# Critiques Wanted (Macro)



## EulersK (Oct 1, 2016)

So, I have recently gotten into taking better photos of my tarantulas. I am by no means a professional, I have never formally studied photography, and I only have mid-tier range equipment. However, I've managed to get some pretty good shots, which tells me that with some help I can take my photography to the next level. I would very much appreciate some advice on bringing out the most in my photos - I have a few questions to ask, but feel free to throw in extra advice! I don't know what I don't know, after all.

Alright, since I'm sure this is pertinent information, here is what I'm working with. I have a Canon Powershot SX160 IS (specs: click me) and a Samsung Galaxy Note 7. I do not have any lighting of any kind beyond the stock flash. The vast, vast majority of my shots are with the Canon. So far, I've yet to get any great pictures with the Note 7.

Now, here's some of the best shots I've been able to produce. They are all from the Canon. I understand that a couple of them aren't quite macro, although my "macro" shots are all derived from shots like this that I take into Photoshop, crop, sharpen, and so on.










Now, here are the problems that I've been facing. If you keep tarantulas, you'll note that with only two exceptions those are all docile species. Skittish, perhaps, but docile. This is by design. For me to get these shots, I have to get the lens to within a few inches of the spider. This always either spooks them or results in a defensive spider. Can't say I blame them. So that's my first issue - how could I avoid this? I imagine that there's not much I can do on this front without getting a better camera.

Secondly comes the lighting. Without a flash on the camera, my shots _never_ turn out. Macro or not, my pictures always turn out blurry with dull coloration when I do not use a flash. They're garbage. Is there a way to avoid this?

Third, and forgive my lack of terminology on this one, I have trouble with depth of field. That is, there is only a few millimeters of depth that are in focus - the rest is horribly out of focus. A great example is of the red spider above. The abdomen is perfectly in focus, and the carapace ("head") is hardly passable. Is there a way to fix this? I've read something about aperture, but I don't think I can adjust this on my camera...

I suppose that's about it. I know for a fact that @Flexzone has managed to get some _amazing_ shots with his Note 3, so I'm clearly doing something wrong here. Thank you for any help, I really appreciate it! I look forward to developing my skill here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Haemus (Oct 2, 2016)

I've learned so much from your youtube channel, I'll lend any help I can 

Firstly, you can adjust the shooting distance from your tarantula by adjusting your focal length. If you're say using a 24mm focal length, you'll have to get a lot closer than an 85mm.

Secondly, you can throw in substitute lighting if you don't have a flash. I often use a flexible desk lamp and a big flash light when I'm taking shots with my phone. Cover the light with a paper towel or translucent paper and u have a soft light. You can even use your monitor by putting something white on the desktop and jacking the brightness. But nothing beats soft sunlight from a window in terms of pure color though.

Thirdly, your terminology is correct! Aperature is indeed what controls your depth of field. The higher the F#, the more of the scene will be sharp. Unfortunately, if you want the subject to fill the frame, it will not be entirely in focus. This is just the nature of the lens. Again, a way to help remedy this is increasing your focal length. But it will only minimize this effect, not completely fix it. My last few uploads were shot with a 105mm focal length at a maximum aperature of F36, and even then, the back of the enclosure and sometimes the back legs will go out of focus. 

Hope this helps, but your shots are pretty good already!

Reactions: Agree 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## EulersK (Oct 2, 2016)

Thank you so much for the detailed reply 



Haemus said:


> Firstly, you can adjust the shooting distance from your tarantula by adjusting your focal length. If you're say using a 24mm focal length, you'll have to get a lot closer than an 85mm.


Would adjusting focal length be a matter of an optical zoom? If not, then I don't see a setting for that in my camera at all.



Haemus said:


> Secondly, you can throw in substitute lighting if you don't have a flash. I often use a flexible desk lamp and a big flash light when I'm taking shots with my phone. Cover the light with a paper towel or translucent paper and u have a soft light. You can even use your monitor by putting something white on the desktop and jacking the brightness. But nothing beats soft sunlight from a window in terms of pure color though.


Ah, great idea! I'm surprised I haven't done that with photography yet - I started doing that with filming a few episodes ago. I guess it just didn't occur to me. I still worry that it won't have the best of detail when zooming in, but I'll try it out and post the results here.



