# Photography tips



## white_feather (Jan 26, 2009)

Where can I go to get some tips on photography? I have a Fujifilm S100fd camera and want to get jiggy wit it, yo!


----------



## testdasi (Jan 26, 2009)

you mean photographing a Tarantula or general photographing tips? For the latter, you asked at the wrong place.


----------



## white_feather (Jan 26, 2009)

For tarantulas.


----------



## testdasi (Jan 26, 2009)

1. Turn on macro mode
2. Do not try to go too close, even at macro mode, most cameras have a certain minimum distance below which it cannot focus. You can always crop the necessary parts out.
3. If you take pics through enclosure walls with flash, keep the flash at at least 18 degrees from the vertical axis. That helps reduce the glare.
4. Keep the flash as far away as possible (by using the optical zoom). That also helps reducing glare.
5. Try use bright ambient lighting (e.g. natural sun light) in stead of flash.


----------



## chilean (Jan 26, 2009)

As for taking pictures through the glass, get close to the glass , but not too close.  If your T is near the glass put your camera on macro (little flower), press the shutter button half way down (to focus on the T), then click.  If your T is further, don't put on macro, but do press the shutter half way to make sure the T is in focus and not the glass.  Flash can ruin a picture when taking through glass, so take flash off or angle your camera to crop the glare later.

As for looking into the aquarium and taking a picture, you're not close enough to use your macro, so just press the shutter half way down (to focus) then click.

good luck and have fun


----------



## codykrr (Jan 26, 2009)

i know this thread is probaly going to be deleted, but i have a fugifilm s5000, it takes great pictures but doesnt get the amazing detail i want it too...like super macro shots. i am into photography of inverts and animals and some like mites, fleas, ticks...ect..ect just demand a better camera any one have a good idea of some cameras capibal with lenses and filters of course of doing this kind of photography? for instance....there was a thread i belive ryan posted about his GBB slings with spit fangs and it was so detailed and close....thats basically what im after.......this is probally going to bemoved i know but i was mainly interested because i like takingpics of inverts


----------



## testdasi (Jan 26, 2009)

You don't need an expensive camera. I use a basic point and shoot Fujifil Finepix F20 ($120!).

I personally have 2 devices right now. Beside the F20, I have a A Sony HDR-SR11 that I use to take vids AND pics because the pic quality is very good (that is in contrary to many's beliefs that video camcorder cannot take good still pictures). I can also mount various lenses on it as well. I currently only have a UV filter (more like a protector for the camera lens) because the 12X zoom + macro of the camcorder is very good. I don't want to compete with those expensive pro DSLR. But the question is do you really need something that pro? Most people I know who have a DSLR use less than 1/2 of the camera functionality.

I don't want to say it just for fun. Below are some quick pics (macro mode) of my GBB. Just took her out for these pics like 3 minutes ago. These are obviously not the best possible because I took in a hurry.


----------



## codykrr (Jan 26, 2009)

thanks alot...but i have a great camera already, its just that i have tested its limits, i have a fugifilm but cant find any really good lenses or filters for it yet....im found a canon i liked but i hear nikon is far better. im just wanting something i can do some really high def stuff with macro and far, just want something as good as what a pro uses without 50,000 dollars in camera gear expence...basically a practical yet above average camera....like 2000 to 5000 dollar range


----------



## moose35 (Jan 27, 2009)

a point and shoot can take great pics...if you know how to play with settings.


----------



## white_feather (Jan 27, 2009)

Nice pic Moose.


----------



## codykrr (Jan 27, 2009)

see my camera can do that easily....and indeed very nice pics guys....i guess im just asking for to much...


----------



## codykrr (Jan 27, 2009)

ok....i just took a very fast macro snapshot of my versi....this is at 6meg and i used a flash....any ideas on how to make it better? also when you guys take the close shot how far from the T are you....close? far but zoomed in? or what.....ps go to my pic link too see


----------



## moose35 (Jan 27, 2009)

take those same exact pics but hold a piece of white paper over the flash...try differnet thicknesses(or just keep folding the paper)

see if that changes anything for you



     moose

by the way....you can put your pics up on the board also...in case you didn't know.

let me know and i'll delete this


----------



## MizM (Jan 27, 2009)

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=112226&highlight=photographing


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 27, 2009)

I agree with everyone above that you dont need a DSLR camera to get great pictures.  Arachnoboards.com wont alloy you to upload huge pics anyways.  I have a DSLR canon XSI that takes absolutely stunning pics but when I crop them or resize them the quality is drastically deminished.  If you dont have a camera yet I would suggest a canon point and shoot around $200 bucks or less, with at least 8 mega pixels.  That will be more then enough.  Keep in mind to upload you will have to resize them in after or tweek with the settings inside the camera.


----------



## codykrr (Jan 27, 2009)

moose how did you post that!? everytime i try it says upload failed! jeeze i must be a moron.....thats why i just used flicker....and mizm i read that thread a while back it helped me alot...thanks anyhow though, i do appreciate it


----------



## aracnophiliac (Jan 27, 2009)

The best T. pictures iv seen on this or anyother page come from 
  "ICE COLD MILK"  he may have the info you want...His pictures are great.


----------



## aracnophiliac (Jan 27, 2009)

moose35 said:


> take those same exact pics but hold a piece of white paper over the flash...try differnet thicknesses(or just keep folding the paper)
> 
> see if that changes anything for you
> 
> ...



Wow the T in this Pic Is so adroable


----------



## codykrr (Jan 27, 2009)

yeah thats one of my ts(bahlue, from the jungle book) she is growing up....had her for about a year now


----------



## codykrr (Jan 27, 2009)

heres another one of my girls
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 75681


----------



## codykrr (Jan 27, 2009)

oh yeah thats my L.P. by the way....hows the pic?....i used the paper over the flash thing


----------



## _tots_ (Jan 27, 2009)

I think its a little noisy. Did you have the iso to high? 
The best thing you can do is PRACTICE try different setting, mess with the iso, shutter speed, lighting and etc.

heres some old pic with my nikon D70s using some close up filter.


----------



## Kris-wIth-a-K (Jan 27, 2009)

I also have a Fujifilm and personally love it but it is a battery eater only because it is also digital....  I think there is a big difference in details and how close a macro can get between an expensive Fuji to a regular digital..


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 27, 2009)

biomarine2000 said:


> I have a DSLR canon XSI that takes absolutely stunning pics but when I crop them or resize them the quality is drastically deminished.


You are doing something wrong then.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 27, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> You are doing something wrong then.


I resize the image to 1024 x 800 or so as arachnoboards states.  I save the image at around 250 kb or less.  It seems when I crop the image that it takes the quality away.  If you can explain what I'm doing wrong please let me know.  If you go to my picture thread you will be able to tell which images I cropped.  If you can explain to me how to fix it I would be eternally greatful.


----------



## WARPIG (Jan 27, 2009)

Inexpensive Cannon SE IS around $200 or so.






This has served me well till I upgrade.

Put on macro, point and shoot.
PIG-


----------



## matthias (Jan 28, 2009)

I loved my FujiFilm, best Non-SLR out there. I would still be using it if the CCD hadn't died. My advise is to go as manual as your camera will allow. Play with the F-stop, Aperture, and ISO. It's digital if you take a bad pic just delete it, but learn why it didn't come out. 

You can take really GOOD pictures with a non-SLR (or "SLR like" as FujiFilm says). But to take great shots you need to move up to DSLR. I bought my Olympus 410 for ~$500 with a basic lens and another $400 for a macro lens
I would love to drop another grand or two on a ring flash, macro extention tube, telephoto ect. but this setup does just fine right now.

This isn't the greatest pic but it's what I have with me


----------



## aracnophiliac (Jan 28, 2009)

brachy.P said:


> I also have a Fujifilm and personally love it but it is a battery eater only because it is also digital....  I think there is a big difference in details and how close a macro can get between an expensive Fuji to a regular digital..


The Thing at the top of the page...True spider?


----------



## testdasi (Jan 29, 2009)

Can't help but chip in. 
Close up pics of my A. genic. Very few (if any) would have thought these come from a *video camcorder*!
Original resolution around 5MP. *No cropping*, just resize to 640x480 so that it won't destroy formatting of the forum.


----------



## Hamburglar (Jan 29, 2009)

It is difficult to explain how to resize sometimes because everyone is using different software.   If you are using photoshop you can just resample the image and put 650-750 one the longest side.  Save as a jpeg and put the quality on one of the "high" settings.  It doesn't even need to be on the best quality.  If you are cropping a great deal of the image away and then trying to make that image a great deal larger, you might have some quality issues.  You are essentially stretching the pixels which isnt the best.  Every time you open and save a jpeg file you are losing a bit of the quality because jpegs compress the files to make them smaller.  This shouldn't be noticeable unless you are making larger prints.  tiff files are really the way to go but they are too large to use on the web most of the time.  If you have a choice of color profile to save in, the sRGB color space is generally better for web viewing.  You can edit in whatever you want.  I shoot and edit with adobe RGB but convert to sRGB for web photos or emails.  Just like anything else.. you have to fiddle with the knobs until you find a setting you like.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 29, 2009)

*sRGB*

I was told this by Talknlate04 and dont quite understand where to find out if it is saved in this way or aRGB.  Could someone tell me where to find it?  I am using adobe photoshop cs3


----------



## Hamburglar (Jan 29, 2009)

I am using CS2..  but on mine with your image open you go to "edit" (at the top left in the grey bar) then at the bottom of the selection box you will see "convert to profile".  You will then have window with a "source space" which is what color space you are in currently and then the "destination space" which is where you would change it to sRGB.  You can check the preview box to see what it will look like.  It shouldnt really change noticeably.  If you havent changed the color space settings it probably wont be in sRGB.  I dont think it saves in sRGB by default.  I have changed all of my default settings long ago so I could be wrong about that.


----------



## testdasi (Jan 29, 2009)

Why does it have to be so complicated? You can upload to photobucket and it automatically resizes to 640x480 (there are other size choices as well). I keep the original resolution on my hard drive and all pics in my photobucket are 640x480 - automatically, no need to do anything!


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 29, 2009)

testdasi said:


> Why does it have to be so complicated? You can upload to photobucket and it automatically resizes to 640x480 (there are other size choices as well). I keep the original resolution on my hard drive and all pics in my photobucket are 640x480 - automatically, no need to do anything!


That is not true for the higher end cameras. Yes photobucket will resize the photo but that has nothing to do with the loss of quality in the image he is talking about.
If the image is being saved in aRGB it will look like a big steaming pile of poo when it is uploaded onto a site like photobucket because aRGB is not really a compatible online format. I had this happen to me recently when I did not know photoshop was opening my NEF RAW photos in aRGB even thought they were taken in sRGB. There is a drastic difference in the image online between formats so it is important to be sure it is being saved in sRGB and not aRGB.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 29, 2009)

This image was resized to 1024 X 621, cropped a little, and saved a little over 200 kb. sRGB


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 29, 2009)

What were your settings on the camera when you took that picture? That image looks over sharpened like you used a high Fstop. I would look at the exif data myself but I don't have firefox at work.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 29, 2009)

I used the macro setting and high light.  I did tweek it a little in photoshop to bring out the contrast.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 29, 2009)

biomarine2000 said:


> I used the macro setting and high light.  I did tweek it a little in photoshop to bring out the contrast.


