Official Photography Thread?

[Night_raven]

Yay, another D5000 guy

 

How are you liking it so far?

 

Ben.

 

It's a brilliant camera, well worth the investment.

 

I assume you have yours already?

[bitchtits]

must be a camera month

was recently bought a d90 with a kit lense(18-105mm) by the wife for my birthday.

i took the plunge straight away and started shooting in manual,instead of auto.still trying to figure all the settings out though,as ive no proper camera/dslr experiance before,onlyused point and shoot cams.

 

im already looking at buying a new lense,but im stuck between getting a 70-300mm lense or a 50mm fixed lense.

i need to get a lense that can shoot closer than the kit lense aswell.

[Robinio]

for some reason i was thinking i would see something naked in the albums...

 

Nah, thats just the domain name haha!

[magaz]

Post processing is not an option, it's a must... Shoot only in RAW (NEF for Nikon?) and get a good converter (Lightroom or Capture One).

 

Gospel Truth...

[oikoik]

must be a camera month

was recently bought a d90 with a kit lense(18-105mm) by the wife for my birthday.

i took the plunge straight away and started shooting in manual,instead of auto.still trying to figure all the settings out though,as ive no proper camera/dslr experiance before,onlyused point and shoot cams.

 

im already looking at buying a new lense,but im stuck between getting a 70-300mm lense or a 50mm fixed lense.

i need to get a lense that can shoot closer than the kit lense aswell.

 

el cheapo 70-300 lenses are sometimes also macro lenses - i think sigma had one going. i think they were 99-199 or so.

 

50mm fixed lenses are lovely if theyre fast ones.

fixed focal length/primes are lovely bits of glass, and often cheaper than zooms.

for a DX [ie. cropped] sized sensor chip though, 50mm will give you a field of view thats more like looking through a 75mm or so [watch that the physical specs of the glass do not change, youre still looking through a 50mm lens, just that what you see is a bit smaller in terms of imaging size].

this is not a bad thing, but it does leave you with not much room to maneuver in small spaces.

 

with my DX bodies [D2H and D2X] if i want an equivalent view of 50mm [on full 35mm frame], then i use a 1.4/30mm or 2/35mm lens.

 

tbh, i think a nice crisp, fast, 50mm wil get you more 'ooh!' factor in your pics...

and you will appreciate low light shooting more, and the aesthetic quality brought out in pictures showing off shallow depth of field.

 

 

Nah, thats just the domain name haha!

i'm also a bit pervy, so some ideas popup in my head faster than others...

Edited February 1, 2010 by oikoik

[oikoik]

oops a DP situation!

kekeke

*dribble*

Edited February 1, 2010 by oikoik

[WhutJP]

Yeah I'm also in the new lens market, I'm considering two, possibly three if I can bear the cost...

 

one is a 105mm macro by Sigma, its half the cost of the Nikkor version which means I can afford a second lens - the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 prime. On top of that I'm considering a 50mm prime too (the nikkor afs one).

 

A question actually - If I get the 20mm (want it for the sharpness and wide angle, for landscapes) would the 50mm just feel redundant?

I already have an 18-200mm lens on there which is a fantastic walk around lens but I want as was said before - the wowness the sharpness a prime would give.

I know the 18-200mm lens is pretty good at 50mm, but max apature is way above the 1.4 of the nikkor 50mm prime. The question is is whether I would notice enough for it to be worth the expense.

 

gah, the confusing world of photography.

 

 

 

 

[oikoik]

well, for landscape youre not going to be using your 1.4/50mm at 1.4 are you?

cant recall what the sweet spot is, but most lenses are around f8-f11 mark.

 

for landscape work you would be going wide, without getting distorted.

i notice distortion at 20mm, on mine [at closer distances obviously].

at wide angles, the kind of thing that would sort that issue is a tit/shift lens, but theyre fiddly and expensive and manual.

28mm is a pretty good focal length.

 

otoh, have you got a cropped sensor or a full frame camera?

with a cropped one, you have to compensate for what is going to be recorded on your chip, so if you want a 28mm field of view, you need a 18mm to compensate for the 1.5 crop.

for a 20mm fov, you need a 13mm, and so on.

if you are shooting full frame, then the focal length you get is what you get.

 

i use 50mm for low light gig stuff and people [and my 85 is for portraits, either that or my 80-200/2.8]

not for landscapes, so if that is your specialty, the 50 will collect dust.

 

i havent used the 18-200, but im not a fan of 'jack of all trades master of none' type lenses.

my walk about is either a 20-40/2.8 or a 35-70/2.8

 

although i run with a few, i'm not a fan of sigma. they rate high on the lemon-ator.

tamron and tokina, i rate better, and branded obviously best.

