3NE2NR Official Phototakerouter & Photography Thread...

[DVSTT]

So they not removing tax on camera equipment only cctv cameras :/

[Trini Hookah]

Just when I purchased a new Tele...oh joy.

[DVSTT]

Just when I purchased a new Tele...oh joy.

Prepare for the rape from customs

[Trini Hookah]

My body is ready.

[DVSTT]

YN560II is now 60 instead of 70 of amazon, think I'm gonna give it a try!

[Daran]

Guys, any ideas for a nice photo shoot location in NW trinidad?? Looking for something original.

[Slacka69]

Just sharing a few of my shots...

[stikid09]

Smoke shot and moon shot take win bro. Very nice!

[Dragist]

Bird Maracas by dpds68, on Flickr

nice shot, 90% sure thats a spotted sandpiper. Is the black 'wall' at the back of the picture down by the jetty or further west?

This was by the Bridge and thank you .

[Dragist]

One more from that day .


Maracas View by dpds68, on Flickr

[maj. tom]

A nice read, interesting there are a few gems of the Soviet-era industrialization that left a legacy on the world. Sometimes the awe and magic can be achieved with simpler and cheaper technology. The Lomo camera. Who here has heard of it, or even owned one?


Did the Lomo camera save film photography?

BBC © 2012

[Aaron 2NR]

New toys

[DVSTT]

Double River Waterfall by DHARIN, on Flickr

[stikid09]

^^Loveleh

[lighthammer]

question again..

on the guy's site i was reading the review of the d7000 as well

i am seeing for around $750 i can get the d7000 body and have the best of both worlds..

called over a friend and saw the d7000 first hand and was impressed and i caught on with the camera quickly since the extensive experience with the d90..

should i just go for the d7000 body and have a body good enough to last a while and get a 18-105mmVR lens to hold me till i figure out what glass my cousin and i will buy and share....


what you think lighthammer?

I used a D7000 recently too, and I was impressed with it.
It does have an aluminium body, and has decent weather sealing... and seems tough enough to take some jamming (probably as much as the D300).

I would consider it to be almost on par with the D300, the only difference that matters between them is the level of control that the D300 gives you compared to some "dumbing" down of the controls on the D7000.
However, if you're just there to shoot first and ask questions later, then I would recommend the D7000 over the D300. Image qual between them is negligible unless you're a commercial photog like Chase Jarvis and absolutely need the best from your equipment..... then you'd just buy a D4 :O).


Anyway... I like the level of control my D200 gave me and if it were me (and it will soon be)... I'd go for the D300.
But if it were someone new who just wants to get into the game and wants to take a sheitload of pictures and post them all over facebook and imgur and photobucket and flickr for all their bff's and office coworkers to see and say "whogawd bai you does real take good pittures, you does do wedding and ting bai?? hurr-hurr-hurrrr)....... take the D7000.

or just buy a used D300 and save some $$$$$ and buy some g*dammned good lenses!!

(my recommendation for a walk-around kit for lenses - D300/D7000, Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6mm VR DX and a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC-II.... perfect for a dude who just out on a lam and taking pics)

[lighthammer]

One more from that day .


Maracas View by dpds68, on Flickr

whoa buddy, relax a lil bit on the saturation there. Looks a lil oversaturated and unnatural.

What program are you using to post-process?

Here's a lil rule of thumb I learned the hard way - when it comes to PP-ing natural landscapes, low-n'-slow on the saturation/vibrance is the best way to do it.
Just like sharpening, a little goes a long way when boosting colours.

[lighthammer]

should i just go for the d7000 body and have a body good enough to last a while and get a 18-105mmVR lens to hold me till i figure out what glass my cousin and i will buy and share....

Caring is sharing bro....
I wish T'dad had more Nikon shooters, to share some Nikon glass!

my lens lineup - 18-70mm Nikon, 70-210 AF-D Sigma piece-of-sheit-but-still-good-enough telephoto, Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6, Nikon 50mm f/1.8.

[VexXx Dogg]

Any local reviews on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens?

Want to experiment with shots outside the realm of the 18-55 lens that shipped with the cam. For use on le olde food blog.

Anyone here has one and care to comment. The amazon users complained about the build quality, but I take care of my shiz. Good bang for buck?