I thought you said you were using an DSLR?:?


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 29, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> What were your settings on the camera when you took that picture? That image looks over sharpened like you used a high Fstop. I would look at the exif data myself but I don't have firefox at work.


This is the pic without touchup at all.  Just cropped a hair.  This little guy is only about the size of a dime.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 29, 2009)

That looks MUCH better then the one you messed with in photoshop. MUCH, MUCH better. The photoshop one looks horrible and over saturated imo. (no offense)


----------



## moose35 (Jan 29, 2009)

i agree 100% 


that pic is soooo much better then the photoshopped 1




          moose


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 29, 2009)

I have to agree with you guys.  It looks good on my computer then when I upload it something is lost.  I guess I'll keep it simple.  Thanks for the opinions.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 29, 2009)

I find it easier to keep it simple and try my best now to not rely on photoshop for anything but the small fine adjustments. It becomes easy to lose track of the image and end up with a pile of poo as a finished product. I still over photoshop from time to time but I am trying to get better. Getting the shot right with the camera is always a better option, and if I were you I would stop using the macro function and start familiarizing yourself with manual mode. (the only way to go with an dslr in most cases imo).


----------



## Kris-wIth-a-K (Jan 29, 2009)

aracnophiliac said:


> The Thing at the top of the page...True spider?



Yeah a jumping spider.


----------



## Hamburglar (Jan 29, 2009)

The second versi looks much better.. just needs a curves/threshold color correction.  Nice job....


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 29, 2009)

Hamburglar said:


> The second versi looks much better.. just needs a curves/threshold color correction.  Nice job....


Thanks.  The opinions really help me with getting better as a hobby photographer.  I love taking photos of my T's.  Its borderline obsession.


----------



## Hamburglar (Jan 30, 2009)

No problem....  I should also mention that things might look very different on my monitor than others.  I have mine calibrated for color printing.  Many stock monitors have their color temp. around 9500k which is really hot and bright.  However, that is what most people like... a nice bright monitor.  Not so good for accurate color proofing though.  Mine is calibrated to around 6300-6500K.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Jan 30, 2009)

I will be puting together another computer that I just purchased all the guts for today within the next week or so.  I will be sure to calibrate everything the way needed to get the best quality possible.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 1, 2009)

ok guys...i have been playing around with some setting and i still suck....but i did get some great shot of my B. Smithi. tell me what you think


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 1, 2009)

codykrr said:


> ok guys...i have been playing around with some setting and i still suck....but i did get some great shot of my B. Smithi. tell me what you think


He/she looks awesome.  Those are really good shots of it.  I'm slowly learning that the more you tweek a picture the worse it looks online.  Its best to try and get the best shot possible when your taking the photo.  I have added some pics to my picture thread.  If you notice the first few are photoshopped, (which look great on my computer), but not so great online.  The further down the less I touched up.  Let me know what you guys think.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 1, 2009)

well you take waaaay better macro shots than i can..... nice collection too....wht kind of camera are you using? andi havent ever used photoshop....so i know nothing about that....my computer broke so i just use my ps3 for my internet needs...and it doesnt let me crop or resize pics....maybe ill buy a new computer soon...maybe.....see i am better at landscape pics and recently well about a year ago got into macro shots but i still suck at it.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 1, 2009)

codykrr said:


> well you take waaaay better macro shots than i can..... nice collection too....wht kind of camera are you using? andi havent ever used photoshop....so i know nothing about that....my computer broke so i just use my ps3 for my internet needs...and it doesnt let me crop or resize pics....maybe ill buy a new computer soon...maybe.....see i am better at landscape pics and recently well about a year ago got into macro shots but i still suck at it.


I recently upgraded from a canon point and shoot to a Canon XSI.  It is a cheaper DSLR camera that takes absolutely awesome shots.  I have tons of pics that I take of my tarantulas, vacations, and everything really.  I'm getting more loaded up on my picture thread almost everyday.  As we speak my T Blondi sling is molting.  I will be posting pics of that probably tomorrow.  Thanks for saying my macro looks good, I've been working hard to improve on my shots.  Trying different lighting and settings on the camera.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 2, 2009)

hey no problem...just stating what i thought...i liked them anyhow.....but see i just think its time for me to upgrage to a better camera anyhow...bc im tired of the Xd card fuji uses anyway because every thing is Sd now for some reason...but like i said i havent been into macro shots to much till recently so i thi k it would pay off to just invest in some equipment to better my photography....


----------



## Craig (Feb 2, 2009)

This was done with a fuji 6.1mp point and shoot digital. I bought the camera when 6.1mp was a big deal.













These were taken with a Fuji finepix Z20fd. This camera takes good pictures sometimes but I have noticed a few issues. I got this when 10mp was a big deal. 

























I have better pictures than these. They are closer and nicer.These were the only photos I had on my gf's computer. But as you can see if you want decent macro pictures you do not need a DSLR. I still own one though. I haven't gotten to take it out because of the crappy weather.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 11, 2009)

hey gus and gals...sorry to bring an old thread back...but i have a question...ok here we go...ok like i have said once before i have a fugifilm s5000 finepix and when i am in macro mode and trying to get a close up with flash on it cast a horrible shadow over the subject....how do i correct this....also i have crappy lighting with more red spectrum apperently so what are so good bulbs to use as a lighting sourse? will a macro ring flash works for my problem and if so where do i get one and what do they look like....because i am a little lost....thanks alot, cody kerr.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 11, 2009)

I am pretty sure you are kinda screwed when it comes to that. Your camera does not support an external flash so you can't use a slave flash to fire at the same time as your built in flash. This is going to limit you in the close close photos you try to take because of the lighting. That shadow is because the flash is not clearing the camera body (mainly the lens). There is no way around that really if you are using the flash, my only suggestion is to try and take advantage of natural lighting conditions when you can. If you can avoid using the flash and use other light sources you might be able to pull it off but other then that you are just stuck.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 12, 2009)

codykrr said:


> hey gus and gals...sorry to bring an old thread back...but i have a question...ok here we go...ok like i have said once before i have a fugifilm s5000 finepix and when i am in macro mode and trying to get a close up with flash on it cast a horrible shadow over the subject....how do i correct this....also i have crappy lighting with more red spectrum apperently so what are so good bulbs to use as a lighting sourse? will a macro ring flash works for my problem and if so where do i get one and what do they look like....because i am a little lost....thanks alot, cody kerr.


Such problems can be very difficult to remedy when you're using a compact instead of a DSLR. Compacts give you less control, hence the price. With a DSLR, one solution would be to get a macro lens with a greater focal length which would enable you to get good macro photos from some distance away; therefore shadows wouldn't be a problem; or get an external speedlight.

But I digress. For your case, there isn't much you can do except to avoid going too close to the object, and of course, to ensure adequate ambient lighting.


----------



## lmramsey89 (Feb 12, 2009)

You can try setting the white balance for incandescent lighting instead of the "auto" default. I just got a new cam and the first few pictures on "auto" were on the redder side, but if you set the white balance to compensate the pics turn out better.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 12, 2009)

lmramsey89 said:


> You can try setting the white balance for incandescent lighting instead of the "auto" default. I just got a new cam and the first few pictures on "auto" were on the redder side, but if you set the white balance to compensate the pics turn out better.


Changing the white balance settings won't help him at all in this case. The white balance settings are not causing the problem he is having with the shadow that is being cast.


----------



## testdasi (Feb 12, 2009)

@codykrr: *Read my post below!* There are certain *misconceptions* in some previous posts!

I saw on ebay a while back that there are some mobile external slave flash that does not need a hot shoe so you can basically set it near the T before taking pics. I don't know if it's gonna work or not but that's an option. Just go on ebay and search for "S5000" and "flash".

And DSLR is not the only type of camera that can fit external lens (and S5000 is not considered a "compact" camera). Almost all ultra zoom cameras are designed to be able to fit a conversion lens (and filters). S5000 is not the exception. After reading some review, the lens hood apparently douples up as a lens adapter (or rather the lens adapter doubles up as a lens hood). With the lens adapter, you can fit conversion lens (wide/telephoto/macro). Try searching on ebay again "S5000" and "lens" to have an idea, especially the thread diameter (I think yours is 55mm but I'm not sure). I don't recommend buying lens on ebay for daily use though because the lens ain't that good quality and good lens cost a fortune. Your camera alone is good enough.

Macro light ring is another possible alternative. And you should try to make sure you get one that fit your lens because the light ring will have to be fitted around the outter protective rim of your lens for max effect. I personally don't use it because...

The cheapest solution I think is just try to max all the normal light that you find around the T that you are taking pics. Or get a portable table light (the type that you can move around and change angle (to point at the T). Very cheap alternative with good result. Correcting white balance is a must for this method. I found flash cannot be compared to strong ambient light. And if you are just gonna turn on the light for 30 seconds to take pics then turn it off, I don't think the T's mind. Mine don't.

And I have an ultra zoom as well (Panasonic Lumix FZ28) so I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 12, 2009)

> I saw on ebay a while back that there are some mobile external slave flash that does not need a hot shoe so you can basically set it near the T before taking pics. I don't know if it's gonna work or not but that's an option. Just go on ebay and search for "S5000" and "flash".


His camera does NOT support an external flash of any kind. In addition to that it does not have a setting to change the white balance it is done automatically by the camera. 
His only choice as I mentioned already is to use natural lighting when ever possible, or as you mentioned get a lamp or other source of light. 
From my stand point it is a compact camera with some added features that are not normally found in a compact. 



> And DSLR is not the only type of camera that can fit external lens (and S5000 is not considered a "compact" camera). Almost all ultra zoom cameras are designed to be able to fit a conversion lens (and filters). S5000 is not the exception. After reading some review, the lens hood apparently douples up as a lens adapter (or rather the lens adapter doubles up as a lens hood). With the lens adapter, you can fit conversion lens (wide/telephoto/macro). Try searching on ebay again "S5000" and "lens" to have an idea, especially the thread diameter (I think yours is 55mm but I'm not sure). I don't recommend buying lens on ebay for daily use though because the lens ain't that good quality and good lens cost a fortune. Your camera alone is good enough.


None of this information fixes his flash problem. 

Here is a link from dp review.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/FujiFilm/fuji_finepixs5000.asp


----------



## testdasi (Feb 12, 2009)

I read the review as well. The thing is you don't need a hot shoe to support external flash. How the external flash I saw on ebay works is that it uses a preflash by the camera (e.g. red eye) as a synchronizing mechanism to flash at the appropriate time. The idea seems clever and at the very least, it was advertised to work with the s5000 camera. My point is that saying the camera does not support external flash so external flash can't be use is a misconception I believe.

The 2nd paragraph was a response to Garvin's comment that you can only fit macro lenses on DSLR to take macro pics from a distance away. I was just saying that it is actually possible to put on conversion lens for Codykrr's camera which is not a DSLR. I guess it "solves" the problem by allowing him to take macro pics from a distance away.