Haemus said:


> Thirdly, your terminology is correct! Aperature is indeed what controls your depth of field. The higher the F#, the more of the scene will be sharp. Unfortunately, if you want the subject to fill the frame, it will not be entirely in focus. This is just the nature of the lens. Again, a way to help remedy this is increasing your focal length. But it will only minimize this effect, not completely fix it. My last few uploads were shot with a 105mm focal length at a maximum aperature of F36, and even then, the back of the enclosure and sometimes the back legs will go out of focus.


I'm actually alright with that. Like I said, the majority of my shots are essentially zoomed in and cropped, so I think the aperature is what I need to focus on. Sometimes I love the result of foreground/background being out of focus, but I almost always don't want it.

I don't seem to be able to find _any_ of these settings on my camera. However, all of those options are available on my Note 7. So perhaps I need to be practicing with this...


----------



## Haemus (Oct 2, 2016)

EulersK said:


> Would adjusting focal length be a matter of an optical zoom?


 Indeed it is, well the #mm is. the 2x or 3x is somewhat meaningless

Optical zoom is to photography kinda like common names are to tarantula keeping. Its more correct to say focal length. For instance, both a 18-55mm and 70-200mm have 3x optical zoom, but are VERY different focal length wise


----------



## EulersK (Oct 2, 2016)

Haemus said:


> Indeed it is, well the #mm is. the 2x or 3x is somewhat meaningless
> 
> Optical zoom is to photography kinda like common names are to tarantula keeping. Its more correct to say focal length. For instance, both a 18-55mm and 70-200mm have 3x optical zoom, but are VERY different focal length wise


Ah, okay, I get it. So then it seems like the focal length is the biggest determine factor for macro photography, as it's what's actually magnifying the subject. Now that I know what these terms mean, my Note 7 pictures look a bit better. They still simply don't have the detail of the Canon, however. I'd imagine this is due to the lense - obviously the Canon has a massive focal length compared to the Note 7... right?


----------



## The Snark (Oct 3, 2016)

I bumped across something recently that helped me understand depth of field, focal length and distance, and how to compensate.
Akira Kurosawa, renown cinematographer, wanted a compromise of the detail of close ups, macros, and great depth of field. Apparently you can have one OR the other, or fudge a little of both.
He did some consulting and came up with a macro lens for a movie camera that provided great depth of field in full focus. With one minor problem. The lenses were telephoto and couldn't focus at less than about 50 yards. They were also close to 3 feet long requiring special supports and they cost a small fortune. Something along the lines of a quarter million dollars each at today's prices.
So much for full depth of field macro shots.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Haemus (Oct 3, 2016)

@EulersK Correct on the lens comparison. What smart phones these days do very well is auto tone and color balance the image, but it's all doable in photoshop and lightroom. If you pull out your image specs on your next batch I'll have a better idea of what's going on (F#, shutterspeed, ISO, focal length)

@The Snark three feet...That lens must've been something. Such precise glass is very cool.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 3, 2016)

Haemus said:


> @The Snark three feet...That lens must've been something.


Kurosawa had a scene in the movie Seven Samurai. He had in the foreground several people preparing for a bandit attack. Some very close to the camera. At the same time about 100 yards away, looking down a long shadowed lane he had some horsemen suddenly come around a bend in full charge. He wanted the charging horses and riders faces clearly visible as well as the itchy twitchy interaction of the people you are looking over the shoulders of in full focus. So he essentially rewrote the book on depth of field then and there. Stopped filming and went looking for a lens that could do both at once.
One of his specialties was layered scenes with activity in foreground, middle ground and distance - all in focus. Something movie makers and photographers have to avoid to this day or use CGI. Or Kurosawa's techniques and lenses like he had designed.
The lens for that scene cost $70,000 in 1954.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Chris LXXIX (Oct 3, 2016)

The Snark said:


> Kurosawa had a scene in the movie Seven Samurai. He had in the foreground several people preparing for a bandit attack. Some very close to the camera. At the same time about 100 yards away, looking down a long shadowed lane he had some horsemen suddenly come around a bend in full charge. He wanted the charging horses and riders faces clearly visible as well as the itchy twitchy interaction of the people you are looking over the shoulders of in full focus. So he essentially rewrote the book on depth of field then and there. Stopped filming and went looking for a lens that could do both at once.
> One of his specialties was layered scenes with activity in foreground, middle ground and distance - all in focus. Something movie makers and photographers have to avoid to this day or use CGI. Or Kurosawa's techniques and lenses like he had designed.
> The lens for that scene cost $70,000 in 1954.


