Official Photography Thread?

[L4byr1nth]

Looking at this at the moment, even though it costs as much as the DSLR - http://www.parkcameras.com/6676/Tokina-AT-X-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6-D--Nikon-AF-.html

 

Will it autofocus with my camera? I know some lenses don't.

 

Ben.

 

EDIT: Damn, no it won't. It's a shame, because it's just on the edge of my comfortable budget for a new lens.

 

There's always this - but not sure if it's the right thing? Seems pretty cheap to me: http://www.parkcameras.com/4830/Nikon-AF-S-VR-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6G-IF-ED.html

Edited July 25, 2010 by L4byr1nth

[oikoik]

General rules: the wider the zoom range (and 18-270mm is laughably wide) the cr*ppier the lens.

 

I'd also avoid anything but Nikon, Canon, and maybe some Sigma lens.

 

Renting is a good idea.

 

18-270 is laughably wide but even Thom has said it actually is not as bad as traditionally you'd presume with anything with a very wide focal zoom range.

thats why i did not dismiss it out of hand.

 

i would sometimes rate Tokina [better build too] and Tamron much higher than some of the Sigma's i've used.

 

you have a D5000 ... hmm no internal focus motor... this does not have an internal focus motor on the lens - manual focus only for you.

[L4byr1nth]

I'd actually prefer a wider focal range to be honest - I don't get a lot of time for photography nowadays, and I won't be doing much specialist stuff that might require a dedicated lens.

 

Also, my budget at the moment won't allow for a variety of different lenses, so something that's more flexible is ideal for me - I don't necessarily need the very best quality.

 

The more reviews I read about it, the more I'm leaning towards the apparently under-rated Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF ED.

 

Looks exactly what I was after, but I just need to make sure it'll auto focus with the D5000.

 

Ben.

[ChrisWPA]

Since it has AFS on it, it will...but I will tell you right now thats not the best lens int he world, so if you want professional quality images then you should consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, its the best telephoto you can get for under $900 that will AF on your body.

[L4byr1nth]

It seems if you want F2.8 or better, you have to pay through the nose for it.

 

The Sigma one is this, right? http://www.parkcameras.com/9126/Tamron-AF-70-200mm-F-2-8-Di-LD--IF--Macro--Nikon-Fit-.html

 

Internet research suggests the 70-300 Nikkor is under-rated and pretty good, but who trusts the internet these days.

 

Might take a trip to Park Cameras next week and handle both. The 300mm will come in very useful for airshows over the 200mm, but who knows? I originally went in to Park Cameras for a Pentax K-X, and came out with a Nikon D5000

 

Ben.

[ChrisWPA]

Thats a tamron, the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is this.

 

http://www.adorama.com/SG70200DNKAF.html

 

 

 

Your pictures will be professional quality, Thats what I used for an air show and it worked great, if went to air shows more often I would just get a 400mm or 500mm but since I rarely do the 70-200 was perfect.

 

And it will be a thousand times better then that nikon, which is going to be horrible in low light and quality wont be the best at all. But if reach is the most important thing and you dont mind having a average quality picture, then the Nikon would be the route to go.

[oikoik]

no one said photography was cheap

[Short Stack]

Just got a Nikon D5000, I like it for my price range. Great for taking pictures, and stuff. Hoping to get better with it.

 

Resized picture of the House-In-Progress my dad is making.

 

 

And now a non-resized picture.

 

 

Oh, it auto resized it. Hah!

Edited July 27, 2010 by Short Stack

[ChrisWPA]

The words PHOTOGRAPHY and CHEAP never EVER should be used together:D!

[L4byr1nth]

Sorry, wrong link.

 

I don't really know, but short of winning the lottery, it HAS to be reasonably cheap, or at least good value for money.

 

Congrats on the D5000 ShortStack.

 

Ben.

[Titleist]

[-Drake-]

Some snapshots I took yesterday while out for a dander.

 

Couldnt decide on bw or color for this one so I just took both.