Ultra zoom is not a compact. The censor is bigger (so more light sensitive) but smaller than DSLR (allowing smaller zoom lens to be installed). Digital cameras are categorized in *DSLR* and *non-DSLR* (basically anything with a smaller censor than a DSLR and can shoot pics without having to buy a set of lenses). non-DSLR includes *ultrazoom* (or super zoom <-- at least 10x zoom, usually with the ability to use conversion lens and/or a hot shoe for external flash), *compact * (the type you can put in your pocket) and high end (everything can be adjusted manually and can use both conversion lens AND hot shoe for flash). There are also *Four Thirds* camera that are almost exactly like a DSLR but with a smaller censor.

Anyway, I was agreeing with Talkenlate04. I was also saying that lots of ambient light is actually best (and cheapest).


----------



## codykrr (Feb 12, 2009)

ha..ok guys all of your input in much appreciated but dont start fighting please...ok....yea my camera isnt a "badass" camera...but i did pay 400 bucks for it...also i can manually adjust the white balce...but doesnt do much at all...also...here my plan....my camera is good for some things....but macro isnt a strong point for the reason i explained...shadow casting...so...my plan...sell this camera...and buy a new one...im staring some photography classes next spring, and i want a really good all round camera....preferable one thats capible of some very amazing macro shots seeing as how i like flowers bugs....ect ect, and i hate taking pics of people but....i will need to anyway because people pay and bugs dont...so an all round camera is needed...also. one question that didnt get answer very clear is...what are some good ambient lighting options...? and yeah i called acamera shop today and there isnt any flash rings readily avalible thats worth buying....but, this is a great camera and i have definatly out grown it by far....so what is a good top line camera thats all round has many lens options and awsome quality? i need macro and flash rings...basically im wanting to drop around 4 thousand on camera and a few lenses and possible a flash ring....what are some good options...tis isnt just to have either im going to be taking classes and possible have a side buisness of sorts....so i need to make a "good investment"


----------



## testdasi (Feb 12, 2009)

Haha, we weren't fighting. Just some good debating. Anyway, what you are looking for basically points to a DSLR (warning! DSLR is the professional type so it will be bulky). When I looked for my camera, I used the following review sites a lot:

Camera Labs
Digital Camera Review
Photography Blog
The review seems to come from people who actually know what they are doing. And there are a lot of detail so you can read up.

What DSLR you should buy basically depends on how much you are willing to pay. And my advice for DSLR is make sure you buy a good set of lenses (not the ones that are included in cheaper DSLR "kits" <-- usually they are cheap lenses). It's not really a bad thing to use expensive good lenses on a decent DSLR. It's a very bad thing to use cheap lenses on a good DSLR.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 12, 2009)

awsome....any brand or model suggestions?...also yeah i dont plan on skimping any seeing as how id kinda like to make a semi living doing this.....im also thinking either canon or nikon....any suggestions? also...what are some good lenses for macro...?


----------



## testdasi (Feb 12, 2009)

For that, Talkenlate04 will be a lot more experienced than me. Try asking Rick McJimsey as well. He has some really good macro pics.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 12, 2009)

I am bias myself toward Nikon. I have used both Canon and Nikon and just keep coming back to Nikon. If you are talking long term I would invest in a mid range model of ether brand. 

Its going to cost you a bit of dough but its worth it. A good learning camera imo would be something like the Nikon D80 or even the D40. If you want to buy a very well reviewed camera that will be a good step up from the mid range cameras the Nikon D300 is amazing. It will set you back a few $1,000 to get the body a flash and lens but wow that is a killer camera. 

Dp review is the place I tinker on the most. Photo.net has a lot of good information as well and the same with Camera Labs, Ken Rockwell can be a tool sometimes but he has great info as well. 

First figure out what your goal is in photography then pick a camera that fits your goals. Your the one that has to be happy with it.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 12, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> His camera does NOT support an external flash of any kind. In addition to that it does not have a setting to change the white balance it is done automatically by the camera.
> His only choice as I mentioned already is to use natural lighting when ever possible, or as you mentioned get a lamp or other source of light.
> From my stand point it is a compact camera with some added features that are not normally found in a compact.
> 
> ...


You can get an SB-800 (discontinued) or an SB-900 and use it in SU-4 mode.  Any flash source will set it off, even one from a point and shoot.  You can also dial down the camera's on-board flash intensity to control how much light is coming from the on-board flash.  Also, the S5000 also does have an adjustable white balance: Auto, Sunny, Cloudy, Fluorescent 1, Fluorescent 2, Fluorescent 3, and Incandescent.

My suggestion is to get a used SB-800 or new SB-900 (overpriced IMO) plus a Rayonex DCR-250 macro lens.  The flash you can use with an SLR so even if you upgrade later, it will still work.  The Rayonex lens works with 52-67mm filter diameters so it'll also work with whatever kit lens comes with the SLR until you buy a dedicated macro lens.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 12, 2009)

Somehow I doubt he will want to spend the same amount if not MORE money then he spent on the camera for a flash, but maybe that is just me. 
So yes you are correct about how the 800/900 can be used but not really correct in the expectation for it to be bought for this camera. He is far better off upgrading his whole setup imo.



> Also, the S5000 also does have an adjustable white balance: Auto, Sunny, Cloudy, Fluorescent 1, Fluorescent 2, Fluorescent 3, and Incandescent.


Those are auto settings not settings you can change freely from within. You get what you get under the setting. I'll be more clear next time.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 12, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Somehow I doubt he will want to spend the same amount if not MORE money then he spent on the camera for a flash, but maybe that is just me.
> So yes you are correct about how the 800/900 can be used but not really correct in the expectation for it to be bought for this camera. He is far better off upgrading his whole setup imo.
> 
> 
> Those are auto settings not settings you can change freely from within. You get what you get under the setting. I'll be more clear next time.


Upgrading his whole setup would have to include buying an external flash if he's concerned about lighting so he'd have to spend that kind of money anyway.

If you never ever in your whole life plan on upgrading to an SLR, then you can get the standalone SU-4 flash adapter for $75 and a Vivitar 285HV flash for about $90 and it'd basically do the same thing.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 12, 2009)

codykrr said:


> awsome....any brand or model suggestions?...also yeah i dont plan on skimping any seeing as how id kinda like to make a semi living doing this.....im also thinking either canon or nikon....any suggestions? also...what are some good lenses for macro...?


I think he plans on upgrading.


----------



## testdasi (Feb 12, 2009)

The flash stuff I saw on ebay is very similar to that SB800/900 thingy but very cheap - like in the $30 or $40 price range. Must be one of those cheap spinoffs.

There seem to be a lot of Nikon DSLR fans out there.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 12, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> I think he plans on upgrading.


So then what's wrong with spending that kind of money if he'll have to do it anyway in the future? (unless he wants to use the on-board flash which will put him back in the same position he's in now) :?  This way he can play around with lighting while he saves for a better camera.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 12, 2009)

Ahh your right, buy the flash first, camera second. 
But in all seriousness you can't use the 800 anywhere near its capabilities with that camera he has, so while it might fire with his camera, it is not going to really be effective until he has a camera it is meant to work with. 
Not to mention if he settles on a canon there is no point in getting the sb-800/900.


----------



## jharr (Feb 13, 2009)

I see that this thread has turned into a hardware discussion, but I just thought I would put in a little info about resizing/scaling photos. What you need to keep in mind is that when you change the dimensions of a photo (not cropping, but scaling) you need to increase the # of pixels per inch at the same time. For example, if you have a photo that is 2000px by 1500px at 72 px/inch and you want it to be smaller, you can change the dimensions by 1/2 so you end up with a 1000px by 750px photo. However if you are still at 72 px/inch, you have just degraded the quality of your photo. You need to increase the pixel density by 4x to maintain the same level of detail. So your 1000x750px photo should have 288 px/in. That also increases the size of the file, so take that into account if you are trying to reach a certain MB number.

Hope this helps,
J--


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 13, 2009)

jharr said:


> I see that this thread has turned into a hardware discussion, but I just thought I would put in a little info about resizing/scaling photos. What you need to keep in mind is that when you change the dimensions of a photo (not cropping, but scaling) you need to increase the # of pixels per inch at the same time. For example, if you have a photo that is 2000px by 1500px at 72 px/inch and you want it to be smaller, you can change the dimensions by 1/2 so you end up with a 1000px by 750px photo. However if you are still at 72 px/inch, you have just degraded the quality of your photo. You need to increase the pixel density by 4x to maintain the same level of detail. So your 1000x750px photo should have 288 px/in. That also increases the size of the file, so take that into account if you are trying to reach a certain MB number.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> J--



You just solved my problem.  I was doing that exact thing.  Now I can crop the pictures and load them up and they wont look so stretched.  Thank you for posting this.  I've been getting so frusterated.


----------



## jharr (Feb 13, 2009)

No problem. I was stumped by this for a long time. Glad I could pass it along. Happy shooting!
J--



biomarine2000 said:


> You just solved my problem.  I was doing that exact thing.  Now I can crop the pictures and load them up and they wont look so stretched.  Thank you for posting this.  I've been getting so frusterated.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 14, 2009)

haha...well guys tomorrow im off. so im going to go shopping....theres a camera shop here in town im goin g to check out....the price range ifor me is about 4 grand...also...yea im upgrading!...i just feel the need to..kinda outgrown my old camera...its still nice and is in perfect working condition...also i am planing on getting a nikon....a macro lens...and a flash ring...like i said...this is a future investment, i do plan on trying to someday doing this as a living...and diddling around with t shots and other insects though there mainly my "hobby focus", i do see what you are saying buy just tryi ng to get new flashes to play around with, but while i got the money im just going all the way. also the photography classes im enrolling in this spring/summer hs finacial aid that will cover lens upgrades and tripods flashes just not the camera...sooo...if im lucky i may get me some government paid for flashes and lenses for school ! and i belive someone said im the one who has to be happy....but in the long run when i open a buisness its the clients im trying to please.....so even if i think its junk, and they like it then thats what i give them...supply and demand right?....another thing im curious about though....is...once i do start taking incredible shots....how do the pros devolope them?...since everything is digital now do they use a home printer , a photo machine, or what....?


----------



## codykrr (Feb 14, 2009)

oh yeah by the way....i took some pictures of a little baby mantid eating a cricket...i took about 15 shots and got maybe 2 that were "alright" imo....please critisize! or comment...or what ever...go to the link to see


----------



## jharr (Feb 14, 2009)

Cody,
Printing is a whole other discipline from photography. There is a huge amount of knowledge needed to do 'custom' printing. I have only scratched the surface, so I can't really help other than to point you to places like photo.net where the real experts hang out. $4k should get you a pretty nice pro-sumer rig and anyone will tell you that great cameras don't make great photographs. It is up to you and it sounds like you are on the right path. Taking classes and learning from people whose photos you like is the best way to be a better photographer. Post your photos on photo.net and request critiques there. It's what they do.

J--



codykrr said:


> ....how do the pros devolope them?...since everything is digital now do they use a home printer , a photo machine, or what....?


