in the "camera that does not matter" to get the images produced. F11 with one image, F16 with another. If the camera means nothing shoot both cameras at the same settings and compare those results. Something tells me the results will be different then you presented.

I agree a new camera does not make the photographer, but a new camera still does better then an old one in capable hands otherwise there would be no reason at all to EVER make a new camera.

Let's not forget to mention you are comparing two camera bodies that were released in the last 3 years and are both SLR cameras. Pick up a point and shoot use that against your D300. There will be no contest at all. There is a reason you spent money on the D300. Unless you are trying to say you were duped into buying one.

LOL and the funniest part of all is you diss him for the price he paid for the D80 and the lenses he got, but then go on to recommend the NEWLY released D90. To make it hilarious you then state you don't see a reason to buy outdated stuff! If the camera did not matter why make such a statement? :?

I think the camera he got will do him just fine even if he paid full value for it. (and then some)

Uuuugh. I seriously hope you didn't spend $1400 on the D80 and those two lenses.

I actually found a pretty good deal for you. New D90, 18-105mm VR, and 70-300 VR for just a tad over what you spent. I'm sorry, but I really don't see the justification in buying outdated digital equipment. New digital camera gear comes out every 2 years so buying an already 2 year old camera brand new does not make any sense. I'm sorry if I can't convince you otherwise, but hey, its your money.

EDIT-And yes Cody Kerr I do think you got taken to the cleaners on the total price of the setup for what you got, but if you are happy then that is really all that matters. Enjoy it, I for one look forward to seeing the pictures you take with it in the future.

 

[Noexcuse4you]

Lol that is the most ridiculous comparison ever.
You had to change settings in the "camera that does not matter" to get the images produced. F11 with one image, F16 with another. If the camera means nothing shoot both cameras at the same settings and compare those results. Something tells me the results will be different then you presented.

Sorry, but changing the Fstop had little to do with the quality of photo. Yes, diffraction starts at around F11 and decreases sharpness a little at F16 but other than that, the settings were the same. If it makes you happy, I'll put the kit lens on F16 and take the same photo. I'll bet you they'll look the same.

I agree a new camera does not make the photographer, but a new camera still does better then an old one in capable hands otherwise there would be no reason at all to EVER make a new camera.

Let's not forget to mention you are comparing two camera bodies that were released in the last 3 years and are both SLR cameras. Pick up a point and shoot use that against your D300. There will be no contest at all.

Canon Powershot A510 3.2 Megapixel over 4 years old...

There is a reason you spent money on the D300. Unless you are trying to say you were duped into buying one.

That's pretty much what I'm saying and its why I try to help people with their camera buying decisions. If I could do it all over again, I would not have bought the D300. Look on the used market, how much does that camera go for now? I've seen them for $1100, certainly not the $1800 I spent in Dec. 2007. If I had kept the D40, I could've bought a bunch of better lenses for it.

LOL and the funniest part of all is you diss him for the price he paid for the D80 and the lenses he got, but then go on to recommend the NEWLY released D90. To make it hilarious you then state you don't see a reason to buy outdated stuff! If the camera did not matter why make such a statement? :?

Because that'd be like buying a brand spankin' new '91 Corolla right off the lot for the same price as a new '09 Corolla. If he got a screaming deal on the D80 I would've said go for it.

 

[codykrr]

thanks talken late....i was starting to feel as if i made a bad choice....i really like the camera and am happy with price i paid....thats was alot less than i planed on spending soo...i feel i saved. not to mention, like i said the price of the actual camera with lenses was only about 1200 then with the 5 year extended warranty 2 nuetral lens filters(to protect my lenses) and a new camera bag the total was a tad ove 1500(lens warrany was 80, camera ext. warranty was 200 and bag was 80)...and like i said again, give me a week to really get used to it and im sure my pics wont suck. and if they do...well thats why im going to school...

 

[Talkenlate04]

thanks talken late....i was starting to feel as if i made a bad choice....i really like the camera and am happy with price i paid....thats was alot less than i planed on spending soo...i feel i saved. not to mention, like i said the price of the actual camera with lenses was only about 1200 then with the 5 year extended warranty 2 nuetral lens filters(to protect my lenses) and a new camera bag the total was a tad ove 1500(lens warrany was 80, camera ext. warranty was 200 and bag was 80)...and like i said again, give me a week to really get used to it and im sure my pics wont suck. and if they do...well thats why im going to school...

Well plus the warranty. I think that is worth every penny myself. I have had to use both the Nikon warranty and the Mac warranty. Both instances should not have happened. The shutter died on my D300 after 3 months for one instance, and auto focus failed on my brand new D700 2 clicks after I opened it.
But both times I was taken care of quickly and I was very impressed with the after market warranty care I was given under the Mac warranty.

Lol and Kyle that Canon Powershot picture is lacking sharpness and color. That is painfully obvious.

 

[Noexcuse4you]

Lol and Kyle that Canon Powershot picture is lacking sharpness and color. That is painfully obvious.

