Photography Thread

[OLS]

Ehh, what's a billion when you are Canadian. You had THREE SISTERS skiing in Sochi, all of them decently hot,
some of em really hot. You're CANADA...What's a billion dollars?

here is a pic of some musician.


Justin White and The Poodle Brandy, Memphis, TN by Brad-(OLS), on Flickr

[mikesr1963]

[mikesr1963]

[mikesr1963]

[MrClean]

Love the humming bird pics Mike.

[357]

Originally Posted by OLS

You're CANADA...What's a billion dollars?

About $95 US.

[OLS]

Man, what a day. I spent the first four hours of today online trying to decide whether to buy a used D700 for roughly $1200,
a new D600(610) or a used D3 or D800. When it was all over, I had decided that just because my D700 is experiencing
mirror return issues after smacking it against the pavement in NOLA, I can still operate around it and simply not buy
another camera. After selling a D90 and giving away 3 D100/D70's for Christmas, I still have about 8 bodies.
So while there is no shortage of backup cameras to my D7000, I have no dependable full frame body anymore
and almost all I shoot is low light environs. So while I can still take the D700 and shoot with it, once the mirror gets
caught in an up-cycle, I can no longer see for framing or focus through the VF. I can fire off as many shots as I want,
the shutter opens. And if I want to make the mirror behave, I usually just have to fire off about 8 shots of high speed
continuous to get it back down to resting in the right position. But it can't be depended on, its just there if I want to carry
two bodies and shoot two lenses without switching out.

If I got PAID to shoot, it would be an easy decision. But just because everything I do is for pleasure, I can still get away
with having a bum full framer. But what I shoot is ALWAYS a potential FUTURE cash cow, one day I hope to sell a
print of everything I like, so having something in the chain be intermittent is still a big issue. But like I said at the start,
I wasted a half day of work and still made it out to lunch without having spent a penny. So I am technically ahead of the game.
But what messes up the WHOLE equation is the 'for pleasure' angle. I simply can't justify spending even used-stuff money
as an amateur right now. I think that is what kept me from jumping, that and the less-than-attractive prices, even used.

----
I think what I am REALLY hoping for is that if I just STOP babying my D700, i.e. only using it when I have to have low light capabilities,
then I can get the mirror to start behaving eventually BEFORE I wear the shutter out from all the wasted shots trying to get the
mirror to return to a 45 degree angle after every shot. It will be hard, because it was halfway to 150k when I bought it. And believe me,
I have thought long and hard about bouncing it on the pavement AGAIN to try and reset it back to being a solid performer. Works with
a frying pan on all the old TV shows to relieve amnesia.

[OLS]

I think I realized what is going to have to happen. I can't keep shooting manual focus lenses on the D700.
If the mirror gets caught up, if I use AF lenses on it I should still be able to shoot, just not frame the shot.....hmmm.
My best low light lenses are all manual focus....that's how I could AFFORD em, lol. At least the D7000 works the same
way with manual lenses as the D700, and also operates in low light. Makes it a little easier to stay on the fence.
Having the money is the really hard part. ANYTHING I come up with is OK on money. Reason is just fighting
really hard today.

[OLS]

here are two cats on the street over Mardi Gras and I have NO IDEA
what they are talking about, but it does NOT look entirely wholesome.
Considering they are 50-60 feet off Bourbon Street, is there any surprise?
I just thought the light was extremely bi+chin'.


Business Meeting by Brad-(OLS), on Flickr

[stearns]

Really like that picture Brad, love how it's framed with showing so much of the blue door

[OLS]

Why, thank you sir. Nice to get a compliment on a photo that could have gotten me killed.

[stearns]

meh, at least you woulda been killed doing something you love

just kidding, try not to get killed taking pictures, there are more badass ways to go

[OLS]

I was shooting some birds out of my back window upstairs the other day, and I had PULLED the second D90 I had for sale,
since I smacked my D700 on the sidewalk in NOLA. I needed a good backup and I was about to sell it. But not one
to let a potential buyer go away empty-handed, I gave decent prices to him on 5 other camera models and a lens.

But I had the D80 I wanted to sell to him attached to a 300mm f/4.5 I picked up a few months ago. SO I took some
photos with it to show him what the D80 puts into a file. These bird photos are all in fading evening light, so the ISO
was cranked. I needed DOF and shutter speed both, so, I had to do it. Hand-holding a 300mm lens ain't no job for
1/60th of a second, lol. So sorry about the noise in advance. It was getting late.

And even with the noise, ITS NO D90, but it ain't a bad D80. I am liking it more and more every time I shoot with it.

[Dave128]

This has most likely been covered here before, but I'm a bit too lazy to read through this entire thread:

To begin, I'm a novice and after doing some research, I feel that I'm looking for something equivilant to the quality of a D90. Given a choice between the following brands of digital (DSLR) cameras 1. how would you rank them? 2. which would you pick? 3. why? Thanks in advance.

1. Kodak
2. Sony
3. Canon
4. Nikon
5. Minolta
6. Any others I may have left off

[MrClean]

Dave, in my limited exposure to the world of DSLR's, I think your money is best spent on a Nikon or Canon. Each brand has it's pros and cons, Brad might be able to weigh in on the differences between a D90 and the Canon equivelant. I've only ever used Canon's and have been very happy with them. My reason for choosing them, I had a point and shoot Canon Powershot (3.2MP) that had a recall on it. Found the recall 2 years after it was issued when my camera started exhibiting the problem. Called their customer service and they sent me the packaging and labels I needed to ship it in and got it back in under 2 weeks. Shortly after that I decided to get a bigger MP point and shoot, got an Olympus (12MP) and it was garbage. The Canon took clear pictures, almost every shot with the Olympus was either out of focus or grainy (noise) as heck.
That's what started me down the road of DLSR's and since I had a great experience with Canon customer service, that's the brand I chose. I'm sure Nikon has equally great customer service. To me at least, it seems Nikon people hate Canon and the same goes for Canon people. I love the 2 Canon DSLR's I have but don't hate Nikon, just never had any experience with them.

