i love that pic

im in there somewhere!

6/21/2009 10:45:53 PM

I know the 50mm will help in lowlight situations, I'm just hoping it helps the grain. You know, be able to use a lower ISO now....

6/21/2009 11:01:25 PM

50mm 1.8?

6/21/2009 11:03:39 PM

welp. if your current lens is at f4 at 50mm then you should beable to get atleast 3 stops... bout 3 and some change i guess. that should help a bit.

6/21/2009 11:04:25 PM

^^^ yes, with a wider aperture you should be able to use a lower ISO resulting in less "grainy" images.

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM. Reason : o]

6/21/2009 11:04:42 PM

Yeah, it's the 1.8. I just can't wait to play with it!!

6/21/2009 11:12:51 PM

^ i like mine a lot. do you have any other lenses? i'm looking to get an ultra wide or 70-200 next.

6/21/2009 11:14:34 PM

Nothing fun, just the 18-55 and the 55-200. Growing this hobby has been a slooooooooow process.

6/21/2009 11:24:03 PM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure my next lens will be the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS."

I really want a 70-200, but can't afford it. As far as the ultrawide goes, you know which way I'll vote.

The birthday's coming up, so I think I'm going to ask for the Canon 100mm macro, a gnarly tripod, or a pair of pocketwizards. All 3 of these options are in relatively similar price brackets, I just can't decide which is the priority.

6/21/2009 11:56:05 PM

yeah, me either, but my birthday is coming up too.

since i used your 11-16, i haven't been able to decide between the two ultrawides. i blame my slow decision on you as i'd probably already have chosen the 10-22! haha.

i thought you already had the 60mm macro? or did you sell that? tough call between the macro and the tripod. for the cost of the lens though, you could really get a nice set up, so those are a toss up. i'd probably go with the tripod, but that's just what i would use more at this point. pocketwizards are tempting too, assuming you have something to use with them.

6/22/2009 12:07:02 AM

I used to own the 60mm macro and it was unbelievable. My favorite lens I've ever used I think. I miss it, but I think I'll opt for the 100mm since it is as sharp and gives me a bit more range. And I can use it if I ever upgrade to a FF body.

And go for the 11-16. Beats the 10-22 in almost every way.

6/22/2009 12:55:04 AM

just picked up a (as far as i can tell, practically new) D40 with 18-55mm kit lens and a new 18-105mm VR lens (the D90's kit, i know) for $300 (had to drive to angier, but not bad, i don't think) for my little brother...he also threw in 3 nikon filters (a red one, an orange one, and a polarizer) and a tripod

first impression between the D40 and the D90 - the D40 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay lighter and smaller (i would assume there's more plastic and i know there's not AF in the body)...i actually really like it (though i miss the analog(?) info screen that's on the D90)...past that, i'm sure there's very little difference that i, as a n00b, would notice right now

6/22/2009 7:24:16 PM

how much difference do MP make in a DSLR? i KNOW they mean virtually jack in point-and-shoot cameras since the sensors are so small...but in a DSLR? for example, ignoring the additional features and focusing only on the resolution, how does the 12.3MP (23.6x15.8mm CMOS) D90 compare to the 6.1MP (23.7x15.6mm CCD) D40 in terms of image quality and the ability to blow up the images in regards to noise? significant image processing differences?

6/22/2009 8:40:20 PM

You can blow a d40 pic up to a 20x24 and it will look fine. I've not gone any bigger with mine.


[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM. Reason : i want a d90]

6/22/2009 8:42:01 PM

and it doesn't look like shite? i've spent waaaaaaaaaay too much time with prosumer cameras

6/22/2009 8:43:04 PM

I mean if you put your nose to it you will notice the lines aren't crisp but if you hang a picture in a room it will look great.

6/22/2009 8:44:13 PM

the difference in quality of those cameras wouldn't come from the MP i'd say. it'd come from better processing. Because when it comes down to it... a poster size print isnt really supposed to be printed for any of those pixel sizes. BUT like most posters you are fine unless you get up close.

6/22/2009 8:52:39 PM

i wonder how much better the processing is in the D90 and D40...

this is all idle curiosity...i, personally, will probably never notice any difference...but i CARE, only because i want to KNOW

6/22/2009 9:06:59 PM

lets see what the 8ball says...

*shake shake shake*

"the processing power of the D90 should be a good deal better than that of the D40"

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM. Reason : i could be wrong though. i'm not really into the processors too much]

6/22/2009 9:10:16 PM

of course it SHOULD be...but i want to know to what magnitude!

tomorrow, i think i'm going to perform a test comparing the two, since i have both right now...

what sort of shots should i take to compare? low-light? outdoors? high-speed, low? i have 2 tripods so i should be able to take virtually the same picture

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 9:11:57 PM

Go to Ken Rockwell's website and read up on the D40 and the D90. They both have their strong and weak points, and I think he does a good job talking about each camera.

6/22/2009 9:27:35 PM

6/22/2009 9:50:21 PM

^ i like the color in the first one.