On the other hand, in Italy, 1965, Mario Bava for his "Terrore nello spazio" (English title: Planet of the Vampires) used scenography made of cardboard and such, yet Ridley Scott was inspired for his "Alien". With the help of Alberto Bevilacqua and Antonio Rinaldi leading the "photography" part. 

This, and master Kurosawa one, two perfect, and completely differents, ways/examples for depict something, ah ah.


----------



## Chris LXXIX (Oct 3, 2016)

As for you, EulersK my man, your pics sucks, sorry for the brutal truth: you know, reason is, it's not that, only because your last "Mathematics T-Shirt Prey" (aka the next victim of that desert) was a photographer that you, all of a sudden, along with his equipment inherited even that ability, uh. You haven't reached the _Wendigo_ status.



jok my man

Reactions: Like 1 | Creative 1


----------



## EulersK (Oct 3, 2016)

Haemus said:


> If you pull out your image specs on your next batch I'll have a better idea of what's going on (F#, shutterspeed, ISO, focal length)


How would I find that information on the Canon? Would it be saved to the file itself?


----------



## Haemus (Oct 3, 2016)

@EulersK Yup! You're using PC? If so, right click on your image and click on details. Scroll down to camera information and it'll be there, if not, then there should be an option in your camera's settings that'll export camera info.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 3, 2016)

Haemus said:


> @EulersK Yup! You're using PC? If so, right click on your image and click on details. Scroll down to camera information and it'll be there, if not, then there should be an option in your camera's settings that'll export camera info.


Perfect! I'm on vacation at the moment so I don't have access to my computer, but I'll post that info when I get home. I also doubt that I don't have access to these settings on the Canon - I'll look more into that as well. 

Again, thank you for the help! I'll post that information this weekend.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## advan (Oct 4, 2016)

EulersK said:


> Now, here are the problems that I've been facing. If you keep tarantulas, you'll note that with only two exceptions those are all docile species. Skittish, perhaps, but docile. This is by design. For me to get these shots, I have to get the lens to within a few inches of the spider. This always either spooks them or results in a defensive spider. Can't say I blame them. So that's my first issue - how could I avoid this? I imagine that there's not much I can do on this front without getting a better camera.


The longer the focal length, the further away you'll be when shooting a subject. Don't worry about defensive spiders, you can get some great shots this way. 

I'm only about 2" away from this angry female _Omothymus schioedtei_








> Secondly comes the lighting. Without a flash on the camera, my shots _never_ turn out. Macro or not, my pictures always turn out blurry with dull coloration when I do not use a flash. They're garbage. Is there a way to avoid this?


Lighting is everything in photography. Many ways to get the exposure correct. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO are all related to how much light is getting to the sensor. The reason your photos are blurry without flash is the camera is trying to compensate for the amount of light. The way it is doing it is by shutter speed. You are seeing camera shake from your hands due to the longer shutter. When you use flash, the camera will have a shorter shutter speed and also if the flash duration is short, the flash actually freezes the image, not the shutter(ex. water drop photography). Best thing to do is keep using flash and diffuse it with paper, paper towels, anything to diffuse the light and get rid of hotspots. You'll also notice a lot more detail as well. 



> Third, and forgive my lack of terminology on this one, I have trouble with depth of field. That is, there is only a few millimeters of depth that are in focus - the rest is horribly out of focus. A great example is of the red spider above. The abdomen is perfectly in focus, and the carapace ("head") is hardly passable. Is there a way to fix this? I've read something about aperture, but I don't think I can adjust this on my camera...


As macro photographers, we are always battling DOF. Other photographers want really fast f1.4 lenses to use DOF to their advantage(Person is in focus and the background is creamy out of focus("bokeh")). The higher mag you go, the shorter your depth of field. The only real way around it is focus stacking. It is were multiple images are used at different areas of the subject that are in focus and a program in post stitches all the images together using the sharpest area of each one. A few ways to help is use the smallest aperture possible F16 and above. But you have to be careful because you'll start to get diffraction. Each camera/lens combo will be different, so you'll need to find that sweet spot for max DOF and minimal diffraction. My combo seems to be best at f18. 
Some tips to help without stacking. If you are shooting a spider, shoot directly above, think about DOF as a "wall" of sharpness. Get in focus as much as you can within the "thickness" of that "wall." When you are shooting a spider, don't worry too much about legs not being in focus. Just like when you look at people, your eyes are drawn to the subjects eyes. Worry about the eyes. I take a lot of shots and in post, zoom in and find the photo with the sharpest eyes and that is the one I pick to use.