----------



## Draiman (Feb 14, 2009)

codykrr said:


> haha...well guys tomorrow im off. so im going to go shopping....theres a camera shop here in town im goin g to check out....the price range ifor me is about 4 grand...also...yea im upgrading!...i just feel the need to..kinda outgrown my old camera...its still nice and is in perfect working condition...also i am planing on getting a nikon....a macro lens...and a flash ring...like i said...this is a future investment, i do plan on trying to someday doing this as a living...and diddling around with t shots and other insects though there mainly my "hobby focus", i do see what you are saying buy just tryi ng to get new flashes to play around with, but while i got the money im just going all the way. also the photography classes im enrolling in this spring/summer hs finacial aid that will cover lens upgrades and tripods flashes just not the camera...sooo...if im lucky i may get me some government paid for flashes and lenses for school ! and i belive someone said im the one who has to be happy....but in the long run when i open a buisness its the clients im trying to please.....so even if i think its junk, and they like it then thats what i give them...supply and demand right?....another thing im curious about though....is...once i do start taking incredible shots....how do the pros devolope them?...since everything is digital now do they use a home printer , a photo machine, or what....?


For a dedicated macro lens I suggest you have a look at the Nikkor 105mm VR (however - with all due respect, I don't think you should get one at this stage). A very good beginner DSLR is the Nikon D40 - not only is it extremely user-friendly, it's also much lighter than other DSLRs and cheap. Arguably the most value-for-money entry-level DSLR on the market. Here is a very in-depth review of the D40:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/

As for myself, I own only a D40, the 18-55mm kit lens and a Hoya macro filter; and take a look at my Flickr - you'll be surprised. All my gear cost me no more than SGD $800. I have no fancy macro lens; not even an external speedlight.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 14, 2009)

Gavin said:


> For a dedicated macro lens I suggest you have a look at the Nikkor 105mm VR (however - with all due respect, I don't think you should get one at this stage). A very good beginner DSLR is the Nikon D40 - not only is it extremely user-friendly, it's also much lighter than other DSLRs and cheap. Arguably the most value-for-money entry-level DSLR on the market. Here is a very in-depth review of the D40:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/
> 
> As for myself, I own only a D40, the 18-55mm kit lens and a Hoya macro filter; and take a look at my Flickr - you'll be surprised. All my gear cost me no more than SGD $800. I have no fancy macro lens; not even an external speedlight.


Gavin, what kind of external lighting are you using?  Your pictures look great.  I'm guessing you use manual setting with a tripod.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 14, 2009)

biomarine2000 said:


> Gavin, what kind of external lighting are you using?  Your pictures look great.  I'm guessing you use manual setting with a tripod.


Thanks. I have never used my tripod, which was a freebie. All my photos, except for the long exposures, are handheld (with the long exposure photos, I improvise with whatever I have, wherever I am). I don't use any special external lighting either, apart from sunlight and my inbuilt flash.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 14, 2009)

gavin, your pictures are great but like i said before, im wanting to eventually open shop. and i honestly dont feel a d40 would cut it in certain situations....yeah i like taking macro pictures alot!..but i still want something to grow into....i dont want to be in the same boat im floating now....outgrown my camera and realized its capibilities are met. like i said im going to take some class this year and id like to just jump in head first get what i want and better myself from there....its always seems when im taking pictures i want more than what i get from my current camera and i dont like knowing they could be better but my gear is holding me back. again this is an investment for me in the long run, and yeah i have 4 grand to spend but the camera im looking at is only 1700 but i figure with gear and lighting equipment that gives me a good range to work with...i also understand that just because you buy a race car doesnt make you a race car driver, but with enough patience you can turn into one...another thing i have considered is trying to work for areal estate office taking pictures of houses to advertise, weddings, sports, maybe make some of my own calenders, also lots of money in ariel photography, so macro isnt a big focus just a plus...i will take everything everyone on here has said into mind when and before i buy....so again i thank you all for advice. i am just still browsing reviews and hearing personal reports as of right now...part of shopping i guess


----------



## jharr (Feb 14, 2009)

OK, so I took some quick snaps of one of my B. smithi slings. Camera/lens/flash details in the thread. I love my D70s. It does almost everything I want it to do. I only wish it had a built-in intervalometer like the D200. But this thing is one tough camera! While in Uganda someone picked it up and dropped it from waist height onto a brick floor. I thought for sure it was done for, but there was absolutely no breakage. I don't know about the D40, 60, 80. I think they used more plastic in the construction of those. The D200 has more metal, but is way heavier. I don't know about you, but having my camera survive a drop like that while on a trip of a lifetime is worth 10x what I paid for it (< $1000).

Anyway take a look at the photos. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?p=1340927#post1340927

J--


----------



## stooka (Feb 14, 2009)

im thinking of getting a point and shoot camera,been looking at the Canon powershot G10.does anybody have any experience with these for spider pics?

stu


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 14, 2009)

jharr said:


> Anyway take a look at the photos. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> J--


Why are you using a Nikkor 28-105 (1:3.5-4.5 D) lens on macro mode? :?  Your smithi pictures are ok, but you won't get true macro pictures with that lens.


----------



## Skullptor (Feb 14, 2009)

If you DSLR owners don't mind giving me your expertise on my current photography problem I'm having.

Camera-Nikon D40

Problem- glare from flash, too orange without flash, cannot capture low lighting accurately. 

The three photos show a complete washout of the dim orange light on Auto.





Another setting on the wheel show my reflection and the flash light.





Only picture that comes close to showing very low light, is too orange with -still- a reflection.






Thanks in advance.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 14, 2009)

With most things that will reflect the flash you need to tilt the camera slightly up or down. When you do that the flash does not hit dead on and come back as a glare. It take some tinkering but that should fix your problem. 

I am not sure what you are doing with the cardboard box in the other two pictures............:?


----------



## Skullptor (Feb 14, 2009)

I used the cardboard because I kept seeing the light from the blinds in the reflection. The one thing I did try is taking a stupid amount of pictures tilting the camera every way, shooting at angles to prevent seeing things in the reflection or the flash. I took picture on M A S P and all the other settings. I tried it outside. I tried it at night because it was hard finding angles in any room that didn't show light from windows in the reflection or something else.  I've been staging this thing all over my house. :wall:


----------



## jharr (Feb 14, 2009)

Can you explain what you mean by "true macro" This is the only D type lens I have, so that is what I keep on the body most of the time. The reproduction ratio in macro mode is only 1:2, so I suppose that makes it sort of "pseudo-macro", but I mean how freakin' close do you need to get? The photos I posted are pretty close. I could have gotten closer, but why? Really what I would rather have than "true macro" is a faster lens. I have an old Nikkormat FTn with a nice 50mm f1.4 lens. That thing rocks in ambient light! I guess I could do the old 'hold it up to the camera backwards' trick, but it is hard to do with an AI lens since you have to hold the aperture lever closed manually. Of course if you are shooting wide open it doesn't matter, but then the DOF is waaaaay shallow and hard to keep things in focus hand-held.



Talkenlate04 said:


> Why are you using a Nikkor 28-105 (1:3.5-4.5 D) lens on macro mode? :?  Your smithi pictures are ok, but you won't get true macro pictures with that lens.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 14, 2009)

Skullptor said:


> I used the cardboard because I kept seeing the light from the blinds in the reflection. The one thing I did try is taking a stupid amount of pictures tilting the camera every way, shooting at angles to prevent seeing things in the reflection or the flash. I took picture on M A S P and all the other settings. I tried it outside. I tried it at night because it was hard finding angles in any room that didn't show light from windows in the reflection or something else.  I've been staging this thing all over my house. :wall:


Why dont you try taking the lid off the enclosure and shooting it from the top?  You wont have to worry about reflection is that case.  Thats how I take most of my pics.  The ones I take through the enclosure usually come out semi blury.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 14, 2009)

jharr said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "true macro" This is the only D type lens I have, so that is what I keep on the body most of the time. The reproduction ratio in macro mode is only 1:2, so I suppose that makes it sort of "pseudo-macro", but I mean how freakin' close do you need to get? The photos I posted are pretty close. I could have gotten closer, but why? Really what I would rather have than "true macro" is a faster lens. I have an old Nikkormat FTn with a nice 50mm f1.4 lens. That thing rocks in ambient light! I guess I could do the old 'hold it up to the camera backwards' trick, but it is hard to do with an AI lens since you have to hold the aperture lever closed manually. Of course if you are shooting wide open it doesn't matter, but then the DOF is waaaaay shallow and hard to keep things in focus hand-held.


Whoa there cowboy. I was merely asking a question. 
That lens is not meant for macro. So while your pictures of the smithi are ok, they are no where near as good as they can be with a macro lens.
But if that is the only lens you have you do a great job of making it work to the best of its abilities. 

Skullptor that is a cool setup by the way.


----------



## Skullptor (Feb 14, 2009)

biomarine2000 said:


> Why dont you try taking the lid off the enclosure and shooting it from the top?  You wont have to worry about reflection is that case.  Thats how I take most of my pics.  The ones I take through the enclosure usually come out semi blury.


The only reason it was to be the final picture in the monitor thread. The front closes it in a bit more. The front is the first 3" on the side and narrows down the light coming in from the face by 2" on each side. The light is so dim you kind of need the front on to capture the soft glow it adds.



Talkenlate04 said:


> Skullptor that is a cool setup by the way.


Thanks. I appreciate that.


----------



## jharr (Feb 14, 2009)

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off like that. Not offended, just curious what is considered "true macro". But since my last post, I did the 'hold the lens backward' thing just to see what I would get. Not too bad, eh? See the original size here





original resolution (cropped)







Talkenlate04 said:


> Whoa there cowboy. I was merely asking a question.
> That lens is not meant for macro. So while your pictures of the smithi are ok, they are no where near as good as they can be with a macro lens.
> But if that is the only lens you have you do a great job of making it work to the best of its abilities.
> 
> Skullptor that is a cool setup by the way.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 14, 2009)

ok well guys...i went shopping today and i think i have found something that suits me....im looking at a nikon D80 it comes with 2 lens for 1,400...i liked the size weight and from what tinkering i done with it...seems pretty awsome!...i have a choice of 2 lenses so...my question is...what is a really good macro lens....and a really good lens for all rou nd shooting like people, scenery, sports, and in general distant objects....


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 14, 2009)

First off awesome choice. :clap: 

As for the macro lens, I have both the 105mm and the 60mm but I find myself using the 60mm more then the 105mm. They both take awesome shots that is for sure. The 60mm is better for outdoor every day close up shots of things you might see on a hike. I say that because very few people want to lug around the 105mm. (a bit bigger!)

A good walk around lens would be the 18mm - 200mm - F/3.5-5.6.
The 50mm fixed lens is awesome too I use it a lot.


----------



## Craig (Feb 14, 2009)

jharr said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "true macro" This is the only D type lens I have, so that is what I keep on the body most of the time. The reproduction ratio in macro mode is only 1:2, so I suppose that makes it sort of "pseudo-macro", but I mean how freakin' close do you need to get? The photos I posted are pretty close. I could have gotten closer, but why? Really what I would rather have than "true macro" is a faster lens. I have an old Nikkormat FTn with a nice 50mm f1.4 lens. That thing rocks in ambient light! I guess I could do the old 'hold it up to the camera backwards' trick, but it is hard to do with an AI lens since you have to hold the aperture lever closed manually. Of course if you are shooting wide open it doesn't matter, but then the DOF is waaaaay shallow and hard to keep things in focus hand-held.