[Night_raven]

The words PHOTOGRAPHY and CHEAP never EVER should be used together:D!

 

Not to sound like a massive *bramston pickle* but;

 

Does this not sound a tadge elitist here? It's like saying "Don't buy a Ford, buy a BMW instead". Seriously, come off your high horse for a minute, and consider prehaps some great shots were taken on cheap camera's.

 

Anyway, London shot taken from Southbank, ISO was messed a little, hence the "noise" in the sky;

 

 

 

Nikon D5000.

 

[ChrisWPA]

Not to sound like a massive *bramston pickle* but;

 

Does this not sound a tadge elitist here? It's like saying "Don't buy a Ford, buy a BMW instead". Seriously, come off your high horse for a minute, and consider prehaps some great shots were taken on cheap camera's.

 

Anyway, London shot taken from Southbank, ISO was messed a little, hence the "noise" in the sky;

 

 

Some awesome pics came from cheap cameras, yes, but find a professional shot taken with a cheap setup of flying airplanes, or anything far away, even at night!

 

To get good shots at night, far away, macro, etc....you need a good camera. I am not saying you need a $2,000-$5,000+ setup though.

 

Your "dont buy a ford, buy a bmw instead" statement proves my point, a ford and a bmw will both get you to the same place (both get a picture), but the bmws interior will be extremely well made, the car will be built better, and it will be a more pleasurable ride (better detailed pic, less iso, higher quality, more options for printing, more professional).

 

So if you do not have the $ to get into photography but you love it, go ahead and buy the best camera that suits your budget because photography is a great hobby and you dont need to spend thousands to have fun. But if you want to have professional pictures and make large prints or sell, then dont expect a $200 lens to do the trick.

[Trasher]

It's like saying "Don't buy a Ford, buy a BMW instead". Seriously, come off your high horse for a minute, and consider prehaps some great shots were taken on cheap camera's.

 

You can capture great/dramatic/etc moments with cheap gear, but you'll also miss a lot of them (noise, AF problems, dynamic range, aperture range, overall IQ). Photography is a technical "sport" and every time I tried to go cheap, quality suffered. Every time I tried to replace a fixed focal tele with a telezoom, or a dedicated macro with a "macro-capable" zoom lens, the number of "keepers" suffered.

 

I'm too poor to afford cheap.

[ChrisWPA]

Exactly my point. Its like anything that costs $, you get what you pay for.

[ChrisWPA]

Here is a Photoshoot from my friends Honda Civic Si

 

 

 

 

[Kaworu]

Trip to Paranapiacaba, district of Santo André city, near São Paulo. (airsofter and also railfan)

 

Photos with a Olympus E-300 DSLR and a all-around 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 lens

 

 

 

 

See ya! []'s

[Vercingetorix]

From my trip to Alaska last week:

 

 

Ruth Glacier. 4000FT deep and 3 miles wide at that point

[ChrisWPA]

Looks unreal! Wow thats such a beautiful location!

[Trasher]

Two weeks on horseback in Mongolia:

 

[ChrisWPA]

Wow your lucky to have such beautiful areas/people to work with! So jealous! Lovely pics!!!

[L4byr1nth]

Anybody got any tips for photographing tropical fish?

 

Just got a tank, and finding it hard to know where to put my flashguns, what settings to use, etc?

 

Ben.

[ChrisWPA]

If I were you, I would put a flash in a plastic bag (if I were ACTUALLY you id put it in like 3 bags JUST to make sure hahahah), and I would drop it in the tank so its bouncing off of the back (if your back has a mat).

 

Then I would put a flash at the top facing towards the fish, and use a CIRCULAR POLARIZER to cut out the glare, and take the pic on like f1.8-f2.8 iso 200.

 

Thats just coming from someone that has never done that type of photography though, so I mean I could be wrong but thats where I would start. And adjust it from there.

[L4byr1nth]

Excellent, cheers, I'll give that a shot pronto.

 

Ben.