Welcome to a new addiction.  -Chad

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Informative 2 | Helpful 1 | Award 1


----------



## EulersK (Oct 4, 2016)

Thank you so much for the reply! I'm a huge fan of your shots, everything I aspire to be  Just, y'know, on a budget. 



advan said:


> The longer the focal length, the further away you'll be when shooting a subject.


Why is this the case? Just because the lense is longer? And good God man, how could you possibly get that shot? I mean, I've seen your camera setup. You were probably half a block away with that shot.



advan said:


> Best thing to do is keep using flash and diffuse it with paper, paper towels, anything to diffuse the light and get rid of hotspots.


Ah, perfect, that really worked. I obviously haven't tried it on spiders yet, but putting a piece of craft tape over the flash worked wonderfully. I'll experiment with a few more methods.



advan said:


> A few ways to help is use the smallest aperture possible F16 and above.


Is this the aperture? Because all it seems to do is change the brightness...


----------



## Trenor (Oct 5, 2016)

advan said:


> When you are shooting a spider, don't worry too much about legs not being in focus. Just like when you look at people, your eyes are drawn to the subjects eyes. Worry about the eyes. I take a lot of shots and in post, zoom in and find the photo with the sharpest eyes and that is the one I pick to use.


This is the biggest factor I look at when deciding on keeping a T shot. No matter how sharp the rest of the photo is you don't have the eyes it all looks blurry.

Great run down on photography tips man.


----------



## Trenor (Oct 5, 2016)

EulersK said:


> Why is this the case? Just because the lense is longer? And good God man, how could you possibly get that shot? I mean, I've seen your camera setup. You were probably half a block away with that shot.


The longer the focal length the farther you can be from your subject to frame the same shot. A 20mm lens would have to be 5 times closer to get the same shot frame as a 100mm. This is why my 100mm micro lens is really great for these shots since you can be farther away. You can always take both at the same distance away and crop the 20mm to have the same framing as the 100mm but you lose resolution that way and when both are viewed on a nice display its clear which one has a crisp cleaner look. 



EulersK said:


> Ah, perfect, that really worked. I obviously haven't tried it on spiders yet, but putting a piece of craft tape over the flash worked wonderfully. I'll experiment with a few more methods.


I use defused flashes some but I've really got into using soft boxes with constant light. Often time with flashes you'll spook the T which doesn't allow for more shots. The constant light lets me take more shots without the T making a break for it's hide. As @advan said natural light is the best if available and if not my soft boxes give off "natural sunlight" from the bulbs. Desk lamps and other constant light sources also work but require more leveling to get the colors right. Before I got my light kits I used covered lamps when shooting indoors.



EulersK said:


> Is this the aperture? Because all it seems to do is change the brightness...


It is and that is what aperture does. It makes the hole bigger which lets in more light.

This article covers aperture and DOF pretty decent for a beginner overview.

Just so you know this is how it all starts. Now half of your T money will go to camera equipment.

Reactions: Helpful 1


----------



## Trenor (Oct 5, 2016)

advan said:


> The only real way around it is focus stacking. It is were multiple images are used at different areas of the subject that are in focus and a program in post stitches all the images together using the sharpest area of each one. A few ways to help is use the smallest aperture possible F16 and above. But you have to be careful because you'll start to get diffraction. Each camera/lens combo will be different, so you'll need to find that sweet spot for max DOF and minimal diffraction. My combo seems to be best at f18.


I have a manual micro rail I use for fine tuned macro shot focus but I am now looking at a controlled rail for multi image stacking. This is the one I'm on the verge of picking up.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 5, 2016)

Trenor said:


> The longer the focal length the farther you can be from your subject to frame the same shot. A 20mm lens would have to be 5 times closer to get the same shot frame as a 100mm. This is why my 100mm micro lens is really great for these shots since you can be farther away. You can always take both at the same distance away and crop the 20mm to have the same framing as the 100mm but you lose resolution that way and when both are viewed on a nice display its clear which one has a crisp cleaner look


Oh great, so it's actually a linear relationship. I wasn't expecting that - optics tend to follow exponents in physics. Those lenses are ridiculously expensive - I can't imagine dropping that kind of money on a lens!