True macro is defined as 1:1 magnification or higher i.e. 3:1.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 14, 2009)

codykrr said:


> ok well guys...i went shopping today and i think i have found something that suits me....im looking at a nikon D80 it comes with 2 lens for 1,400...i liked the size weight and from what tinkering i done with it...seems pretty awsome!...i have a choice of 2 lenses so...my question is...what is a really good macro lens....and a really good lens for all rou nd shooting like people, scenery, sports, and in general distant objects....


Cody, if you haven't purchased yet you might want to look on ebay.  I just did a quick search on the d80 and found tons of them used and new.  There are package deals with 4 lenses for pretty good money.  Quite a bit under $1400.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 14, 2009)

The only thing you have to worry about is the number of shutter clicks that could be on a used camera. It would be a pity to get a camera from a private party with no warranty and no one to turn to when things break. In my opinion if you are going to shell out money to upgrade you might as well do it right. My setup has a 6 year warranty covering the total value of the camera you just won't get that with a private party deal.  If you do go that route look for someone that might be selling a registered MAC warranty with the camera, that would be a great way to go but really hard to find.

I would think about avoiding the kit and just buying the camera body new and the lenses separately, but with a choice of two new lenses that is a pretty good deal if you can get some decent glass to go with the camera. The lenses is where it is going to hurt the most anyway.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 14, 2009)

thanks for the tip bio....but unless its free i like to just buy new .....especially something thats going to touch my face....hha...sorry maybe thats a little ocd but ugh...just cant do it, plus this has a 5 year warranty on the one im getting. also i plan on getti ng a couple nuetral lenses to protect the actual lens...now what are some good flashes?....id like a macro ring flash but if i can get the same job done with another flash thats cool too...


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 14, 2009)

codykrr said:


> thanks for the tip bio....but unless its free i like to just buy new .....especially something thats going to touch my face....hha...sorry maybe thats a little ocd but ugh...just cant do it, plus this has a 5 year warranty on the one im getting. also i plan on getti ng a couple nuetral lenses to protect the actual lens...now what are some good flashes?....id like a macro ring flash but if i can get the same job done with another flash thats cool too...


Ahh you and I think alike.  

For a flash the sb-800 will do you just fine. It can be used off the camera in remote mode or on the camera depending on what you are doing. The sb-900 is awesome as well but a bit more money and bigger in size. (would look a bit silly on the D80 too) 
I use the 800 a lot for photography of people and have never had a complaint. Maybe one day Ill get the sb-900, with the camera I have now I should just go for it, but I have other things I want before I shell out that kinda cash for another flash.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 14, 2009)

oh an ps..to clarify this is sold as a ket with a set price, but they let you pick out your own 2 lenses within a certain price range...but i can easily pay the diffrence to get the quality lens not to mention in later days when im enrolled finacial aid will help pay for lenses!


----------



## codykrr (Feb 15, 2009)

well just got the new camera this rhingis bad a$$.......also i got a new carrying case because my old one was way to small im still reading the manual but as soon as im done ill definatly post alot of pics for you guys...and by the way i wanted to thank all and everyone who commented on the thread and helped me...im sure it wont be the last you here about me and cameras


----------



## biomarine2000 (Feb 15, 2009)

Congrats on the new camera.  Can't wait to see some awesome pics.  What did you end up deciding on?


----------



## codykrr (Feb 15, 2009)

i got the nikon d80 with 2 lenses for 1460....also im new to this camera  so the first week my pics may suck....right now im just getting the feel of the added weight....also im going to try and figure out how to size them to put them directly on ab but not sure how to do that yet...s for now they will be on my pic link...and agin these are practice shots


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 15, 2009)

What lenses did you settle on?


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

hahaha...well didnt get what i really wanted but the price was right so...i basically got the standard "kit" unfortunatly because they were sold out of thr macro lens i wanted i got the nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G if-ed and the nikkor 18-135mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED  i figure those should be fine for now.....right?


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

here is one..hope this works.....
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 76119


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

yeah looks like crap i know...a bit blurry but im still working out the kinks...so please be patiecent or throw me a tip....


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

View attachment 76120

	

		
			
		

		
	
   hope this is alittle better


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 16, 2009)

Those lenses will do you good for everything but what you are trying to do with the T's. Once you get a macro lens you will understand what I mean.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 16, 2009)

Uuuugh.  I seriously hope you didn't spend $1400 on the D80 and those two lenses...  The D80 w/ 18-135mm kit is $650 on amazon.  Also that other lens has been discontinued...


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

yeah i know...right. like i said though...the price was right and i drove all the way to town(34 miles) and i had to leave with something.... . the man said he should get another stock of the macro lenses in next week or so but i dont really know if ill buy one just yet....so for macro you suggest the 50mm fixed? isnt that what you said..? also he said that the sb-900 flash is a little over rated and said he will get a sb 800 for me if i want because he to prefered that himself for the size . guy seems to be honest and its a mom andpop type store...but what i thought was truely funny was he still shoots with a 30 year old 35mm he had since he was in his 20s....and said he wouldnt ever change but the film for it is harder to come by now days...so he is considering it...


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 16, 2009)

codykrr said:


> yeah i know...right. like i said though...the price was right and i drove all the way to town(34 miles) and i had to leave with something.... . the man said he should get another stock of the macro lenses in next week or so but i dont really know if ill buy one just yet....so for macro you suggest the 50mm fixed? isnt that what you said..? also he said that the sb-900 flash is a little over rated and said he will get a sb 800 for me if i want because he to prefered that himself for the size . guy seems to be honest and its a mom andpop type store...but what i thought was truely funny was he still shoots with a 30 year old 35mm he had since he was in his 20s....and said he wouldnt ever change but the film for it is harder to come by now days...so he is considering it...


Ummm as of right now, I'm suggesting that you return everything you just bought.  For the same $1500, you could've gotten a refurb D40x, an 18-200mm and a 60mm macro lens.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 16, 2009)

50mm is not for macro. Good portrait lens and I use it outdoors sometimes, but never for macro.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 16, 2009)

codykrr said:


> but what i thought was truely funny was he still shoots with a 30 year old 35mm he had since he was in his 20s....and said he wouldnt ever change but the film for it is harder to come by now days...so he is considering it...


Man, don't be knocking film!  Yesterday I decided to go on a hike and in preparation I started packing up my camera gear.  I starting throwing in my D300, 18-200mm, 11-16mm, 105 macro...  Then I thought, what the heck am I doing?  I'm going hiking!  I took all that stuff out, loaded up my FM2, 50mm, 28mm, and a few rolls of Fuji Velvia and took off.  I then hiked nearly 13 miles, took lots of pics, and had a great time.  No way would I have been able to do that with all that other camera gear!  I can't wait to get my 22 megapixel scans back from the lab.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

well first the 1500 was with an extra 5 year warranty, second i would never buy something thats going to touch my eye , and face used. also wasnt knocking film, i like it to, just thought it was funny how this guy broke down into a story about how hard 35mm film is becoming to find, not to mention his no teeth . all in all i feel confident about my choice..i can always get better lenses, flashes in the future. i will be in school this upcoming semester and finacial aid will help pay for more gear. for now im just fiddling around having fun, but soon it will be serious, i already have my foot in the door id say because one of the photographers that does portraits and senoir pics loves my work, id eventually like to work for the missouri conservation magazine or something similar. i look at the oprotunities and im always striving to do better...and i belive thats what a upcoming photographer needs to make it....because yeah its all about the pictures but if you settle on half a$$ pics thats what youl get...so someone who strives after each pic to make the next better should do fine...like i said though...im happy with my choice, and belive me i could have spent way more but figured this was good for now...maybe when i have some classes under my belt and a little more knowledge on stuff ill then be confident in getting better stuff, for now this works though


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 16, 2009)

OK, we're getting a little far away from tarantula chat here, but one last thing.  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.  http://www.adorama.com/INKD90K70.html?searchinfo=d90 kit&item_no=1  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.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 16, 2009)

OK, this time tarantula related... Proof that your camera doesn't really matter.  Can you tell what camera took these two pics?  One was a 6 megapixel D40 with the 18-55mm Kit lens, and the other was with the 12 megapixel D300 + 50mm 1.8.  (If you've seen my photo thead, you know the answer  )


----------



## delayedinsanity (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

Noexcuse4you said:


> 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)




Noexcuse4you said:


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





Noexcuse4you said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> 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.



Talkenlate04 said:


> 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...









Talkenlate04 said:


> 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.



Talkenlate04 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

codykrr said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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--


Talkenlate04 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

Noexcuse4you said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 16, 2009)

Gavin said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

> 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 (Feb 16, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


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


Then Id be curious like others to see these "famous" names that have never picked up a digital SLR.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Then Id be curious like others to see these "famous" names that have never picked up a digital SLR.


Me as well.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> 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.


From f/11 to f/16 is not one stop. Aperture affects the amount of detail. Shutter speed does not make up for that. A high shutter speed "freezes" motion and adds crispness and sharpness to the photo, but detail and depth of field is still dictated by aperture control. You are confusing _sharpness_ with _detail_.


----------



## jharr (Feb 16, 2009)

Hang on there. Actually the control you get with a "high end" camera is illusory. There are only a few variables you can control in between your subject and the ccd.
amount & color of light striking/reflecting off of the subject
aperature
shutter speed
ISO (actually 'gain' in the case of digital cameras)
ALL of the rest is post processing. This is all analogous to film cameras. My Nikkormat FTn gives me the same degree of control. If I develop my own film, I can control it even more. If I make my own prints I can control it even more. Again, there are analogues with digital processing, but my point is that all of those features on the D300 are not actually giving more control to the photographer. Ansel Adams was in perfect control of the image from the moment he actuated the shutter to the moment he took the print off of the drying line, as have been generations of photographers using what would be considered 'low end' gear.



delayedinsanity said:


> (snip) the higher end the camera, the more control.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

ok well here ive been trying to get used to this new camera so here is a shot of my L. paryhabana please critisize!
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 76144
View attachment 76145


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

jharr said:


> Hang on there. Actually the control you get with a "high end" camera is illusory. There are only a few variables you can control in between your subject and the ccd.
> amount & color of light striking/reflecting off of the subject
> aperature
> shutter speed
> ...


You mean "grain"? ISO helps in poorly lit situations, and definitely does a lot more than impart "grain" to a photo.  :clap: 

Illusory? In this thread you've never ceased to surprise me. Do you get that amount of control with a compact, or point&shoot, camera? With a P&S, because of the tiny sensor (for most), there is practically no bokeh, no depth of field and poor ISO performance, among others.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 16, 2009)

ok see if it loads right this time...another L.p. shot...again critisize please...
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 76146


----------



## delayedinsanity (Feb 16, 2009)

> From f/11 to f/16 is not one stop.


Um, yes it is.

f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32

Those are what are known as 'full stops'. So f/16 to f/11 is dropping one stop. If you are seeing other numbers in between that, it is because your camera lets you change stops in fractions, usually halves or thirds. Depending on the camera you can even change this, such as on one of mine.



> Aperture affects the amount of detail.


