Forum
»
More General Categories
»
Misc.
» Official Misc Photography Crew, Part V "Do you even shoot?"
03-09-2018, 08:00 AM
#2371
Originally Posted By jmelanson⏩
Isn't that a bit misleading of high ISO performance since the frame is mostly white? Or maybe it's just chitty Canon sensors but at high ISO most of the noise is in shadow detail.
ISO 20000 from my new toy.
wait wut
- BuildUpNow
- ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ********** ************************* *******
-
- BuildUpNow
- ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ********** ************************* *******
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Posts: 12,522
- Rep Power: 68,698
-
Quote
03-19-2018, 05:48 PM
#2372
Took some photos recently for the first time in forever..
03-19-2018, 09:38 PM
#2373
selling my USA model Nikon D750..8 months old. Less than 200 clicks.
I'm going to pull the trigger on a D850 my buddy is selling.
thinking about asking $1,650.00 shipped. Do you guys think its worth it? Looks like they are still going for around 1800-1,900.
I bought it from B&H and have all paper work/warranty info for it. Two batteries, lens protector, and a carrying bag would go with it.
I'm going to pull the trigger on a D850 my buddy is selling.
thinking about asking $1,650.00 shipped. Do you guys think its worth it? Looks like they are still going for around 1800-1,900.
I bought it from B&H and have all paper work/warranty info for it. Two batteries, lens protector, and a carrying bag would go with it.
03-20-2018, 08:38 AM
#2374
Originally Posted By Burtle1⏩
the used 750 goes for about 1200-1400.
selling my USA model Nikon D750..8 months old. Less than 200 clicks.
I'm going to pull the trigger on a D850 my buddy is selling.
thinking about asking $1,650.00 shipped. Do you guys think its worth it? Looks like they are still going for around 1800-1,900.
I bought it from B&H and have all paper work/warranty info for it. Two batteries, lens protector, and a carrying bag would go with it.
I'm going to pull the trigger on a D850 my buddy is selling.
thinking about asking $1,650.00 shipped. Do you guys think its worth it? Looks like they are still going for around 1800-1,900.
I bought it from B&H and have all paper work/warranty info for it. Two batteries, lens protector, and a carrying bag would go with it.
You can buy a brand new one for 1450.
03-20-2018, 05:20 PM
#2375
Originally Posted By Foques⏩
the used 750 goes for about 1200-1400.
You can buy a brand new one for 1450.
You can buy a brand new one for 1450.
Where can you buy a brand new usa model for 1450?
03-20-2018, 06:16 PM
#2376
Originally Posted By Burtle1⏩
It started shipping late last year and is probably still out of stock all over the joint. What's the reason for selling a 45mp camera that shoots 9fps? Some people must expect miracles from new gear.
I'm going to pull the trigger on a
D850 my buddy is selling
.
03-20-2018, 08:33 PM
#2377
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
It started shipping late last year and is probably still out of stock all over the joint. What's the reason for selling a 45mp camera that shoots 9fps? Some people must expect miracles from new gear.
my buddy owns one, and is going through a divorce and offered it to me for 2,000
That's why
03-21-2018, 08:25 AM
#2378
Originally Posted By Burtle1⏩
it would be an ebay /grey market purchase.
Where can you buy a brand new usa model for 1450?
Same thing, given that your body is now used, and Nikon will not honor warranty.
Also, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/...hoCorMQAvD_BwE
03-26-2018, 07:31 AM
#2379
Sony a6300 versus the a6500
Do you guys think the extra $500 is worth it for the IBIS and touchscreen AF?
Do you guys think the extra $500 is worth it for the IBIS and touchscreen AF?
★☆★ Full-Time Philadelphia Eagles Fan ★☆★
100% 中國人
USMC Infantry
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
-
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 20,926
- Rep Power: 202,804
-
04-03-2018, 09:24 AM
#2380
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
I'm late to the party, but absolutely. I paid the extra just for the touch-screen. Since these things don't have a joystick, it's essential for me to set focal points.
Sony a6300 versus the a6500
Do you guys think the extra $500 is worth it for the IBIS and touchscreen AF?
Do you guys think the extra $500 is worth it for the IBIS and touchscreen AF?