Trenor said:


> Desk lamps and other constant light sources also work but require more leveling to get the colors right. Before I got my light kits I used covered lamps when shooting indoors


This is exactly what I'm doing for my videos, but you're right. It gives everything a yellow tint... which is fine for filming, not so much for photography. I found a guide online on how to make a soft box, I should invest that time. 



Trenor said:


> Just so you know this is how it all starts. Now half of your T money will go to camera equipment.


Half?! What I'm looking at is more than my entire T budget! I'd have to get the camera itself at a few hundred dollars, and then the proper lens. I'm looking at nearly a grand by the end of it. Now _this_ is an expensive hobby.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 5, 2016)

Double post...


----------



## Trenor (Oct 5, 2016)

You don't have to go all in at the start. It's like most hobbies you don't need the best of everything to get good photos.

If you are planning on getting into the photography as a hobby then I'd recommend at least starting out with a DSLR. This will give you a base to grow from.

I started out with a Canon Digital Rebel xti when I switched over to digital. I bought the camera body and an off brand lens for the type of photos I wanted to take. Over the years I have added lenses to my kit when I needed them. I've long since traded the camera body for a much nicer 5D that uses the same lenses. 

Most of my light kits have come from cragslist as it seems there are always someone getting rid of them for cheap. Same for tripods and other things.

Of course, I've got really good photos with my phone and with point & shoots. So it just depends on how much your into photography and if it's worth the extra cash.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 5, 2016)

Trenor said:


> This article covers aperture and DOF pretty decent for a beginner overview


Great article! I just got through reading that as well as ISO and shutter speed. This is a lot to take in, I'll tell you. Very little of it is intuitive. 

I'm going to start frequenting Craigslist for a second hand DSLR

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Trenor (Oct 6, 2016)

EulersK said:


> Great article! I just got through reading that as well as ISO and shutter speed. This is a lot to take in, I'll tell you. Very little of it is intuitive.


It is but you don't have to know it all (I don't) to have fun and get great shots. Partal modes can be nice when you know which setting you want to adjust and you just let the camera handle the rest. For instance aperture mode lets you set the aperture and the camera adjusts the ISO and shutter speed to compensate. That way you don't have to set everything yourself but still get the setting you want. 



EulersK said:


> I'm going to start frequenting Craigslist for a second hand DSLR


This is how it starts right here.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 6, 2016)

Trenor said:


> This is how it starts right here.


Well, no, _this_ is how it starts. I have the ability to get a Nikon D3300 for about half of MSRP through my job. That's still a chunk of change, though. From what I'm reading it's a great beginner DSLR, and the reviews I'm reading are complaining about things I don't think will matter to me. But some of the verbiage they used raised a question. 

Are lenses not all universal? That is, what fits on one camera won't fit on another? What a pain.


----------



## Trenor (Oct 6, 2016)

EulersK said:


> Well, no, _this_ is how it starts. I have the ability to get a Nikon D3300 for about half of MSRP through my job. That's still a chunk of change, though. From what I'm reading it's a great beginner DSLR, and the reviews I'm reading are complaining about things I don't think will matter to me. But some of the verbiage they used raised a question.
> 
> Are lenses not all universal? That is, what fits on one camera won't fit on another? What a pain.


Nice, does that come with a lens kit?

Lenses have mounting connectors so you have to buy the one for your camera Canon and Nikon are pretty good about keeping most of their lenses are compatible with most of their bodies. My Canon will take all lenses with the Canon EF lens mount which is a big chunk of the lenses they sale. You can't put Nikon glass on a Canon though and each have lenses that wont fit on some of their cameras so keep an eye out for that. If in the future you go to upgrade your camera body and want to use your old lenses just make sure it has the same mount.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 6, 2016)

Trenor said:


> Nice, does that come with a lens kit?
> 
> Lenses have mounting connectors so you have to buy the one for your camera Canon and Nikon are pretty good about keeping most of their lenses are compatible with most of their bodies. My Canon will take all lenses with the Canon EF lens mount which is a big chunk of the lenses they sale. You can't put Nikon glass on a Canon though and each have lenses that wont fit on some of their cameras so keep an eye out for that. If in the future you go to upgrade your camera body and want to use your old lenses just make sure it has the same mount.


Ugh, what a pain. Oh well. 