In a sense yes, but that's not exactly a very good explanation. Aperture is the opening in your lens that controls the amount of light to hit the film on 35mm's or your CMOS on a digital. By opening the aperture (lowering the f/stop) you let in more light and therefore reduce your depth of field - this is how you get those infamous subject in focus and background out of focuspictures, for example. By closing the aperture (raising the f/stop) you are letting in a smaller amount of light into the camera lens and thus extending your depth of field - how you get those great landscape shots where everything is in tight focus from close to far.

Bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas of your photo has absolutely nothing to do with the camera/sensor, and everything to do with the glass. So in this case once again while you run a much better chance of having higher quality bokeh in an SLR, if your lenses are cheap, this can once again potentially be outperformed by a point and shoot. Not saying it will be, or often is, just that it could be.



> Shutter speed does not make up for that.


Actually yes it does. For example the following speeds are considered the norm on all cameras (digital and film);

1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1s

So if you had your camera set to, lets say, f/11 at 1/60, and you decided to close your aperture to f/16, you would then raise your shutter speed to 1/125 to get the same exposure. If you opened it up to f/5.6 you would lower your shutter speed to 1/15 for the same exposure, and so on and so forth.

While you may want to use shutter priority (the option on SLR's usually marked S or Tv, or just the action of setting it first on full manual) to stop motion in some scenario's, shutter speed and aperture are very tightly entwined.

Trust me, I may not be a great photographer but I know the technical stuff.



> You mean "grain"? ISO helps in poorly lit situations, and definitely does a lot more than impart "grain" to a photo.


No, I'm sure he means gain. ISO back in the film days was also known as ASA, aka your film speed. A higher speed film had chemicals that reacted quicker to light therefore allowing for proper exposure when much less light was present. In the case of digital cameras, it's now a form of 'gain', much like on your guitar amp, where it attempts to compensate for lower light situations, in many situations causing more noise to appear on your camera. 

This is one definite place where a higher end camera is much more useful. For example, my 400D allows for an ISO of up to 1600, but you wouldn't really want to use it if you can help it. The pictures are extremely noisy due to the abilities, or lack thereof, of the CCD. However the same ISO setting on a 1D would produce a much better, higher quality picture due to it's full frame, higher megapixel sensor.

I'm new here, and I don't want my introduction into the community to seem like it's part of a fight, so I'm going to reiterate what I've said one last time and step back from all of this; It is the photographer that is far more influential on a photograph than the equipment, always, always, always. Good equipment never hurts, and if you have the money to spend on a D3 for hobbyist purposes, be my guest. But if you're younger, or just can't afford more than a point and shoot, don't let anybody here or anywhere else ever tell you that you can't get amazing shots. Period.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> In a sense yes, but that's not exactly a very good explanation. Aperture is the opening in your lens that controls the amount of light to hit the film on 35mm's or your CMOS on a digital. By opening the aperture (lowering the f/stop) you let in more light and therefore reduce your depth of field - this is how you get those infamous subject in focus and background out of focuspictures, for example. By closing the aperture (raising the f/stop) you are letting in a smaller amount of light into the camera lens and thus extending your depth of field - how you get those great landscape shots where everything is in tight focus from close to far.
> 
> Bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas of your photo has absolutely nothing to do with the camera/sensor, and everything to do with the glass. So in this case once again while you run a much better chance of having higher quality bokeh in an SLR, if your lenses are cheap, *this can once again potentially be outperformed by a point and shoot.* Not saying it will be, or often is, just that it could be.


Firstly, my comment on aperture affecting detail was *not* an explanation or definition of the term.

Secondly, no, an average p&s cannot and will not outperform a SLR or DSLR in terms of depth of field. P&S cameras have very small sensors, and that means poor bokeh capability.

Thirdly, you seem to be giving definitions and explanations for every photography term I use - for instance _"Bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas"_, _"Aperture is the opening in your lens that controls the amount of light"_, and _"By opening the aperture (lowering the f/stop)"_. What's up with that? Did you think I did not know? You need to learn to be less condescending.


----------



## jharr (Feb 16, 2009)

No, I meant 'gain'. That means that when you dial up the ISO on your digicam, what is really happening is that you are increasing the voltage gain to the ccd and thereby increasing its sensitivity. The side effect of that is not 'grain'. Grain is what you get from high-ISO films caused by the size of the actual silver nitrate crystals. On a digicam, you get ccd noise. It is waaay different than grain.
As far as comparing 'high end' and 'low end' gear goes, I thought it was fairly clear (apparently not) that I was talking about cameras for which you can actually control the 4 things I mentioned. The discussion was whether Cody's D80 would be capable of producing a similar quality of photo as a more expensive camera (say a D300) with more features. I was simply pointing out that in that case, more features don't necessarily mean more 'control' of the image. Control your light, aperture, shutter speed, ISO (and composition and focus) and you have done all you can do. More buttons or menu items won't _necessarily_ help you do any of that. 



Gavin said:


> You mean "grain"? ISO helps in poorly lit situations, and definitely does a lot more than impart "grain" to a photo.  :clap:
> 
> Illusory? In this thread you've never ceased to surprise me. Do you get that amount of control with a compact, or point&shoot, camera? With a P&S, because of the tiny sensor (for most), there is practically no bokeh, no depth of field and poor ISO performance, among others.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

jharr said:


> As far as comparing 'high end' and 'low end' gear goes, I thought it was fairly clear (apparently not) that I was talking about cameras for which you can actually control the 4 things I mentioned. The discussion was whether Cody's D80 would be capable of producing a similar quality of photo as a more expensive camera (say a D300) with more features. I was simply pointing out that in that case, more features don't necessarily mean more 'control' of the image. Control your light, aperture, shutter speed, *ISO* (and composition and focus) and you have done all you can do. More buttons or menu items won't _necessarily_ help you do any of that.


I have a D40. I know someone who uses a D300. The D300 has much more ISO control than the D40, for your information. What does that mean? It means the D300 _gives me more control over my overall image_ than the D40 does, due to the extra control I get for ISO, among others. In turn, what does that mean? It means yes, you do get more overall control with more high-end gear.


----------



## delayedinsanity (Feb 16, 2009)

I wasn't trying to be condescending, my apologies if it came across that way. What I was trying to do, given that the majority of people here are just hobbyist photographers and probably don't have the time or care to take a class on the subject, was to be concise about my explanations so that anybody could easily follow what was being discussed.

How many people can you walk up to in the street, flip open a magazine and ask them what they think of the bokeh in particular picture, and actually get a reply other than 'huh?'? That's what I was trying to keep in mind.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> I wasn't trying to be condescending, my apologies if it came across that way. What I was trying to do, given that the majority of people here are just hobbyist photographers and probably don't have the time or care to take a class on the subject, was to be concise about my explanations so that anybody could easily follow what was being discussed.
> 
> How many people can you walk up to in the street, flip open a magazine and ask them what they think of the bokeh in particular picture, and actually get a reply other than 'huh?'? That's what I was trying to keep in mind.


I interpreted it as condescending because your reply quoted _my_ post, so it certainly seemed as if the information was meant for me.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 16, 2009)

Gavin said:


> I have a D40. I know someone who uses a D300. The D300 has much more ISO control than the D40, for your information. What does that mean? It means the D300 _gives me more control over my overall image_ than the D40 does, due to the extra control I get for ISO, among others. In turn, what does that mean? It means yes, you do get more overall control with more high-end gear.


Agreed well put! :clap: 



codykrr said:


> ok see if it loads right this time...another L.p. shot...again critisize please...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Try taking full body shots of your Ts from farther back. Those lenses you have are not going to give you good crisp close images. I see that shot you posted was shot at 135mm, so you zoomed and cropped a lot to get the image you posted. You lose quality when you do that. I would try some full body shots of the Ts and see if they are better. Don't zoom or crop.


----------



## delayedinsanity (Feb 16, 2009)

I was definitely debating a few things with you that we may not have seen eye to eye on, but the verbose explanation was with the thought in mind that while you would have no problem understanding me, others may not. Saving time in the future I guess? Meh. I've seen so many pissing matches online and back in college from people, some with money, others without, about the quality of equipment. A lot of people, in so many fields, get so discouraged when they don't think they have the best of the best, and some folks who are really good at what they do, but don't recognize it, have quit for that reason.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you've said or implied this Gavin, this is for everybody; saying that somebody with a d40 is less capable than somebody with a d3 is like saying that anybody without an OBT is just a wannabe, and it just isn't true, agree?


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> I'm not saying that you've said or implied this Gavin, this is for everybody; saying that somebody with a d40 is less capable than somebody with a d3 is like saying that anybody without an OBT is just a wannabe, and it just isn't true, agree?


Theoretically, yes, but nevertheless, anyone who has a D3 is likely to be more capable than someone with a D40. Why?

 - Anyone who uses a D40 is most likely an amateur (like I am)
 - Anyone who uses a D3 is very likely a professional photographer; and hence must surely be more skilled than the average D40 user


----------



## Tunedbeat (Feb 16, 2009)

Gavin said:


> 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?


Not just identical settings, but same lens on each camera body.  Not all lenses are identical in quality. _ Surely everyone must know this. _  

Best thing you can do is learn your camera and equipment, there are tons of online researches that can help you.  You can't become a better photographer without lots of practice.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

Tunedbeat said:


> Not just identical settings, *but same lens on each camera body*.  Not all lenses are identical in quality. _ Surely everyone must know this. _


Damn...slipped my mind. :wall:


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 16, 2009)

Tunedbeat said:


> Best thing you can do is learn your camera and equipment, there are tons of online researches that can help you.  You can't become a better photographer without lots of practice.


That is why this hobby is so awesome. I am no where near as good as I can be, but I make goals to get better! It would be boring if we all woke up and could take a 10/10 picture every single time, that would ruin the challenge of it all. 
And Tunebeat I look at your images all the time. :worship:



Gavin said:


> Damn...slipped my mind. :wall:


Don't feel bad I glossed over that tidbit too. Odd comparison to make with two different cameras and lenses lol.


----------



## jharr (Feb 16, 2009)

D300:
• Default: ISO 200 - 3200
• Boost: ISO 100 - 6400
• 1/3, 1/2 or 1.0 EV steps 

D40:
• Default: ISO 200 - 1600 (+ Hi 1 = 3200)
• 1.0 EV steps 

Ok, so your friend has more iso settings and he can crank it up to 6400 (I would wager that he rarely or never goes above 800). You've got to be in a very unusual situation where iso 200+1/3 at f11 (which you can't do with your D40) is going to give you a noticeably different result than iso 200 at f11-1/3 (which you can do with your D40). I could be wrong, I haven't done the experiment, but seriously would the difference be worth the price considering you can probably completely eliminate any difference in post-processing? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, really, but I would hate for anyone to come away from reading a discussion like this thinking that another couple of grand in hardware is going to make them a better photographer.

J--



Talkenlate04 said:


> Agreed well put! :clap:


----------



## Draiman (Feb 16, 2009)

jharr said:


> D300:
> • Default: ISO 200 - 3200
> • Boost: ISO 100 - 6400
> • 1/3, 1/2 or 1.0 EV steps
> ...


Well, perhaps this difference wouldn't justify the price difference completely, but since we're now talking about value for money, here are just a few specifications.

D40 - 2.5 fps (essentially 2 fps), 6 megapixels, shutter life 80 000 exposures, 2.5" LCD screen, no protection against moisture

D300 - 6 fps, 8 with MB-D10; 12 megapixels, shutter life 150 000 exposures, 3" LCD screen, buttons weather-sealed

Oh and by the way, here is his Flickr page, you may want to have a look:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/africansh


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 17, 2009)

I think the settings for my camera are ISO 200 - 6400 
With boost 100 - 25600,
And I agree 100% I rarely go above above about 640 even with my night time structure shots. 
I will point out again that I agree lenses is where the money is well spent. I said that about 50 posts back  
It is fun to chat about this type of thing though.


----------



## Miss Bianca (Feb 17, 2009)

*100?*



white_feather said:


> Where can I go to get some tips on photography? I have a Fujifilm S100fd camera and want to get jiggy wit it, yo!




is that an s100 oir an s1000? 
I myself just ordered the Fuji "S1000" and cant wait to get it!!!


----------



## Jenners (Feb 17, 2009)

Just thought i would Share this with everyone. A decent website for photography tips is Eyefetch.com when i first went into college for photography I found the forums  really useful for asking questions and reading tutorials. I haven't been on the website in awhile now but I'm sure its still pretty active. The other nice thing is you can sign up for free and have you own little online gallery. You can also join groups that have frequent competitions to challenge yourself. I know there also use to be a few insect/spider groups with regular challenges.


----------



## Everyexcuse4me (Feb 17, 2009)

Well I'm africansh,  Gavin's friend. Now I'll clarify some stuff. Firstly if you have seen my flickr, you will see that my night photography is always done above iso 800. For my macro i stay BELOW iso800 because i've got the SB600 as a slave. Why i use over iso 800 is because i NEVER carry a tripod around. I prefer flexibility and freedom to roam. 

Now i shall compare DSLRS in the Nikon camp. Let's put the D40 and D60 in the same class (i know they're not, but let's make things easier)

D40/60
D90
D300
D700
D3
D3x

When i came from the D40 to D300 i felt A LOT of difference. Faster AF, more FPS, better build, ability to throw the camera around, thrash it about and it comes out unscathed. Also the ability to AF with non AF-S/HSM lenses. There's also a lot of control over the camera, unlike the D40. Now if you compare the D40 to D300, well then i'd say unless you don't do fast action and shoot photography causally, you WILL NOT be satisfied for long with the D40. It's the kind of camera to kick start your hobby. I had the D40 for 2 years. There IS a difference. If one were to compare the D90 to D300 and say "hey it isn't worth it" then well, you're wrong. The D90 is still in the amateur class. The build does not compare. Neither does the AF and fps. I must say there's ample buttons on the D90 to say it gives more control, plus the D90's sensor is essentially better than the D300's in terms of high iso (marginally) and Dynamic range. But when you need a rugged body and one for fast action, then you can't compare. D300 wins. D700 vs D300, then well it's a matter of preference. I'd take a D700 over a D300 any day. 

I think it's safe to say, yes the D300 has made me a better photographer in EVERY aspect i take photos in. Infact i've branched out to street photography (not good at it, but trying) because of the D300, plus my 35mm f2 and 85mm f1.4 wouldn't be in my hands if i didn't upgrade, and i wouldn't have this full blown bokeh obession.


Comparing a D3 with D40 is silly. But a pro with a D3 vs a pro with a D40 (talking about real photographers, not SELF LABELED pros) then the D3 has the upper hand in terms of everything except size. Put a D3 in a newbie's hands and a D40 in a true pro's hands and you've got a winner with the D40.


Cody, as for the D80 and those lenses, you could go for a closeup filter or raynox and be happy for a while. Of course the D90 would've been nicer, but there's no point looking back. Time to get going, learning and shooting. Don't let people make you regret your purchase. The D80 is a  great camera to grow into.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 17, 2009)

Why do you shoot over iso 800 for a night shot? If I went up anywhere near 800 I think my image would have been ruined.
These three shots goofing around at my apt complex at about 2am and were all shot at iso 320. One had moonlight, two did not. Which is which should be obvious.


----------



## Everyexcuse4me (Feb 17, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> In a sense yes, but that's not exactly a very good explanation. Aperture is the opening in your lens that controls the amount of light to hit the film on 35mm's or your CMOS on a digital. By opening the aperture (lowering the f/stop) you let in more light and therefore reduce your depth of field - this is how you get those infamous subject in focus and background out of focuspictures, for example. By closing the aperture (raising the f/stop) you are letting in a smaller amount of light into the camera lens and thus extending your depth of field - how you get those great landscape shots where everything is in tight focus from close to far.
> 
> *Bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas of your photo has absolutely nothing to do with the camera/sensor, and everything to do with the glass. So in this case once again while you run a much better chance of having higher quality bokeh in an SLR, if your lenses are cheap, this can once again potentially be outperformed by a point and shoot. Not saying it will be, or often is, just that it could be.*
> 
> ...





Firstly, a crap lens on a DSLR would produce decent DOF and bokeh, and i feel would be BETTER than a compact. Unless you talk about the LX3 (lens) or Sigma DP1, the sensors are much smaller and the DOF won't be as apparent as a DSLR. One example is the extra stop of DOF (or more) one gains when he uses a lens, say a 85mm f1.4, on the D300 and D700 wide open, the DOF difference is immense. 

For bokeh, most lenses nowadays, even the 50mm f1.8 have 7 rounded aperture blades, or more. This bokeh produced is definitely BETTER than a compact's. Tell me if a compact's lens has lovely blades to produce creamier bokeh than a dedicated lens. Even cluttery and not-so-good bokeh from the 18-200mm VR is better than a compact's. Of course, this isn't a fair test because the lenses i'm comparing are probably more expensive than the compact itself. But a crap lens is more likely to produce better bokeh than a compact. 

"So if you had your camera set to, lets say, f/11 at 1/60, and you decided to close your aperture to f/16, you would then raise your shutter speed to 1/125 to get the same exposure. If you opened it up to f/5.6 you would lower your shutter speed to 1/15 for the same exposure, and so on and so forth."

Actually f/11, 1/60 should then be f/16, 1/30 to compromise. You're underexposing the shot by increasing the aperture and shutter speed's by a stop each. Same for f5.6. That's a faster shutter speed to prevent overexposure.



Noexcuse4you said:


> Man, don't be knocking film!  Yesterday I decided to go on a hike and in preparation I started packing up my camera gear.  I starting throwing in my D300, 18-200mm, 11-16mm, 105 macro...  Then I thought, what the heck am I doing?  I'm going hiking!  I took all that stuff out, loaded up my FM2, 50mm, 28mm, and a few rolls of Fuji Velvia and took off.  I then hiked nearly 13 miles, took lots of pics, and had a great time.  No way would I have been able to do that with all that other camera gear!  I can't wait to get my 22 megapixel scans back from the lab.


On a hike I'd rather take a D300 and 18-200 because of the flexibility and ability to control the iso, color intensity without swapping film. Actually why would you go hiking with all that gear? 18-200 should cover most of the stuff during a hike. I'd only bring that if i was going on a vacation and *not know what i'd be shooting*. You don't HAVE to carry all that gear.


----------



## Everyexcuse4me (Feb 17, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Why do you shoot over iso 800 for a night shot? If I went up anywhere near 800 I think my image would have been ruined.
> These three shots goofing around at my apt complex at about 2am and were all shot at iso 320. One had moonlight, two did not. Which is which should be obvious.


I use iso800 and above because i DON'T use a tripod. During long exposures i keep the iso value below 400 but for general shooting, i need the high iso. I wish i had the D700.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 17, 2009)

Ahh I did not even think of that. Lack of a tripod would pretty much stick you with having to make adjustments like that. 

Even with that high of an iso don't you find your natural movement during the shot creating some extra unwanted noise?


----------



## Everyexcuse4me (Feb 17, 2009)

I find that if you get the exposure right, even iso 4000 on the D300 would seem rather clean.








full sized image http://www.flickr.com/photos/africansh/3175793630/sizes/o/

Camera:  	Nikon D300
Exposure: 	0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture: 	f/2.2
Focal Length: 	35 mm
Exposure Bias: 	0/6 EV
ISO Speed: 	4000


Decent, i would say. I don't use D-lighting much, that keeps noise low too.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 17, 2009)

In that image though I can see a good amount of noise mainly once you get into the darker parts of the picture. It is defiantly not a bad photo, but it is not clean ether imo. 
This is another one where I was just goofing around but you can see that the dark areas dont have that white grainy look to them like in your photo, but then again I do believe a tripod would cure some of that. I wish that light in the center of mine was not so damn bright, but the rest of the photo is exactly how it looked right down to the brick color. I could edit it out but I am to lazy these days, Ill get to it eventually.





Had to add a spider picture because we are WAY WAY off topic lol. I am glad they are letting this thread stay here though.


----------



## Everyexcuse4me (Feb 17, 2009)

Well for iso4000 there's a compromise. You can't expect a clean iso4000 coming from the D300 can you? It's relatively cleaner than the D40's 3200 and a slightly notch above the iso1600. Noise reduction on low and shot on jpeg. I don't shoot RAW and edit. It's fairly noisy in the dark parts and the image isn't entriely sharp, but on regular prints the noise doesn't show up. Then again how noisy a pic is can also be down to preference and tolerance of noise. I'd try not to use high iso for protraits because i want to preserve the detail of the eye or point of focus.


Spider pics as well. Not a T (obviously)

SB600 overhead, D300 as commander, 105mm VR. Harsh flash, but i like the shot.







larger view http://www.flickr.com/photos/africansh/3220169536/sizes/l/







larger view http://www.flickr.com/photos/africansh/3214529659/sizes/o/

Same Setup for the picture below (flash held at a different angle though)


----------



## delayedinsanity (Feb 17, 2009)

> Actually f/11, 1/60 should then be f/16, 1/30 to compromise.


I increased shutter speed in my examples when I should've been decreasing. For f/11 at 1/60, going to f/5.6 should've been 1/250. The point still stands that your shutter speed and aperture work together to get the proper exposure (proper being subjective to the photographer of course).


----------



## Draiman (Feb 17, 2009)

delayedinsanity said:


> *The point still stands that your shutter speed and aperture work together to get the proper exposure*


Nobody disputed that.


----------



## Jenners (Feb 17, 2009)

"_*Comparing a D3 with D40 is silly. But a pro with a D3 vs a pro with a D40 (talking about real photographers, not SELF LABELED pros) then the D3 has the upper hand in terms of everything except size. Put a D3 in a newbie's hands and a D40 in a true pro's hands and you've got a winner with the D40.*_"
Just because you hand one professional a D3 doesn't mean he is going to have better photography compared to the professional with a d40. It’s going to be a bit more convenient for the photographer with the d3 but that doesn't mean the guy with the d40 can’t come out with just as good, if not better, photography. That’s been proven so many times before.
You can’t look at a picture with the naked eye and tell that it was either taken with a d3 or a d40. 
There is soooo many famous photographers not using a d3, and some well known photographers who use just a point and shoot. If you have a good eye for photography your pictures using a d40 should come out just as good as using a d3. 
Lots of well know photographers still use their old film cameras from the darn 80s and have amazing photography. The way everyone on here is making it seem, is that since someone isn’t using a new "high end camera" there photography can’t be as good as the people using a new camera.

I have met amazing photographers, making good money, who use only a d40. I’ve also met people with a d3 who come out with complete crap. Just because you might only have a d40 or a rebel xt doesn’t mean you can’t have amazing pricey pictures. 

Yes most professional photographers are going to end up wanting or buying the newest camera out, we like the Convenience of it. This doesn't prove that they are a better photographer then the guy who can only afford the d40.

Anyways I don’t mean to start up some more debating, I just had to get my opinion out there. This is too early in the morning for me.


----------



## Jenners (Feb 17, 2009)

Imperator said:


> larger view http://www.flickr.com/photos/africansh/3220169536/sizes/l/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Btw i like the second shot! The spider is so cute looking! lol


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 17, 2009)

I think everybody totally missed my point and, instead, decided to go off on a tangent.  In case you guys have forgotten what the OP was asking, it was asked:



> Where can I go to get some tips on photography? I have a Fujifilm S100fd camera and want to get jiggy wit it, yo!


The purpose of my posts was NOT to compare different camera bodies, NOT to compare different lenses, and NOT to talk about different aspects of photography.  There are TONS of different sites out there for this purpose.  The purpose was to show what you can do with very little money.  (OK, maybe my other point was to tell Cody he got ripped off.)  Maybe my photos aren't the best examples, in fact, I'm sure they're not, but it shows what you can do without having to spend a lot of money.  Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone.  It will only discourage them into thinking their equipment isn't adequate.

I'm not a professional, nor do I claim to be.  Some of you may be professionals and need all that nice camera gear.  What I'm stating is that for the average person who would just like some nice shots of his bugs, you don't need a lot of money.

Maybe some people have forgotten what this forum is about.  There is a big banner up at the top of the page if you did.


----------



## Draiman (Feb 17, 2009)

Noexcuse4you said:


> *Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone.*  It will only discourage them into thinking their equipment isn't adequate.


I hope you do realise you asked Cody to buy a D90, and even gave him a link.



Noexcuse4you said:


> OK, we're getting a little far away from tarantula chat here, but one last thing.  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.  http://www.adorama.com/INKD90K70.html?searchinfo=d90 kit&item_no=1  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.


 :clap:


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 17, 2009)

Gavin said:


> I hope you do realise you asked Cody to buy a D90, and even gave him a link.
> 
> 
> 
> :clap:


Yes!  I did!  BUT!!!  Only because he was willing to spend that kind of money IN THE FIRST PLACE!


----------



## Draiman (Feb 17, 2009)

Noexcuse4you said:


> Yes!  I did!  BUT!!!  Only because he was willing to spend that kind of money IN THE FIRST PLACE!


:wall: :wall: :wall: 



Noexcuse4you said:


> *Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone.*  It will only discourage them into thinking their equipment isn't adequate.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 17, 2009)

Gavin said:


> :wall: :wall: :wall:


You're not understanding what I'm saying.  He was already willing to spend that kind of money!  The fact is, he could have gotten better equipment _for the same amount of money_.  Did he say, "How can I improve my photos with the camera I already have?"  NO!  He flat out said, I need a new camera, my school is covering the cost.  Then later he said, I spent a little over $1500 on all this gear.  So, he already spent the money.  Do you understand now?  I wasn't telling him to go out and buy that gear, *he already did!*


----------



## Draiman (Feb 17, 2009)

Noexcuse4you said:


> You're not understanding what I'm saying.  He was already willing to spend that kind of money!  The fact is, he could have gotten better equipment _for the same amount of money_.  Did he say, "How can I improve my photos with the camera I already have?"  NO!  *He flat out said, I need a new camera, my school is covering the cost.*  Then later he said, I spent a little over $1500 on all this gear.  So, he already spent the money.  Do you understand now?  I wasn't telling him to go out and buy that gear, *he already did!*


What, then, was the point of saying this:

*"Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone."*

You've just said that codykrr said right from the start that he wanted a new camera. Thus, did anyone actually tell him to go out to buy anything? No. They merely gave suggestions on what he should buy, since he had already decided to buy a new camera. You have just completed self-defeat in your posts.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 17, 2009)

Gavin said:


> What, then, was the point of saying this:
> 
> *"Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone."*
> 
> You've just said that the OP said right from the start that he wanted a new camera. Thus, did anyone actually tell him to go out to buy anything? No. You have just completed self-defeat in your posts.


Alright, enough.  I'm done arguing.  Click on the little link at the bottom of the thread that says "First".  Read the original post and the few posts after it before cody asked his question...

My posts were not all directed towards cody; maybe I should have been a little more clear.  My target audience was arachnoboard readers.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 17, 2009)

well...first off...i did spend money to get a new camera!, but i did this for 2 reasons....1. the camera i had was old(2003) the pictures looked grainy to me, and didnt let me have the contrl i wanted out of a camera that i was going to try and make money and learn on. 2. yes im going to school but i never said that it would pay for the cAmera!....just the lenses flashes and accesorries....if you know anything about a fugi s5000...there isnt any "good" or quality gear for a 55mm...that cae from a fugi sales rep himself! yeah and buy he way im far from a kid....ive been grown for years, i know what i wat and how to get it, also i didnt get the D90 for one reason....it didnt come with any lenses and waS almost 1500 for just the camera, and as far as i know the only main diffrence between a d80 and d90 is th d90 does movies and the d80 doesnt...plus when i picked it up it imediatly felt "wrong" the d80 felt good, and seriously i was going to buy a canon in all honesty but none felt good in my hand....and i dont care about arguing i want to LEARN MORE, i know alot about my old camera...acually about all there is to know, i was sick of the vignetting it did when shooting macro, i was sick og grainy almost pixilated shot and the limit of size i could print...plain ad imple i know i could have done great pics with my old camera and i did, but i was simply READY for a new camera. you can ay i got ripped off all you want thats your opinion....today i called every camera shop in  springfield missouri, and the place i got mine was cheaper on there warranty, camera price and had better service....this was not a "hey lets go drop some money to be cool" ad i know just because you get a good camera doesnt mean you a pro...or even good, but you can learn on a good platform and branch rom there to become a great photographer....since my first posts here i felt like i wastarget and made out as if i was dumb....but you know i feel great so please stop makingme feel like i wasted money just because you can prove a cheaper camera can take good pictures too, because i already knew that! so im my eyes unless you have a tip on photography for me or any other person who asks, then stop makin people feel shamed for what they want to know and want...its becming rediculous..seriously and im very surprized that the boards let this be on here.....so again......i will ask my lens say f5.6 is that the highest appeture it can go for this particular lens? also how to you know if a pic is over or underexposed...?


----------



## jharr (Feb 17, 2009)

Cody, f5.6 is probably the lowest (widest) aperture your lens will do. As far as exposure goes, look at the histogram. In fact adjust your lcd display to show the histogram overlaid on the image every time. Get used to seeing the histogram and learn what it is telling you. The horizontal axis is the brightness (for lack of a better word) of the pixels. The vertical axis is the relative number of pixels at that brightness. So if you have a big mountain of pixels on the left end of your histogram, you might be underexposed. Of course this depends on your subject. If you are shooting a dark scene, you might want most of your pixels on the low (left) end. If you have a sharp spike of pixels at teh far right of the histogram you are probably blasting the highlights and that is really hard to fix later. There is a lot of good info out there on histogram use. It is the best indicator (once you learn to use it) of your exposure.
Happy shooting!
J--



codykrr said:


> so again......i will ask my lens say f5.6 is that the highest appeture it can go for this particular lens? also how to you know if a pic is over or underexposed...?


----------



## codykrr (Feb 17, 2009)

thanks....also here is that full body shot talken late. just go to my pic link below


----------



## Godzirra (Feb 18, 2009)

i just ordered, flash diffuser for $4 - because i'm sick of overpowering flash


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 18, 2009)

Godzirra said:


> i just ordered, flash diffuser for $4 - because i'm sick of overpowering flash


I agree! Over powering flash really bites. Diffusers are the way to go. They make the lighting game a little less painful and a lot more fun.


----------



## jharr (Feb 18, 2009)

Agreed. I have the same (or similar) diffuser as in your reflecto-pic. I haven't tried any others, but that one is da bomb!



Talkenlate04 said:


> I agree! Over powering flash really bites. Diffusers are the way to go. They make the lighting game a little less painful and a lot more fun.


----------



## codykrr (Feb 18, 2009)

hey talkenlate.....is that the sb 800 flash....just curious.....because i found a steal of a deal on one brand new....for 180 bucks....!


----------



## testdasi (Feb 18, 2009)

OMG! Ryan, you look like the younger version of Agent Gibbs in NCIS!

Anyway, can someone explains to me how diffuser improves flashes. For instance, how would a diffuser improves this pic?






I have been thinking of getting one but I have no idea how it would help.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 18, 2009)

The diffuser helps spread out the light. The flash by itself can send out a pretty harsh light that can easily cause over exposure in areas of a photo. This is a big deal when photographing people and in general, no one really wants harsh lighting like that. The diffuser directs the light all over and not just in one area "diffusing" the harsh lighting.

If I were to take a shot like I did above without the diffuser on you would get a ton of glare on the mirror from the flash and the rest of the room would not have been so bright because the flash is going almost straight out at whatever it is pointed at.  

In the absence of a diffuser you just have to get good at bouncing that harsh light around until you reach a desired look. For instance if you were inside and wanted to get a picture of some friends tilting the flash all the way up to the roof or toward a wall might help because then the harsh light has to go up and bounce back down spreading it out more evenly. Its a tricky thing to get good at, I still mess with my method all the time but the diffuser makes things easier. Even in that picture I had to think about where I wanted to point the flash to give me some decent lighting. 

You can also dial down the on board flash inside the camera so that the output is not so harsh, but that only gets you so far because sometimes you want a bright photo but not a harsh photo and you can't do that by dialing down the flash. (yet another time when the diffuser would come in handy)

Those are just a few examples, there are many other examples of when a diffuser would help out.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 18, 2009)

That is not even a good way to explain it because I lack a lot of the "technical" terms but I tried.  
It is still an on going adventure.


----------



## testdasi (Feb 18, 2009)

Thanks, that helped!  I had problem taking pics as well when facing a reflective surface.


----------



## jharr (Feb 19, 2009)

You will still have problems with a diffuser if you are shooting directly at a reflective surface. If you are using on-camera flash (with or without diffuser) you need to shoot at an angle to the glass. Alternately, if you have the capability, take the flash unit off of the camera. This can be done either with a cable, or some speedlight units can be triggered by the on-camera fill flash. In the latter case, the on-camera flash is not actuated when the shutter is open, so you don't get a reflection.

I don't have any T's here at work, but here is a pic of my reef tank. I am shooting this straight-on, but the flash is off to the left there. Granted it is too close and badly placed in the frame, but this is purely for illustration that I am not getting the big flash reflection from the glass. Hope this helps.

J--








testdasi said:


> Thanks, that helped!  I had problem taking pics as well when facing a reflective surface.


----------