Of course its not going to be as sharp or as vivid as a higher end camera. This camera was $150 new in 2005! My point was, is the difference really worth it? Do you really need that extra bit of sharpness? That's the question you need to ask yourself. For most people, the answer is no. And I'm not only speaking for cody when I'm writing here, I'm speaking for those that search for "tarantula photography" and wonder what they can do to improve their photography.

For anyone with some time to kill and is serious about photography here is a GREAT site to learn from.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

Ryan, I really wish you would start a public photo page on flickr or some similar site. I would love to see photos you've taken besides just tarantulas and HDR photos of your apartment complex!

That is all.

 

[Talkenlate04]

One more thing to point out , none of your pics you posted in this thread look natural at all to me. I have never seen an avic look like that in real life.
But that is the beauty of photography. It is open to some interpretation. Your way is your way and mine is mine. To me this is exactly how my gravid lady looks to my eye in real life.

 

[jharr]

It's only fair to compare photos in RAW format and even then you should also be looking at the histograms. Most p/s cameras do processing and compression in the camera, so what you are getting out is hard to compare to an SLR which generally do less unless you are shooting jpegs in auto mode. Even then it is hard to say that they both are processing the image the same. The image is the data collected from the ccd. After that, it is not just 'some' interpretation... it is ALL interpretation. If you are processing .nef files on perfectly calibrated hi-def monitors, you can be confident that you can get prints that look good IF the printer is also calibrated. However once you post the pic, you have no idea what anyone else is seeing on their monitor. It may look like magic to you, and look like dull crap to someone else on their laptop. Sometimes it is obvious that someone has bumped the saturation a little beyond 'natural', but those cases aside, it is pretty hard to compare gear over the net.

BTW, nice pics from everyone. Are they gallery quality? prolly not, but we're just friends sharing our hobbies here right? Cody, I think with a little more light or a touch higher ISO your shots will be much better. Remember that with macro, you are taking a much smaller amount of light into the body than with 'normal' focal lengths.

Oh, and I may have caused some confusion a few posts back when I mentioned my 50mm f1.4 lens. I took that lens off of the camera and held it backwards in front of the lens mount effectively creating a macro lens. That's all, there is not a macro setting on that lens, it is not even an AF (in fact there are absolutely no electronics in that lens), but man does it have some nice glass in it!

Just my $0.02,
J--

One more thing to point out , none of your pics you posted in this thread look natural at all to me. I have never seen an avic look like that in real life.
But that is the beauty of photography. It is open to some interpretation. Your way is your way and mine is mine. To me this is exactly how my gravid lady looks to my eye in real life.

QUOTE]

 

[Talkenlate04]

Jharr you missed my point all together. Photography has and always will be interpretation of the image. Some people take pictures and don't care at all what other people think because they like the end product and did not take it for anyone else.
One person can look at sunset picture and think it amazing, while another person might find it redundant and boring.

I do get your point though. (kind of)

 

[Draiman]

Of course its not going to be as sharp or as vivid as a higher end camera. This camera was $150 new in 2005! My point was, is the difference really worth it? Do you really need that extra bit of sharpness? That's the question you need to ask yourself. For most people, the answer is no. And I'm not only speaking for cody when I'm writing here, I'm speaking for those that search for "tarantula photography" and wonder what they can do to improve their photography.

For anyone with some time to kill and is serious about photography here is a GREAT site to learn from.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

Ryan, I really wish you would start a public photo page on flickr or some similar site. I would love to see photos you've taken besides just tarantulas and HDR photos of your apartment complex!

That is all.

Ken Rockwell? Anyone who actually listens to him won't learn much. He is biased in his reviews (towards Nikon) and doesn't always give accurate information. Professional photographers never take him seriously.

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9590&highlight=ken+rockwell

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11403&highlight=ken+rockwell

And by the way, all the photos you've posted in this thread are poor. The depth of field is so flat, it's almost non-existent. There is no bokeh, nothing. The photos are of the same sharpness everywhere in the frame. I'm not sure if you should be giving too much photography "advice".

 

[Thompson08]

Ken Rockwell? Anyone who actually listens to him won't learn much. He is biased in his reviews (towards Nikon) and doesn't always give accurate information. Professional photographers never take him seriously.

Read:

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11403&highlight=ken+rockwell

Ok but people who aren't proffessional( like me ) can actually learn a thing or two from him. Actually I was reading some of his articles and learned some new stuff.

Thanks for the link

 

[delayedinsanity]

Tell me which photographer does a photoshoot or a wedding event, for instance, with a compact

Nobody does a wedding with a p&c that knows what they are doing, with the possible exception of family. You're trying to compare one aspect of the entire spectrum and thus assuming that if you can't do that, you can't do anything else with it either.

