It can steady the shot better than a hand but not as good as a tripod, though in broad daylight I'm not so sure by how much a difference you will see

I was just curious if it was really post processing or due to the help of the monopod, why else have one in broad daylight at a place like that where you're likely to take shots at all sorts of angles?

3/11/2009 6:47:16 PM

He's lazy? I don't know.

Honestly, there really isn't a point in using it with a 55-200. Even though it is a slow lens, it was still bright enough to shoot at fast shutter speeds. It isn't a heavy lens (like say, a 300 2.8) and he wasn't shooting something like sports that requires holding the lens up for extended periods of time.

So, the monopod had likely no impact on his shots. He might have a good reason as to why he decided to use it, but it was totally unnecessary.

3/11/2009 6:50:12 PM

Quote :

"Does the monopod make that big of a difference in sharpness? Or is it more convenience, just in case."

i had that with me b/c i have a shaky hand and i was all out and about at dix hill, the flea market and i took a walk around down town for a little while.

i had the monopod on the camera for the toy dog picture and the bat mobile.

i do some post processing when i have time but its never major stuff. i think i took around 200 pictures that day but i take lots of shots of the same thing until i get something i really like. the people at the flea market were very nice about letting me take pictures of their stuff...i had a good time talking to the toy guy

3/11/2009 8:16:06 PM

Went out to Durant after work to try out the new camera and saw some cool geese at the upper lake.

















[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 9:02 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2009 8:54:57 PM

^ did you do any post processing on those pics?

3/11/2009 8:56:02 PM

Using canon's DPP software adjusted white balance, saturation, and I think they are all on "landscape" picture style.

3/11/2009 8:59:57 PM

god, I hate canon's DPP software. it's so crude.

3/11/2009 9:52:37 PM

I am considering getting the new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens for my D40 if I get up some extra money. With the 1.5x crop factor that gives an (almost) equivalent viewing angle of a 50mm on full frame.

Since it is AF-S it will focus on the D40/x/60, it is relatively fast, and at $200, it is $300 less than the new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm

3/12/2009 4:22:34 PM

I just got back from a trip to the southwest over spring break. I got to visit a bunch of parks. Here are some from arches, antelope canyon and monument valley:










[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 6:43:28 PM

okay, this is a stupid question, and a brief google search was giving me results that may or may not be what i'm looking for...anyway, what's the naming convention for canon DSLRs? i've got some pictures on my computer that came from a 6 or 8mp canon digital slr (rebel, i think), but i can't for the life of me find them...i have around 70,000 distinct photographs (not all mine), and this is from an old collection, so it's probably somewhere random

i wanted to search by the naming convention, since i can't think of anything else...unless there's a way to search by EXIF data and only pull up images by camera brand/model

thxu

3/12/2009 8:55:00 PM

^^LOVE the third one!!

3/12/2009 8:58:44 PM

3rd one reminds me of the curves of a woman's body

3/13/2009 12:50:23 AM

^I don't know about all that..

3/13/2009 4:46:54 AM

Does anyone have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8?

is it really $1000 worse than the Canon?

3/15/2009 6:11:25 PM

plz 2 answer my question

3/15/2009 6:12:30 PM

^^I wouldn't say worse, because the Canon is an incredible lens. The Sigma is also a good lens, especially for the money. I'd say if you've got the money then go with Canon. If not, I'm sure you won't be unhappy with the Sigma. From what I can tell the Canon barely edges out the Sigma in most categories. One thing I can vouch for though is the durability of the Canon. I've dropped one from waist height onto concrete with no damage at all. I'm not sure how rugged the Sigma is, or if it is weather sealed.

3/15/2009 8:14:24 PM

I've had both the sigma and canon 70-200 2.8 lenses. Both are awesome lenses that are sharp and focus quickly. The Canon is just even more sharp and a more quick. It's also a sexy white lens. If you can afford it, get the Canon, but you won't be disappointed with the Sigma 70-200, especially if you're used to the 70-300 or 55-200 f/4-5.6 variety of lenses.

3/15/2009 9:00:15 PM

Hey Rob, I PROMISE I'll get your card back to you soon.

I haven't forgotten.