480s / 370b / 495d / 235 x 2 SOHP
Trump 2020
DeSantis 2024
Catbrah 2032
Misc Firearms Crew
Misc Wristwatch Crew
Will sell wife's foot pics for watch/gun money crew
Definitely not a fed crew
04-04-2018, 04:59 PM
#2381
What is the general consensus for a good camera body sub 1k? My main goal of buying a camera is to capture better photos of family events than what I can currently capture with my iPhone. I also may use the camera to vlog a little here and there. I have done some preliminary research and have narrowed it down to a Canon 70D or a Nikon D7200. What say misc?
04-04-2018, 05:14 PM
#2382
Originally Posted By Culking⏩
What is your lens budget? That's the real question. The Nikon is priced right at $1k without a lens. The Cannon is $800 with no lens.
What is the general consensus for a good camera body sub 1k? My main goal of buying a camera is to capture better photos of family events than what I can currently capture with my iPhone. I also may use the camera to vlog a little here and there. I have done some preliminary research and have narrowed it down to a Canon 70D or a Nikon D7200. What say misc?
I'm a huge Sony fan. I'd get the a6000 with the 18-105 lens. You'd be dropping $1200 total (with lens) and be able to take awesome photos.
480s / 370b / 495d / 235 x 2 SOHP
Trump 2020
DeSantis 2024
Catbrah 2032
Misc Firearms Crew
Misc Wristwatch Crew
Will sell wife's foot pics for watch/gun money crew
Definitely not a fed crew
04-04-2018, 06:42 PM
#2383
Originally Posted By Culking⏩
You just mentioned some pretty old cameras. If you're trying take pictures and vlog you will WANT a flippy screen, I'd go with a mirrorless camera like the new Canon M50, or alternatively not phuck with interchangeable lens cameras at all and go for a Sony RX100V. Both good choices, compact, have 4k, and are <$1000.
What is the general consensus for a good camera body sub 1k? My main goal of buying a camera is to capture better photos of family events than what I can currently capture with my iPhone. I also may use the camera to vlog a little here and there. I have done some preliminary research and have narrowed it down to a Canon 70D or a Nikon D7200. What say misc?
- Cinderblock
- 🍆
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,058
- Rep Power: 55,571
-
04-04-2018, 07:15 PM
#2384
What's a good portrait lens? Do most people use something around 85mm? Any other requirements?
★☆★ Full-Time Philadelphia Eagles Fan ★☆★
100% 中國人
USMC Infantry
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
-
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 20,926
- Rep Power: 202,804
-
04-04-2018, 09:02 PM
#2385
Originally Posted By jmelanson⏩
wow very clear.
ISO 20000 from my new toy.
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
Can anyone recommend me a good beginner camera for traveling? Primary focus will be video, photos second. Budget around $1,500 max. Max weight around 1.5lbs but willing to go heavier if worth it.
The Sony a6500 looks great but no flip out screen which sucks. Also been looking at the Canon 80D and Panasonic GH4
The Sony a6500 looks great but no flip out screen which sucks. Also been looking at the Canon 80D and Panasonic GH4
if youre willing to spend 500 more id look into the a7iii. looks crazy. i have a 80d and i like it but im really considering switching to sony for video capabilities.
Originally Posted By Culking⏩
What is the general consensus for a good camera body sub 1k? My main goal of buying a camera is to capture better photos of family events than what I can currently capture with my iPhone. I also may use the camera to vlog a little here and there. I have done some preliminary research and have narrowed it down to a Canon 70D or a Nikon D7200. What say misc?
you can probably find a 80d body for 1k
for lens i recomend sigma 17-50 2.8. dont bother with kit lens
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
yeah most people like to use 50-85ish. personally i dont think its a huge deal. you can shoot great portraits with 35+ aperture is more important imo.
What's a good portrait lens? Do most people use something around 85mm? Any other requirements?
Ex-Distance Runner | Ex-Sprinter | Current Bodybuilder/weight lifter
5 Min mile 25 sec 200m 315 S/275DL/190B (5 RM for all)
**INTJ/INFJ somewhere inbetween crew**
**dyel mode unless have pump and flexing crew. aka natty crew.**
04-04-2018, 09:08 PM
#2386
Here's a few from a past weekend with the A7R III and Sigma 85 ART:
The eye focus is an awesome feature and the dynamic range is definitely noticeable compared to my old 5DmkII.