My wife is in the process of getting her Bachelors of Science in digital photography and photojournalism, and while I was at the same time getting my BS in computer sciences I took some of her classes as electives. She could easily provide a list of names, but in particular I remember one video we watched of an elderly man who's been in photography for a number of years and is well known in the community who only does urban photography with a p&c as he doesn't want to be bothered with the complexities of an SLR when his art is about capturing a moment in time. I could look into it and find the name, but I'm not trying to take part in a pissing match here, I'm simply lending support to the fact that photography as an art form can be accomplished with whatever equipment suits YOU best (be it for mechanical reasons or even due to monetary ones).

You had to change settings in the "camera that does not matter" to get the images produced. F11 with one image, F16 with another.

I wonder where you're going with this? Aperture controls the amount of light entering your lens, and as a by-product the depth of field. Aperture alone does not control the quality of the image produced.

If the camera means nothing shoot both cameras at the same settings and compare those results.

If the T was to stay in the exact same position, your lighting was to remain constant, and you had a tripod holding each camera at the same angle, then yes the picture would probably look almost identical at the same settings. I hope nobody meant to imply that the camera means nothing, different cameras will always produce different results (even amongst comparable 'species', for example the D40x up against a 400D, a D3 against an EOS-1D, and so on). From an artistic perspective you can create anything with anything, the higher up you go in cameras only provides more convenience as to the control of the technical aspects.

You could give a disposable to Ansel Adams and an EOS-1D to Billy from down the street and I can 200% guarantee you Ansel will rock little Billy's world.

The last thing I'll say on the subject is that if you think having a high end digital makes you a good photographer, you need to find a new hobby. Look at anybody who does large format or pinhole photography for starters.

 

[Draiman]

I wonder where you're going with this? Aperture controls the amount of light entering your lens, and as a by-product the depth of field. Aperture alone does not control the quality of the image produced.

Aperture affects IQ drastically, if you haven't realised. Since Noexcuse4you was comparing two cameras with vastly different capabilities and saying that difference didn't matter, he should have used identical settings (as much as possible) on both cameras to make it a fair comparison. Surely you understand this?

 

[Talkenlate04]

but in particular I remember one video we watched of an elderly man who's been in photography for a number of years and is well known in the community who only does urban photography with a p&c as he doesn't want to be bothered with the complexities of an SLR when his art is about capturing a moment in time.

I think you are confusing a film photographers with digital photographers.
A manual film camera is not a point and shoot, and at this point in time digital is just barely starting to reach 35mm standard film quality. So that "old man" you are talking about that is shooting film is not in the group of people we have been comparing. Well ok not the group I have been comparing. A film purest that knows what they are doing can produce some of the best images I have EVER seen.

You could give a disposable to Ansel Adams and an EOS-1D to Billy from down the street and I can 200% guarantee you Ansel will rock little Billy's world.

If Billy had never touched a camera ever in his life then yes Ill give you that. But if Billy knows what he is doing to any degree then no I disagree.

Lol Ken Rockwell, funny stuff.

 

[Godzirra]

just wanted to throw in there, that the best closeup attachment lense is 'Raynox DCR250', i say if you are currently poor and only want to dish out $50 - then that's the closeup attachment for you!

it's crispy and fabulous

 

[codykrr]

nice godzirra!...and guys we can fight about gear for ages fact is...this is an open topic meaning that everyone has there way....i understand that no cameramakes any photographer better....but like i said i has felt i outgrew my old one. and again i appreciate all the help, but instead of argueing about gear why dont the people on here who can acually give a word of advice do so....i know id like the help for sure. i dont care what level photography your at you can always get better...always. so now that we have clear established 10 pages of pure bickering with few actual tips why dont you guys dish out some tips....only tip i can add is HAVE FUN! and try to get paid doing it thats what im after....so if any one can tell me more about iso, apature, and shutter speeds that would be awsome...for instnce.on my lens it says f5.6 is that the max apeture i can use for that lens? a tad new to the numbers being as my old camera didnt have any except for the built in lens.

 

[delayedinsanity]

Since Noexcuse4you was comparing two cameras with vastly different capabilities and saying that difference didn't matter, he should have used identical settings (as much as possible) on both cameras to make it a fair comparison. Surely you understand this?

No, I fully understand what you're saying there, I'm just saying a difference of one stop isn't a drastic difference. Were shutter speeds compared? Drop a stop and increase your shutter speed and you have the same settings in photography terms.

The primary difference between a p&c and an SLR from the controllers/technical point of view is a p&c assumes you don't know what you want, and chooses it for you, and an SLR hands the control over to you, the higher end the camera, the more control. However as far as quality (resolution in particular) if you have a 12mp p&c and an older 5 or 6 mp SLR, which ones going to have the higher quality? The photographer matters more than the camera, period. That isn't in any way to say having a better camera isn't nicer, the problem is most people see a better camera as more of a bragging right than a quality tool.

 

[delayedinsanity]

I think you are confusing a film photographers with digital photographers.

Erm, no I'm not heh, the guy I'm referring to uses a p&c digital. I know the difference.