Edited February 2, 2010 by oikoik

[TacticalKitKat]

Just a couple of panoramic pics I've been toying with recently:

 

The O2 Arena

 

Canary Wharf from Rotherhithe

 

Moulsford Viaduct surrounding area with snow, 02/02/2009

[oikoik]

nice pics earlier WhutJP - was that part of the great seto bridge in the background?

 

reminded me of what a great photo opportunity japan is

 

 

Edited February 2, 2010 by oikoik

[WhutJP]

well, for landscape youre not going to be using your 1.4/50mm at 1.4 are you?

cant recall what the sweet spot is, but most lenses are around f8-f11 mark.

 

for landscape work you would be going wide, without getting distorted.

i notice distortion at 20mm, on mine [at closer distances obviously].

at wide angles, the kind of thing that would sort that issue is a tit/shift lens, but theyre fiddly and expensive and manual.

28mm is a pretty good focal length.

 

otoh, have you got a cropped sensor or a full frame camera?

with a cropped one, you have to compensate for what is going to be recorded on your chip, so if you want a 28mm field of view, you need a 18mm to compensate for the 1.5 crop.

for a 20mm fov, you need a 13mm, and so on.

if you are shooting full frame, then the focal length you get is what you get.

 

i use 50mm for low light gig stuff and people [and my 85 is for portraits, either that or my 80-200/2.8]

not for landscapes, so if that is your specialty, the 50 will collect dust.

 

i havent used the 18-200, but im not a fan of 'jack of all trades master of none' type lenses.

my walk about is either a 20-40/2.8 or a 35-70/2.8

 

although i run with a few, i'm not a fan of sigma. they rate high on the lemon-ator.

tamron and tokina, i rate better, and branded obviously best.

 

Cheers, yeah it was the setohashi, its a pretty amazing piece of engineering.

 

And sorry I should've been more clearer with my question; I don't mean to use the 50mm for landscapes but for people. What I was wondering was if there was a substantial difference between using the 18-200 at 50mm, and the prime. I realise there is some difference but I wondered if it was enough of a difference for it to be worth getting.

 

I have a D90, so not full frame.

 

Cheers for the note on the Sigma, I will look in to the tamron and tokina ones they have, I haven't actually placed my order yet so yeah. I know the Nikkor would be better but I'd rather go for a third party and be able to afford a prime as well.

 

Nice pics - have you spent long in Japan?

 

 

 

 

 

[oikoik]

hehe, aha, then yes, a 50, especially a 1.4 that renders creamy softness, used to its advantage, would make a hell of a difference to an 18-200.

the only way a 18-200 might work as happily, is if you continually shot people at 200mm...

or in a studio, in which case the playing field is levelled considerably.

 

used at 1.4, the 50 would look nicer than a 50 at say, 4 or 4.5 which is what the 18-200 might be at that length.

in low light that would make a shedload of difference.

if you shoot more than 1 person though, because of the shallow depth of field, try and make all their eyeballs equi distant from the focal plane of your camera.

[ie. dont stagger them]

 

whereas the 1.4 is, or was, 350 or so, the 50/1.8 can be had for as little 50 [i had both, sold the 50/1.8 for that much] which is just as good, just that the smooth bits are not as creamy looking.

but hell, its cheap.

i dont know how the afs version performs though.

 

agreed on prices, thats why i also look at tamron and tokina...

sigma is my last choice tbh.

 

but if you want the 50mm equiv, i think only sigma gives you that choice with the 30/1.4 hsm[afs equiv].

it was maybe 300 but might be cheaper now.

i ran around in japan with a d2x/30/1.4 combo nearly all the time.

[but for a wedding party in ebisu/symphony, i used a 18-50 most of the time]

 

that let me get close, the 30/1.4 got me 50 equiv for semi-decent portrait/low light type shots.

with the 50, on a dx sensor, you always have to step back that much more to frame what you want...

 

ta, no, only spent maybe 3-4 weeks there.

would like to go back and spend longer...

 

so, sorry to throw in a variable, but yeah, the 30/1.4 came to be used more than the 50/1.4...