The eye focus is an awesome feature and the dynamic range is definitely noticeable compared to my old 5DmkII.
- mingrey02stg2
- Registered User
-
- mingrey02stg2
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2007
- Location: United States
- Posts: 1,786
- Rep Power: 80,155
-
04-04-2018, 09:53 PM
#2387
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
85 1.4 is usually the first one I reach for but I actually like the 70-200 2.8 for the faster and more reliable AF and VR. Only downside is it's obtrusive.
What's a good portrait lens? Do most people use something around 85mm? Any other requirements?
Portraits can definitely be effective with a shorter lens especially if you need to connect the subject to what's around them to establish context. A shot like this by Joe McNally is a good example. The 28-35mm range can be very effective.
Something I was always mindful of with wedding photography which is why I used two separate bodies (in addition to spreading the risk if one failed) was getting a good mix of wide, medium, and close-up shots. Sometimes you'll see galleries where it's either ridiculously wide e.g. 16mm or wider with a lot of distortion or really close with not much in between. I would say in that sense the workhorse lens was the 24-70 2.8. I never had to worry about getting boxed in with not enough space to back up and I couldn't get carried away with the extremes of going too wide or cropping too tightly with portraits. It yielded the highest percentage of key shots.
Cliffs: I wouldn't get too caught up with focal length. Try to visualize the shot first and then choose a lens that will give you the result you want rather than choosing the lens first and then looking for the shot if that makes sense.
And lastly it's tempting with fast glass to go overboard with shooting wide open and throwing out the background every chance you get. After a while it can look monotonous and you miss out on including some nice textures around the subject. You can have everything in focus and isolate a subject just fine with light. It doesn't always have to be fast glass, shallow DOF with only the face in focus, and everything else a blur. Just my 2 cents.
04-05-2018, 08:56 AM
#2388
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
Portraits can definitely be effective with a shorter lens especially if you need to connect the subject to what's around them to establish context. A shot like this by Joe McNally is a good example. The 28-35mm range can be very effective.
And lastly it's tempting with fast glass to go overboard with shooting wide open and throwing out the background every chance you get. After a while it can look monotonous and you miss out on including some nice textures around the subject. You can have everything in focus and isolate a subject just fine with light. It doesn't always have to be fast glass, shallow DOF with only the face in focus, and everything else a blur. Just my 2 cents.
That's an awesome photos… but I can't help but to think if there was a field or something behind her rather than something so interesting, that would be a super unflattering photo of her. I love 35mm for environmental portraits like that, but for most cases, 50mm or above is going to make the subject feel better about how they look in the photos. Just my $.02
Portraits can definitely be effective with a shorter lens especially if you need to connect the subject to what's around them to establish context. A shot like this by Joe McNally is a good example. The 28-35mm range can be very effective.
And lastly it's tempting with fast glass to go overboard with shooting wide open and throwing out the background every chance you get. After a while it can look monotonous and you miss out on including some nice textures around the subject. You can have everything in focus and isolate a subject just fine with light. It doesn't always have to be fast glass, shallow DOF with only the face in focus, and everything else a blur. Just my 2 cents.
I also totally agree on the fast glass. The first month of photos I had with my 50 1.8, nobody had more than their one eye in focus. lol
480s / 370b / 495d / 235 x 2 SOHP
Trump 2020
DeSantis 2024
Catbrah 2032
Misc Firearms Crew
Misc Wristwatch Crew
Will sell wife's foot pics for watch/gun money crew
Definitely not a fed crew
04-05-2018, 09:26 AM
#2389
Originally Posted By LinuxJon⏩
What shutter speed would you recommend for really capturing the dancing flames from say, someones hair on fire
That's an awesome photos… but I can't help but to think if there was a field or something behind her rather than something so interesting, that would be a super unflattering photo of her. I love 35mm for environmental portraits like that, but for most cases, 50mm or above is going to make the subject feel better about how they look in the photos. Just my $.02
I also totally agree on the fast glass. The first month of photos I had with my 50 1.8, nobody had more than their one eye in focus. lol
I also totally agree on the fast glass. The first month of photos I had with my 50 1.8, nobody had more than their one eye in focus. lol
04-05-2018, 09:28 AM
#2390
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
So much this, just like the photogs that get into lighting and want more and more power nuking everything, you get those that get fast lenses and turn every location into mush. Sadly many never grow out of it as most photog sites will show.
