**Photography Chat** Version 1.0
 

Let the chatting commence:excited:

Everyone needs a wide angle. They're great for tight spaces.
Everyone needs a telephoto. They're great for places like zoos where you can't get close.
Everyone needs a prime. They're great for super sharp photos and for low light if the aperture is low enough.

Everyone needs to get their butt in here and chat.

Canon or Nikon, let the debait start........

screw this debate, its about as bad as "manual vs auto".

What lenses does everyone pack?
I have a nikon d90 and I typically just carry around my 18-200 VR and my 50mm 1.8.

I also have a 80-200 2.8, but I don't lug it around all the time, its a beast of a lens. My other lenses include a 10-20mm sigma wide angle and a 105mm 2.8 sigma macro.

HKY up in this beotch

Pinhole cameras are best!

Debait? Why would you get rid of the bait?

:icon18:

Im using a T2i right now, but used to use a d40 w/70-200 VR, damn good combo for a small price. Im debating a few different lenses right now before I officially start my weekend photography business.

I shoot a Canon 50D, going to look at the 7D Mark II when it arrives since the 60D is a disappointing upgrade, but I could use a lot better ISO 12,800.

Just got a 15-85 lens and it is amazing, replacing my Sigma 18-50/2.8 for normal use.

I just took a few pics, came out like crap, like total, undeniable crap. There was so much noise in the shadows, it was just stupid, even with the ISO at 6400. I do know the setting was bunk, as shadows were killing the shot and it was, unfortunately, just before the magic hour. I need to remind myself not to bother with that situation again.

:icon18: I remember making one in my HS photography class! :tup:

In HS photography class, I took a picture with a very long exposure at night. Had a girl walk in a square motion during the shot. It came out really really nice as it seemed like a shadow walked in a square :tup:

Hey don't know where you were trying to take pics at but the higher the ISO the more noise you will get, if you can get away with 400 or less for ISO the better quality your images will be. Just thought I'd help you out.

Have you ever seen the pics people take at night of themselves, waving around glow sticks and what not ,with really long exposures? The glow sticks leave really cool trails and stuff! Pretty neat.

That's exactly what I did (minus the glowsticks). Pretty cool. I don't own SLRs :(. But if I did, I would get creative with it! :tup:

you know what... I know that... but it totally slipped my mind. God, I feel pretty stupid right now:shakes head: [hangs head in shame]

My favorite camera…..Nikon FM

Primary thought about quality shots: it's all about the composition.

NO way! :looks at the screen name: ;)

I was bored and did this with a Laser pointer one night lol.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x...ewareLaser.jpg

ha, thats cool!

You might want to try a serious noise reduction program - LightRoom 3 is pretty good and very fast at NR, I also like Topaz DeNoise, but it is slower.

Nice Z_Best, I want to try out light painting some time

Between these two lenses, just based on general ability, which would you guys recommend:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - $380ish

or

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - $230ish

Both have the IS that I like. I prefer the price of the 2nd, naturally, but the 1st is supposedly much lighter and "superior".

the 28-135 is "USM" right? (ultrasonic motor) if it is and the 55-250 isn't (i can't remember) then i'd go with the 28-135 but that's just me. USM is faaarrrrr superior to non-USM lenses

right, the 28-135 is USM, the other isnt. If i get an outlet to try the lens, i will do that, but if i cant try it first, i feel comfortable buying it as it is at least going to be better than the stock lens!

For anyone wanting to learn how to use a camera, shortcourses.com is an excellent place to start. It really helped me out when I got started. I shoot a Pentax K110 with an 18-55 lens. A couple years ago I added a Tamron 70-300 Di lens. Next camera will probably be a Nikon, but Pentax is really making some nice cameras now.

yea pentax has come a long way in just a few short years in DSLR's and while it's cool to have alternatives, canon and nikon (and to some degree, sony) are the big players and have the best lenses with the best glass as a rule of thumb.

I've been a long time Nikon user. Both Canon and Nikon make quality products, but they have different benefits. I've always felt that Nikon makes better bodies, better AF systems, and the best button layout. Their lenses are top quality but don't fill all the focal length gaps well. Canon, on the other hand, makes quality bodies but I dislike their button configuration. Also, their AF is inferior to Nikon's. However, Canon has a lens for EVERYTHING. Their lens lineup is pretty spectacular.

I'm selling one of my lenses if anyone is interested. It's the new version of the Nikon 18-200 VR II. I received it less than a year ago as a gift and rarely touch it given the other lenses in my bag (17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8). It's a pristine lens for anyone looking for an all-purpose walk around lens. Best price I can find is B&H at $760 for the US version. Mine is also the US version and I have the warranty papers so you can get the remaining four years of coverage. Asking $640 + shipping.

6spd:

I presume you prefer the price of the first? Oh, I see - you have the prices reversed.

They are hardly comparable lenses - they really solve different problems entirely.

The 28-135mm is a walk around lens for a full frame camera. On a APS-C camera, it is a normal to telephoto lens. It is a very old design that was introduced in 1998. You can often get it cheaper on eBay because it is bundled as the kit lens for a number of APS-C cameras (40D, 50D, 7D), which it isn't really suited for, IMNVHO.

The 55-250mm is a kit lens companion intended as the first purchase after the camera +18-55 kit lens is purchased. It runs from mild telephoto to long telephoto. As a kit lens, it is very light, it is very inexpensive for its range, and made (mostly) of plastic, but its optical quality is pretty good.

Due to its age, the IS on the 28-135 isn't as effective (nominally 3 stops) as it is on the 55-250 (nominally 4 stops). In addition, the 28-135 is at f/5.6 at 85mm, where the 55-250 is there at 154mm, so it is slightly brighter as a telephoto lens.

Really, though, it depends on your general purpose. I'd say a 18-55/55-250 is a great combination setup. If you want a walk around lens, I personally prefer the 15-85, or even a superzoom lens.

yeah, sorry, got the prices switched. Thanks wilsonp, thats quite a good explanation, I appreciate it.

I had an inexpensive 70-200 VR on my d40 and loved it. Im still going to look around at other lenses in different price ranges and do a few more shoot sessions before determining what I need.

g-damn you spammer a$$hole, this is the 5th thread of mine already.......

I can't figure the point though

Check out this pic I just took:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0-xxTjVx3P4/TL...ShopZSmall.jpg

Not my best by any stretch, but my most decent night shot.

car need to be brighter, background needs to be darker lol

you think so?

This one is much better

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0-xxTjVx3P4/TL...hopZSmall2.jpg

Try darkening the back / floor using a mask :)

Since your car is white you can very easily play with the levels to make it look a lot better. And darken the floor/background with a mask like wilson suggested.

On which, the 1st? I darkened the floor on both. I think it looks good the way it is. I didn't want it to look too much like a white car on a solid black background, hehe!