[RBphoto]

It sharp as fack. If you want to rent mine for $30.00 dollars a day- $150/week (free weekend) be my guest. Only things to look out for:

1) Best used on a tripod, as it has no IS.
2) You might be dissapointed for close up work as it does not focus that colse. Probably not that great for picutres of food depending on how you shoot.
3) Manual focus sucks. The focus ring is thin and if you move it without swithing to MF, you may break something.

I humbly suggest that you may not need a fast prime for food, or fine details. For closeups, you may need f/11-f/22 to get good front to back focus of just a few feet, then you still need a tripod. This lens is great for portraits though.

[VexXx Dogg]

I think I wanna use it as an AIO.
The 18-55 autofocus sticking, so I bitching for an excuse for a new lens.

[RBphoto]

^^^ nah...Buy it for handheld low light photography. In good light, you wanna be hitting f/4-f/8 thereabouts to keep a person in focus, so a fast lens would not help. It does NOT do everything. For blurring backgrounds I usually use a longer 55-200mm lens than just open up a 50 f/1.4.

[DVSTT]

It sharp as fack. If you want to rent mine for $30.00 dollars a day- $150/week (free weekend) be my guest. Only things to look out for:

1) Best used on a tripod, as it has no IS.
2) You might be dissapointed for close up work as it does not focus that colse. Probably not that great for picutres of food depending on how you shoot.
3) Manual focus sucks. The focus ring is thin and if you move it without swithing to MF, you may break something.

I humbly suggest that you may not need a fast prime for food, or fine details. For closeups, you may need f/11-f/22 to get good front to back focus of just a few feet, then you still need a tripod. This lens is great for portraits though.

It is sharp but only when stopped down to around f2.8, at f1.8 its terribly soft. But image quality is way better than that of the kit lens

[cornfused]

The 50 f1.8 is a sharp as you'll get on any canon lens outside of L glass . So its a cheap intro to L glass . Sharp very , can it shoot in the darkness?, you better try your best . This lens can make some night areas look like day .... well or light, long after the kit lenses have failed. Focusing is not the best , very incremental and shifty in certain conditions. I remember once I was taking a goldish statue not well lit but with a bright background. Lets just say that I saw its limitations . However as far a lenses go this represents a supreme value for money . Saved me many times.

A more pro better built lens maybe be the 50 f1.4

[DVSTT]

The 50 f1.8 is a sharp as you'll get on any canon lens outside of L glass . So its a cheap intro to L glass . Sharp very , can it shoot in the darkness?, you better try your best . This lens can make some night areas look like day .... well or light, long after the kit lenses have failed. Focusing is not the best , very incremental and shifty in certain conditions. I remember once I was taking a goldish statue not well lit but with a bright background. Lets just say that I saw its limitations . However as far a lenses go this represents a supreme value for money . Saved me many times.

A more pro better built lens maybe be the 50 f1.4

You'd be better off with the sigma 50mm f1.4 since that canon 50mm f1.4 uses some micro usm not the ring usm used on almost all the other USM lenses. I was reading reviews and basically the micro USM motor didn't last long at all.

[DVSTT]

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

Reading this, thought I'd share.

[nicholas7129]

took this with a canon 50mm @ f1.8

[DVSTT]

took this with a canon 50mm @ f1.8

Nice! Seems you're having a good xmas .
But this is what I was saying, it's not sharp @1.8, stop it down to 2.8 and it's tack sharp.

Btw, any of you guys think that the IS may negatively affect the sharpness of an image? Was watching a video a while back on this.

Btw (again) what you guys think of the 85 f1.8 canon for portraiture? Is it a good buy?

[RBphoto]

Well if you don't find it sharp... well daiz you. I find what is in focus is quite sharp in the rum picture. I rather use a long lens to blurr backgrounds than wide appatures.

[DVSTT]

Well if you don't find it sharp... well daiz you. I find what is in focus is quite sharp in the rum picture. I rather use a long lens to blurr backgrounds than wide appatures.

It's sharp just not at f1.8. My long lens only goes to f5.6 :/. But the your thoughts on the 85mm f1.8?

[dougla_boy]

[/url]

these pics were taken with a point and shoot Sony Cybershot WX100