And lastly it's tempting with fast glass to go overboard with shooting wide open and throwing out the background every chance you get. After a while it can look monotonous and you miss out on including some nice textures around the subject. You can have everything in focus and isolate a subject just fine with light. It doesn't always have to be fast glass, shallow DOF with only the face in focus, and everything else a blur. Just my 2 cents.
Fashion photography is good to look at if you ever get stuck in seeing no life beyond f/4, most of it is shot at middling apertures.
If you can't handle me when I'm incel, you don't deserve me when I'm chad
04-05-2018, 09:57 AM
#2391
I've got a used Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS for sale. It's in good condition. Has a tiny smudge in the front element but this doesn't affect IQ at all. I've got photos of it but won't bother posting unless anybody is interested.
Retails for $1200. Looking to get $800 shipped. PM if you are interested.
Retails for $1200. Looking to get $800 shipped. PM if you are interested.
psn: mdksniper
- Ralph Wiggum
- so very angry!
-
- Ralph Wiggum
- so very angry!
- Join Date: Sep 2002
- Location: New Jersey, United States
- Posts: 12,359
- Rep Power: 16,842
-
04-05-2018, 10:15 AM
#2392
Originally Posted By LinuxJon⏩
You're right. I guess the point here is to think about what the shot calls for rather than just blindly going in with a fast tele wide open and turning every background to mush like zknarc said.
That's an awesome photos… but I can't help but to think
if there was a field or something behind her rather than something so interesting
, that would be a super unflattering photo of her. I love 35mm for environmental portraits like that, but for most cases, 50mm or above is going to make the subject feel better about how they look in the photos. Just my $.02
And to be fair not everyone responds positively to a tightly cropped portrait with a longer lens even if to a photographer it looks perfectly executed. Some people are not used to seeing their face that way and it can be quite confronting. They're more at ease with a 3/4 or full body shot where their face is not filling the frame.
Of course you can still do that with a longer lens for a certain creative effect but you can lose the connection to the subject by being so far away and almost need a two-way to relay instructions. Sometimes being further away shooting a subject can work even better in terms of getting more relaxed shots. Again it's all about thinking about what the situation calls for rather than going in with a default approach.
04-05-2018, 07:28 PM
#2393
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
I'm a complete camera noob so you're gonna have to explain it like I'm 5. What is fast glass?
85 1.4 is usually the first one I reach for but I actually like the 70-200 2.8 for the faster and more reliable AF and VR. Only downside is it's obtrusive.
Portraits can definitely be effective with a shorter lens especially if you need to connect the subject to what's around them to establish context. A shot like this by Joe McNally is a good example. The 28-35mm range can be very effective.
Something I was always mindful of with wedding photography which is why I used two separate bodies (in addition to spreading the risk if one failed) was getting a good mix of wide, medium, and close-up shots. Sometimes you'll see galleries where it's either ridiculously wide e.g. 16mm or wider with a lot of distortion or really close with not much in between. I would say in that sense the workhorse lens was the 24-70 2.8. I never had to worry about getting boxed in with not enough space to back up and I couldn't get carried away with the extremes of going too wide or cropping too tightly with portraits. It yielded the highest percentage of key shots.
Cliffs: I wouldn't get too caught up with focal length. Try to visualize the shot first and then choose a lens that will give you the result you want rather than choosing the lens first and then looking for the shot if that makes sense.
And lastly it's tempting with fast glass to go overboard with shooting wide open and throwing out the background every chance you get. After a while it can look monotonous and you miss out on including some nice textures around the subject. You can have everything in focus and isolate a subject just fine with light. It doesn't always have to be fast glass, shallow DOF with only the face in focus, and everything else a blur. Just my 2 cents.
Portraits can definitely be effective with a shorter lens especially if you need to connect the subject to what's around them to establish context. A shot like this by Joe McNally is a good example. The 28-35mm range can be very effective.