I've got two options. For $200, I get the body and a AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II Zoom Lens. For double the price, I get the same thing plus an AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G. 

From what @advan said, it doesn't seem like that extra lens would be worth it for my goal. The aperture has a narrow range of values, which doesn't give me much room to play with. Seems like I should save the money and save up for a proper macro lense.


----------



## EulersK (Oct 6, 2016)

Alright, I'm biting the bullet. After a few hours of reading, I think this is what I'm going for:

Nikon D3300 with included 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II Zoom Lens, refurbished ($200)
Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro Lens ($250)
I kept it just a hair over my $400 budget, and I got some killer deals in the process. Sure, the camera is refurbished, but I'm fine with that. That lens has some great reviews, and I think it'll be more than enough to get me started. 

Thank you @Trenor, @advan, and @Haemus for the help! There's no way I would have been able to navigate this maze of information without you guys.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Haemus (Oct 6, 2016)

@EulersK Congrats, and welcome to the hobby! Can't wait to see some pics with the new gear

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pannaking22 (Oct 6, 2016)

Boo Nikon  Just kidding, Nikon still has some excellent lenses and bodies, but I'm a Canon fan personally. One thing to keep in mind with your new kit is that it's going to take a lot of futzing around to get used to it and get the shots you really want. It might get a bit frustrating after a point. When I got my Canon Rebel T3, it took several days of me messing around with all the settings and trying to figure out proper lighting before I was able to get any halfway decent shots, and even then I wasn't all that happy with them. I kept messing around though and tried photographing things other than my spiders and after a point I started getting much nicer shots. I just finished doing a full upgrade of my gear (you can get great deals on secondhand gear here and here), so now I'm able to take great shots, some of which I'm actually really happy with and am contemplating printing and framing. BUT I know I wouldn't have been able to get to this point without spending a couple years learning and practicing and taking lots and lots of shots. Fancy gear certainly helps with shots, but nothing can beat good ol' practice. Plus it's kind of fun going back and seeing the shots you took when you first started as opposed to after you've had the kit for a few weeks/months/years.

You got a great deal with that gear and from some of the shots I've seen through that Tokina you'll be having lots of fun! Can't wait to see the shots you get!


----------



## EulersK (Oct 6, 2016)

pannaking22 said:


> Boo Nikon  Just kidding, Nikon still has some excellent lenses and bodies, but I'm a Canon fan personally. One thing to keep in mind with your new kit is that it's going to take a lot of futzing around to get used to it and get the shots you really want. It might get a bit frustrating after a point. When I got my Canon Rebel T3, it took several days of me messing around with all the settings and trying to figure out proper lighting before I was able to get any halfway decent shots, and even then I wasn't all that happy with them. I kept messing around though and tried photographing things other than my spiders and after a point I started getting much nicer shots. I just finished doing a full upgrade of my gear (you can get great deals on secondhand gear here and here), so now I'm able to take great shots, some of which I'm actually really happy with and am contemplating printing and framing. BUT I know I wouldn't have been able to get to this point without spending a couple years learning and practicing and taking lots and lots of shots. Fancy gear certainly helps with shots, but nothing can beat good ol' practice. Plus it's kind of fun going back and seeing the shots you took when you first started as opposed to after you've had the kit for a few weeks/months/years.
> 
> You got a great deal with that gear and from some of the shots I've seen through that Tokina you'll be having lots of fun! Can't wait to see the shots you get!


Thanks for those links, I'll keep them bookmarked. This largely dried out my hobby budget, but I know I'm missing a few crucial pieces of hardware. I like that the camera is a beginner level that gives me a bit of room to grow. I don't really see needing anything else any time soon, you know? I'm actually really looking forward to the learning process. Like you said, I love to see the progression over time. I'm a musician, so I know very well how long skills can take to develop!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pannaking22 (Oct 8, 2016)

EulersK said:


> Thanks for those links, I'll keep them bookmarked. This largely dried out my hobby budget, but I know I'm missing a few crucial pieces of hardware. I like that the camera is a beginner level that gives me a bit of room to grow. I don't really see needing anything else any time soon, you know? I'm actually really looking forward to the learning process. Like you said, I love to see the progression over time. I'm a musician, so I know very well how long skills can take to develop!


Agreed, that set up will definitely last you for a while  Have fun with your set up and enjoy learning how to use some great equipment!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