3/15/2009 9:14:58 PM

since no one responded to my cry for help i'll try again. i'm such a hands on learner it's bee rough learning how to take good pics. i've read up on the terms but i'm still a noob. actually i just want to know how to take the photos that show 1 main thing in focus and everything else blurred. it has to do w. the aperture setting right? can anyone explain really quick i'd produce a pic like that on the d40? thanks in advance

3/16/2009 1:09:26 AM

The lower(lower number) you set your aperture, the smaller your depth of field will be, meaning only a little bit will be in focus.

here read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field


and thanks for the Sigma comments, I might sell my 70-300 4.0-5.6 to help towards it a little.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 1:12:52 AM

ok i think i got it . i was trying to take a really wide shot of something instead of zooming in on it then taking the pic sorry guys i'm getting there. everyone around me is like "put the fuckin camera down." hopefully i'll be bale to post a decent pic soon.

3/16/2009 1:28:07 AM

Quote :

""put the fuckin camera down.""

Yeah, don't do that.

3/16/2009 1:53:38 AM

yeah i don't think we even tell kiwi to put the camera down

we just tell her to stop posting pictars

3/16/2009 2:28:39 AM

just got back from a national cheer leading competition and boy where their eye candy at this one, legal too! lol Two day's of shooting with 24k pics of close to 300 teams. I can definitively say that my muscle mass has grown by three folds and my right hand has a death grip from being in the same position for so long.

3/16/2009 12:13:27 PM

lol

cheerleading competition

muscle mass

right hand

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : "death grip"]

3/16/2009 12:22:03 PM

haha, self pwnt

3/16/2009 12:22:48 PM

HAHA, good one woodfoot. I should add that my arms and legs are sore... but that would probably add more to your case I'm very proactive when shooting events.

3/16/2009 12:28:00 PM

That's a lot of shots for 2 days. When I covered the acc tourney two years ago I had about 15k shots over 5 days.

3/16/2009 12:29:18 PM

yeah, and we shot strobes... I had three x1600's setup set on 1/2 power and light up the entire convention center, bounced it off the ceiling and it was barely enough light to get good exposures and fast enough recycle speed. Each performance is about 3 mins long and took between 100-150 shots each.

The pics came out fairly good considering we ghetto rigged the lights at the judge's booth at the last min because the convention center didn't want us to setup lights on their light trestle(whatever you call that thing to setup theatrical lights) unless we paid the convention center a labor fee to use it, even though we'd be the ones doing the "labor". They didn't mention that to us two weeks ago. We got a little too much direct light from the strobes for my tastes, but the bounce did soften the skin tones better than direct flash setup we used last weekend at another comp. Those were god awful, but parents still liked them. Better than nothing.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

3/16/2009 12:37:27 PM

Did you make dat chedda?

3/16/2009 5:29:35 PM

Did you get dem digits?

3/17/2009 3:08:00 AM

3/17/2009 3:16:09 AM

^it's not pedo when college cheerleaders were the ones I was eyeing.

3/17/2009 3:56:05 AM

STOP RUINING MY EXTENSIVE PHOTOSHOP COLOR MATCHING WORK.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

3/17/2009 3:58:13 AM

uh

transparent png/gif?

3/17/2009 4:08:37 AM

ps

3/17/2009 4:09:32 AM

shhhhhh

3/17/2009 6:36:13 AM

Someone from a syracuse student paper asked our photo editor to send someone to their NCAA tourney game, because they set up a pass but ended up not being able to send a photographer. My editor asked me to do it, but I'm in NC til Sunday, and their game is Friday

I'll be shooting the McD's All-American game soon though

3/17/2009 6:51:18 AM

is there a program that can search photos by EXIF data? or, at least, what's the naming convention for the 6/8mp canon rebel?

3/17/2009 8:48:34 AM

less talk

more pictures

3/17/2009 8:57:38 AM

yes, there are programs that allow you to search the EXIF data. Should be something like Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT.

3/17/2009 10:48:47 AM

^ do you have any to suggest in particular?

3/17/2009 11:36:30 AM

3/18/2009 6:13:24 PM

i kinda like that shot. i don't know what it is about it, but i i like it.

3/18/2009 11:18:50 PM

should have taken about 5-10 steps to the left

but i like it

3/19/2009 12:12:46 AM

to straighten it out?

3/19/2009 12:15:17 AM

What do you guys think of this lens? Reviews are mixed but overall decent on fred miranda.



http://www.dpreview.com/news/0311/03111802sigma1735mm.asp

Or should I just save up for the canon L 17-40?

3/19/2009 7:29:33 AM

^^ I think he means to the right so the brown cow's ass isn't cut off lol.

3/19/2009 7:42:05 AM

Quote :

"Or should I just save up for the canon L 17-40?"

or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 if you can spend $900-$1000, the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if you can spend $400.

3/19/2009 9:02:59 AM

120

3/19/2009 9:19:23 AM