 

 

Edited February 2, 2010 by oikoik

[bitchtits]

it was the nikon 50mm f1.8 i was looking at buying,as the reviews say its probably the best 50mm for that price and even better than alot of more expensive lenses.

i think that will be my next buy as its cheap,and im currently skint

[oikoik]

the 50/1.8 is always highly recommended

 

it is a screw-type AF lens, so make sure your camera has a motor inside [little AF motor screw on the AF lens mount]

 

cheaper nikon bodies like D40/D40x/D60 and others do not have these, and so while they are still compatible, they are manual focus only.

if you want AF on those bodies, you need either AFS lenses or the equivalent from other manufactureres [sigma has the HSM for example]

 

[by comparison, all canons bodies have no motors and rely entirely on the lens having them built in. the tilt/shift lens for canon is the only one thats fully manual with no motor at all]

 

same for the 85/1.4 and 1.8, the 1.4 is very expensive but moist-inducing, the 1.8 is alot more affordable.

 

 

 

[L4byr1nth]

It's a brilliant camera, well worth the investment.

 

I assume you have yours already?

 

Hehehehe got mine earlier in January with the kit lens.

 

I'm really lusting after a macro/portrait lens now.

 

I'm thinking Tamron, unless the Nikon equiv. is better?

 

Ben.

[oikoik]

nikon is always usually better.

 

in terms of sharpness, flare handling, contrast and colour rendition and often build.

 

macro - nikon/sigma/tamron have el cheapo zooms that can be macros too.

if you want a portrait lens *and* want auto focus, you'll be looking at anything with a motor in it - nikons' [sWM] AFS or equivalent from 3rd party manufacturers.

 

and for portraits 50 and preferably longer to avoid distortion.

Edited February 2, 2010 by oikoik

[The End]

you could also go for an older Nikkor macro lens, that what I am using now for macro applications. But note that nikon likes to call their lens "micro"

[ChrisWPA]

Sigma has 2 good macro lenses, the 50mm f2.8, and the 105mm f2.8.

 

I personally do alot of insect macro so I needed the 105mm, its SO sharp, I love it, and you can pick one up for $400.

 

I highly suggest it.

 

And as for the 50mm f1.8, BUY IT, for $110(ish) shipped, you cannot beat the quality, and its f1.8 so great for portraits and low light.

[L4byr1nth]

I saw the Sigma 105mm f2.8 for cheaper than the Tamron 90mm f2.8, which is here;

 

http://www.parkcameras.com/10804/Tamron-90...8-Nikon-AF.html

 

It's pretty much between the above Tamron, and the Nikon 105mm 2.8;

 

http://www.parkcameras.com/3978/Nikon-AF-S...F-ED-Micro.html

 

Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit cheaper, but if the Nikon is really that much better, I'd be tempted to drop the cash, or at least try and find a used model.

 

Ben.

[oikoik]

i did have the sigma 50/2.8 for the pentax. iirc, the working distance for 50mm is a little too close though and might introduce issues of shadow.

 

 

[Xaccers]

Incase no one has spotted it and might be interested, March edition of Practical Photography has an article on home studios and lighting effects that's not too bad.

Covers high and low key too.

[WhutJP]

I saw the Sigma 105mm f2.8 for cheaper than the Tamron 90mm f2.8, which is here;

 

http://www.parkcameras.com/10804/Tamron-90...8-Nikon-AF.html

 

It's pretty much between the above Tamron, and the Nikon 105mm 2.8;

 

http://www.parkcameras.com/3978/Nikon-AF-S...F-ED-Micro.html

 

Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit cheaper, but if the Nikon is really that much better, I'd be tempted to drop the cash, or at least try and find a used model.

 

Ben.

I just ordered the Tamrom 90mm, so I'll be able to tell you within the week how I like it. I love macro photography.

I also ordered the Tamron 10-24mm wide angle, for the landscapes.

 

decided against the prime just now, I dont think I do enough portrait/people work to justify it. The shopping cart bill was piling up a little high too. At some point I will pick one up though I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

[oikoik]

cool. personally i'm not really into macro, unless its female-oriented gynecological... lol just kidding

Edited February 3, 2010 by oikoik

[bitchtits]

i realise now photo shopping is a must, so what does everyone use to do there photos.

i recently got cs4,but i think its got a few parts missing(say something about a colour palite,being missing when loaded),and its very complicated to use.

well for me being a total noob at this it is.

yesterday i got light room which seems alot easier but i know it doesnt have all the functions of cs4.

 

should i try and get to grips with cs4 or just stick with light room until i know alittle more about what im doing

[WhutJP]

Undoubtedly play with cs4! I know it seems a bit complicated at first, but just take images and draw on them and *fruitcage* them up in all kids of ways. Play with the filters, and all the options in the Image>Adjustments menu. You'll have no idea at first what you are doing but in the end it will all be worth it!

I totally sympathise with your frustration though, I am going through the same thing with Illustrator. gah, that thing frustrates me cos I've got no clue how to do it.

 

oik;

Hah! that'd likely put me off entirely, there's some things I don't need to see magnified...