Any Photography People take a Look

[Strider]

I have taken up Photography the last 6-9 months specifically Digital Photography using a DSLR Nikon D80 camera and I've started a group on Flickr the web address is
http://www.flickr.com/groups/photogroovies/ , so if you're interestied in joining Flickr or are already a member of flickr feel free to join my group. Please no Flickr bashing in this post, I've already have seen enough on the internet about the beef some people have with Flickr censoring their photographs that I don't want this thread to turn in a debate about flickr, plus I'm a conservative myself I feel if you can't share a picture because of it's content you shouldn't be posting it on a public website.

[TwoRails]

Some nice shots there, Strider. I don't have time to look at the larger view of all of them, but I did go thru the medium sized thumbnails

[XenaWP]

I have a D80 also with the 24-85mm f/2.8, the 80-200 mm f/2.8, and the Tokina 12-24 mm. Wish I could get out more to shoot photos.

Will check photos when I'm back on broadband tomorrow.

[Cricket]

I've been thinking about getting a digital SLR recently...how do you like that Nikon? I've been looking at the Canon Rebel XTi.

I have a degree in Fine Arts but I never took photography...most of your photos are pretty nice. I especially like the black and white one although the composition is a little too symmetrical...nice contrasts and textures.

Cricket

[tigstah]

wow. nice pics.
i plan on getting a d40 sometime in august. i want to take my son back to the smithsonian museum to take pics of the planes and the space shuttle. last time i had a crappy disposable camera and the pics were really dark. so he wants to go back.

[thefultonhow]

For everyone considering a D40X or a Rebel XTi, you should cross-shop the Sony Alpha A100. It's the successor to my KM Maxxum 5D (Sony bought Konica Minolta's SLR business). It has a smaller lens selection, but the lenses are usually cheaper, and it has the big advantage of built-in optical image stabilization in the body. On other cameras, OIS is only available on the lens, and lenses with it as a feature are $2000 and up.

Also, the kit lens may be enough at first, but you are going to end up wanting a better one if you shoot in low-light at all (and who doesn't?). My kit lens is an 18-70mm, but it's f/3.5-5.6, which is terrible for low light situations; I'm going to get a 28-70mm f/2.8 sometime this summer, which is 2.5-3 times the price of the kit lens, but is significantly better in low light. I would recommend that you buy the body only and buy good lenses separately.

Yu can see a collection of some of my best "hobbyist" images (not taken for my photo classes) here:

http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...tOf/?start=all

The first 20 are taken with my DSLR, and the others are taken with some pretty awful point-and-shoots that I had before the DSLR.

[Statica]

Your choices of DSLR should basically follow your preference for the family of lens'. I've been usng Canon DSLRs for the last 3 years as a follow up from Canon SLRs before and I absolutely love the EOS family of lens. I love the performance of the EF-S and the L series lens. I've owned Nikon film SLRs and, as a purely personal preference, felt that the EOS lens' were better. You couldn't go wrong with either though. Check out: http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml

Personally I dont care much for the performance of the Sony A100 . .it has some huge drawbacks including a long startup time and shutter lag (http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/A100vsD80vsXTi.shtml) . IS isn't that expensive on prime lens' .. there are quite a few USM IS lens from Canon.. .of course the price varies with the type of lens.

[thefultonhow]

Startup time is longer on the Sony, but still less than a second. In my experience, when you're picking up your camera to take a shot, it takes far longer to find the power switch and the shutter than it does for the camera to actually start up. Shutter lag is 80ms on the Nikon and 118ms on the Sony; yes, that is a difference, but not a huge one.

The main selling point on the Sony is the OIS -- I'd rather have slightly longer startup time and shutter lag than to have worse low-ligher performance. My experience is that I can shoot as low as 1/15 of a second with no issues on my KM, and the Sony OIS algorithms have been improved considerably from what I've heard. Without OIS, it's very hard to get down below 1/60 of a second without having issues with camera shake.

For someone without a lens preference (i.e. someone who is just moving into the SLR arena), any of the options will be fine lenswise. You will have fewer options with the Sony but the lenses that you do get will still be good, and they will be cheaper ($850 for a 70-200 f/2.8 for the KM/Sony mount system, vs. $1800 for an equivalent Canon one).

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by thefultonhow .. Yu can see a collection of some of my best "hobbyist" images (not taken for my photo classes) here: http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...tOf/?start=all The first 20 are taken with my DSLR, and the others are taken with some pretty awful point-and-shoots that I had before the DSLR.

Also some nice shots, thefultonhow.

Remember, though, that the most important component is the person behind the camera, not the camera itself. Expensive cameras may give a clearer, higher res shot, but it's still the photographer that makes the shot.

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by TwoRails Remember, though, that the most important component is the person behind the camera, not the camera itself. Expensive cameras may give a clearer, higher res shot, but it's still the photographer that makes the shot.

Yeah, most of my shots are crap. When I started on my spring-term photo project, there were usually only one or two shots per 12-exposure roll that weren't crap. By the end of the term, once I got used ot the camera, it had gone up to three to four per roll.

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by thefultonhow Yeah, most of my shots are crap. When I started on my spring-term photo project, there were usually only one or two shots per 12-exposure roll that weren't crap. By the end of the term, once I got used ot the camera, it had gone up to three to four per roll.

I use to "roll my own" and load up 36 exposure rolls from bulk film and felt good if I had a least a couple of "nice" shots per roll when I was being serious. That is one advantage of digital "film" as it's a heck of a lot cheaper to process and weed out the good shots. Too bad there was only film when I was a freelance... (I don't really miss my darkroom equipment that I have packed away in storage somewhere... )

[Statica]

Had some time so uploaded a few pix here: http://tinyurl.com/2ns5ze
My camera body is the first Digital Rebel (DSLR) .. a number of EF lens from the film era made the jump with me but I've never been disappointed by the range of the EOS family has to offer.

[Stuey]

Woo, Blue Angels!

I can't afford a dSLR and the lenses that I'd want so I picked up a Canon S3 last fall. I think that I'm getting the hang with it, and will hopefully have some nice photos to post in a few weeks.

[Kov-Ice]

I just got an Alpha a few months ago, and I've been thoroughly impressed. Because it's based on the Konica Minolta technology, you can use any old KM lens you can get your hands on. Here's a good video tour of the big three from cameralabs.com

[thefultonhow]

Kov -- if you want a good zoom lens, don't get the 75-300mm kit lens. Look on eBay for a "beercan" lens. It's 70-210mm f/4, built like a tank, and relatively cheap ($150-200) compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 ($800-900). It was last produced in 1998 so you can't buy it new anymore.