[Dave128]

Originally Posted by MrClean

Dave, in my limited exposure to the world of DSLR's, I think your money is best spent on a Nikon or Canon. Each brand has it's pros and cons, Brad might be able to weigh in on the differences between a D90 and the Canon equivelant. I've only ever used Canon's and have been very happy with them. My reason for choosing them, I had a point and shoot Canon Powershot (3.2MP) that had a recall on it. Found the recall 2 years after it was issued when my camera started exhibiting the problem. Called their customer service and they sent me the packaging and labels I needed to ship it in and got it back in under 2 weeks. Shortly after that I decided to get a bigger MP point and shoot, got an Olympus (12MP) and it was garbage. The Canon took clear pictures, almost every shot with the Olympus was either out of focus or grainy (noise) as heck.
That's what started me down the road of DLSR's and since I had a great experience with Canon customer service, that's the brand I chose. I'm sure Nikon has equally great customer service. To me at least, it seems Nikon people hate Canon and the same goes for Canon people. I love the 2 Canon DSLR's I have but don't hate Nikon, just never had any experience with them.

Thanks, Jeff. Much appreciated.

[MrClean]

So the D90 is around $700-$800 from what a quick Google search brought up.
That is in the neighborhood of the Canon 60D. I've heard a lot of good things about both of these cameras. Canon T4i is also an option. I had a T2i before I bought the 6D and as an introductory DSLR the EOS Ti series seems to have a lot of options for novice/hobbist shooters.

[OLS]

I will go ahead and say a couple of things...First I will comment on your list, but loaded with caveats.
Nikon comes to me much the same way that Jeff came to Canon. TO ME, canon made the best superzoom point and shoots of all time.
But they had REAL issues with unexplained 'lens errors' where Canon would tell you that YOU GOT SAND and debris in the mechnism
and there was nothing they could do about it. They also denied certain cameras ever had any issues at all. I had a Canon S1 IS,
freaking awesome camera. Followed up an even BETTER one, the Canon S5 IS. I was in the smokies, fell into a stream carring my
S5, thought no problem, I'll just go and get my S1 out of the bag. Turned it on. Boom, lens error. Never been to the beach,
never been DIRTY. Those 'hypersonic motors' SUCK A55. So I dropped Canon forever.

I really like Nikon, because I have been with em for 18 months as a newbie DSLR user, (loved my superzooms.)
I have handled and shot with 9 different models of Nikon DSLR body in that year and a half. ALL OF THEM
used the same battery. I never have to worry about chargers and batteries, I always know where everything is.
People all tell me here that this is not all that big of a deal. I think differently. I have handled 20-30 different Nikon lenses,
snapping them all over one camera to the other, they all fit, they all work, whatever body I grab. Automation is
all I lose in the most extreme examples. A LOT of my lenses are manual focus only, at least half.

I believe in Nikon's optics, and I believe in the layout of the better cameras, and I do not feel lost when I hold a cheaper model.
I like Nikon, but I would not buy anything very NEW from them, the earthquake really messed them up and I think QC slipped
some over the past 5 years. I think they will get it back, but for now I am retro-buying (haha, that's all I ever DID was retro-buy.
I also forgot that the first camera from Nikon I ever bought with a new battery type is the D7000 I just picked up last month.
Another nice camera.

The only thing I have to say that involves them BOTH is do what you are doing, talk to people. They are both outstanding,
leaping over one another on the way to the top, but always there. There is a NICE old full framer for sale, a original Canon 5D,
and I want it, its half the price of a Nikon D700. But I have to BUY a Canon lens to go with it, because I have none. I realized
if I knew ANYTHING about myself it was that there was NO WAY I would stop at one lens. So I had to back down. I am invested
heavily in Nikon and the bi+ch don't like her man runnin around.

Minolta is still a very good company, but with the top 2 names, you can almost name your focal length and there is a lens
for you, ready to go. With Minolta, Olympus, Kodak....they are not near as well-prepared for your needs. I would never suggest
against ANY manufacturer, they all deserve customers who compare and buy their brand in the end, because they all have a dog
in the hunt for now.

SONY...that's the REAL RUB. They are blood-smart. They have been ready since day one. They've been selling sensors
to EVERYONE...There's a SONY inside 80% of the DSLRS out there today. But that money coming in was not wasted,
SONY is making the best ILCompact cameras out there now. Their DSLRs are no joke either. And they are CRANKING OUT
the lenses. SO if you boldly chose Sony, you would not be left out in the cold. Plus SONY makes it easy to mount other
people's lenses to their bodies. They go out of their way to do it.

All that said, buy a Nikon from me.

Or maybe a FUJI Superzoom.

[Dave128]

Nice review, Brad. After all of that from both of you, I'm still leaning toward the D90. That sucker seems to be everything (and more) that I'm looking for.

[GWN]

Had the opportunity to catch the Johnny Winter Band in a tiny 80-seat venue last night.
Lighting was minimal and I couldn't use flash, so had to shoot at 1600-2000 iso and handhold at very low shutter speeds but managed to get a few sharpish frames.
He's 70 but the hard life he's lived has aged him well beyond that. He basically had to be guided on and off stage and sat through the show. His guitar changes were done by an assistant.
But man, the guy can still play.
Last frame is my fave. Started to pull out more of the detail in the shadows in post and then realized it was better before.