Something I was always mindful of with wedding photography which is why I used two separate bodies (in addition to spreading the risk if one failed) was getting a good mix of wide, medium, and close-up shots. Sometimes you'll see galleries where it's either ridiculously wide e.g. 16mm or wider with a lot of distortion or really close with not much in between. I would say in that sense the workhorse lens was the 24-70 2.8. I never had to worry about getting boxed in with not enough space to back up and I couldn't get carried away with the extremes of going too wide or cropping too tightly with portraits. It yielded the highest percentage of key shots.
Cliffs: I wouldn't get too caught up with focal length. Try to visualize the shot first and then choose a lens that will give you the result you want rather than choosing the lens first and then looking for the shot if that makes sense.
And lastly it's tempting with fast glass to go overboard with shooting wide open and throwing out the background every chance you get. After a while it can look monotonous and you miss out on including some nice textures around the subject. You can have everything in focus and isolate a subject just fine with light. It doesn't always have to be fast glass, shallow DOF with only the face in focus, and everything else a blur. Just my 2 cents.
★☆★ Full-Time Philadelphia Eagles Fan ★☆★
100% 中國人
USMC Infantry
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
-
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 20,926
- Rep Power: 202,804
-
04-05-2018, 07:45 PM
#2394
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
A wide aperture that lets more light in. Just look at the price of a lens and its physical size.
I'm a complete camera noob so you're gonna have to explain it like I'm 5. What is fast glass?
Here's a more extreme example. A Canon 600mm f/4 looks like this and costs around $12,000:
…while a consumer zoom lens that goes to 600mm @ f/6.3 (widest aperture) looks like this and can be easily handheld costs around $1000.
Edit: a more practical example.
Canon 85mm f/1.8 costs around $350. Canon 85mm f/1.2 costs around $2000. A $1650 premium for an extra f-stop of light. The background is rendered more out of focus due to the shallower depth of field at the same camera to subject distance opening up that extra stop. Years ago before high ISO looked as clean as it does now this was even more important in low light situations. ISO 800 might have been usable while ISO 1600 was straight up garbage only fit for a small print.
And for sport and wildlife photography with a moving target shutter speed is obviously important not to mention the wider aperture can isolate the subject more effectively with say a crowd behind them, etc. If you're already pushing the limits of technology at high ISO and need at least 1/1000 to freeze action with natural light, an extra stop or two from a 400 f/2.8 over an f/4 or cheaper zoom lens at say f/5.6 is huge. That's why they pay the big bucks. AF performance is also as good as it gets in those lenses.
04-05-2018, 08:40 PM
#2395
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
I'm a complete camera noob so you're gonna have to explain it like I'm 5. What is fast glass?
- Cinderblock
- 🍆
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,058
- Rep Power: 55,571
-
04-07-2018, 02:23 PM
#2396
Juno Beach
- Cinderblock
- 🍆
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,058
- Rep Power: 55,571
-
04-07-2018, 09:05 PM
#2397
Originally Posted By Cinderblock⏩
Great shot. I take my dogs there all the time.
Juno Beach
">
">
- mingrey02stg2
- Registered User
-
- mingrey02stg2
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2007
- Location: United States
- Posts: 1,786
- Rep Power: 80,155
-
04-09-2018, 05:17 PM
#2398
As a beginner, what first few lenses should I buy? I'll mainly be shooting landscapes like mountains and stuff. Maybe some portraits
★☆★ Full-Time Philadelphia Eagles Fan ★☆★
100% 中國人
USMC Infantry
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
-
- theACEofSPADES
- ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 20,926
- Rep Power: 202,804
-
04-10-2018, 01:25 PM
#2399
from a recent band performance
all shot at 3500ISO
all shot at 3500ISO
04-10-2018, 01:39 PM
#2400
Originally Posted By theACEofSPADES⏩
Depends on what camera you have. Typically wide angles for landscapes but if it's architectural then a T/S may be better. And for portrait again it depends if it's full body or just headshots and if outdoors or using studio lighting. I'd suggest a prime with a low aperture/f-stop.
As a beginner, what first few lenses should I buy? I'll mainly be shooting landscapes like mountains and stuff. Maybe some portraits
wait wut
- BuildUpNow
- ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ********** ************************* *******
-
- BuildUpNow
- ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ************************* ********** ************************* *******
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Posts: 12,522
- Rep Power: 68,698
-
Bookmarks
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- StumbleUpon
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts