Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.

Photography tips

Discussion in 'Through the Lens' started by white_feather, Jan 26, 2009.

  1. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    Advertisement
    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  2. 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.
     
  3. Miss Bianca

    Miss Bianca Arachnoprince

    100?



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

    Jenners Arachnopeon

    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. :D
     
  5. Everyexcuse4me

    Everyexcuse4me Arachnopeon

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  6. 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.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  7. Everyexcuse4me

    Everyexcuse4me Arachnopeon




    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.

    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.
     
  8. Everyexcuse4me

    Everyexcuse4me Arachnopeon

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  9. 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?
     
  10. Everyexcuse4me

    Everyexcuse4me Arachnopeon

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

    [​IMG]


    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.
     
  11. 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.
    [​IMG]
    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.
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Everyexcuse4me

    Everyexcuse4me Arachnopeon

    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.

    [​IMG]

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

    [​IMG]

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

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

    delayedinsanity Arachnopeon

    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).
     
  14. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    Nobody disputed that.
     
  15. Jenners

    Jenners Arachnopeon

    "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. :p
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  16. Jenners

    Jenners Arachnopeon

  17. Noexcuse4you

    Noexcuse4you Arachnodemon Old Timer

    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:

    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.
     
  18. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

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

    :rolleyes: :clap:
     
  19. Noexcuse4you

    Noexcuse4you Arachnodemon Old Timer

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

    Draiman Arachnoking

    :wall: :wall: :wall:

     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.