6/22/2009 9:51:36 PM

Quote :

"i have 2 tripods so i should be able to take virtually the same picture"

Whatever you do, don't aim them directly at each other, you'll make a picture of infinity.

6/23/2009 12:03:44 AM

^ Z O M G

6/23/2009 6:37:28 AM

bahah


Kiwi, the 50mm is gonna rock your world its phenomenally better than the kit 18-55mm. MF is fun, but does get old. Maybe you shoulda ordered the new 30mm AFS? That'll be my next lense.

6/23/2009 8:48:11 AM

Word, it comes in the mail tomorrow! I know what I will be spending my day doing! I'm not too concerned with the MF, I sometimes do that on my lens when it won't do what I want and though it was weird at first it's no biggie now. Plus, I plan on upgrading in the near future to a d90 most likely.

So excited!!!!!!!!!!!!

6/23/2009 9:58:50 AM

i pretty much use manual focus exclusively these days, and it's especially helpful in low light when the lens doesn't want to focus quickly. (which is probably when you'd use your 50mm anyway)

as has been said before, you may not feel the need to upgrade cameras quite as soon once you see what a decent lens does for your images. you'll kick yourself for using the kit lens for so long.

6/23/2009 10:07:43 AM

haha I know. I've used manual plenty of times when the kit lens just pisses me off so MF is no problem for me. I've been holding out for the 1.4 since I've discovered the wonderfulness of the 50mm but everytime I got close something would come up that depleted that, so finally I broke down and got the 1.8. I doubt I'll be disappointed.

I was looking at macro lens since it was mentioned above. I saw a tokina 100mm macro for $356 on ebay, that just won't AF on the d40 right? The only AF macros I saw were close to $800 and as you know it's not important enough to me to spend an additional $500 on. I just want to make sure it will fit, work, etc. I don't know what the AT-x means...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tokina-AT-x-M100-PRO-D-100mm-f-2-8-Macro-For-Nikon_W0QQitemZ260430806019QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item3ca2e2bc03&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1205|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

6/23/2009 10:16:05 AM

AT-x is Tokina's "best lens" series and stands for Advanced Technology - Extra. as far as the lens and camera capabilities go, i don't know much about nikons as i shoot canon, but i don't see why you'd pay $500 just for AF either, if you are fine with manual. that doesn't make sense. now if the more expensive lens is just a much better lens, well that's another story...

i tried out the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 when i went to buy my 50mm and i couldn't justify the extra $240 or so for the 1.4. but that was a personal preference, and i was broke. canon makes some great prime lenses though, and i'm sure there are great choices for nikon as well.


[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : clarify]

6/23/2009 10:33:52 AM

btw, nice shots Senez. good, soft light. i think i like the first one best.

6/23/2009 12:04:15 PM

time to n00b up the thread....


I got a d40 and I'm really interested into doing some hobby photography (especially when the baby is born), are there any good cheap books or websites out there that give a good overview? where did you guys learn so much about photography?

6/23/2009 12:20:46 PM

i would highly recommend The Digital Photography Book Vol. 1 & 2 by Scott Kelby.
http://www.amazon.com/Scott-Kelbys-Digital-Photography-Volumes/dp/0321604032/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245774151&sr=8-2
i see they have a 3rd volume now, but i've not seen that in person. i have 1 and 2 and they really help make photography more intuitive without all the nit-picky specifics.

for reviews and more technical info i use:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
and manufacturer's websites (canon, nikon, tamron, etc)

i also check out magazines at barnes and noble from time to time to see if there are any interesting subjects covered that i want to know more about; black and white photography and editing for example.

others can chime in on what they look at, this certainly isn't an all inclusive list.

6/23/2009 12:26:51 PM

When you look at a print, you should view it at the distance of the print's cross section (the diagonal length) to view whether it is sharp or not. Say for an 8x10, that's about 12inches, 4x6 that's what 8 inches? The larger you view a print, the further away you should view it from. Kinda like the rule with TV's. Sure, it would be nice to print everything at 300dpi on photo paper, but when you enlarge a file to say a 16x20 or 24x30, you will hardly notice the interpolation from a distance as long as you have enough information.

4MP will print out 8x10 perfectly, 16x20 might be cutting it close. Honestly, I print everything at 240dpi just because you can't tell between that and 300dpi for a photography, unless there's a lot of fine text or print. Alternatively if you don't have enough info or resolution in the image, you can enlarge it with a number of ways. There's the expensive fractals programs that do wonderful jobs and really do work very very VERY well and then there's the cheap way in photoshop.

Basically the photoshop technique is to enlarge the size by 10-15%, either use the smart sharpen or unsharpen mask filters, then repeat the process till you get the desired size. In talking with other photographers and have used this technique a few times, its only good to blow up an image to about 200% of the original size till you start to see artifacts and weird sharpening errors. 200% would probably be helpful for most people here, but if you need more than that then investing in a good fractal program is best, which can blow up a picture to 1000%+ while keeping detail and sharpness.

I've blown up a trade show graphic file from 3500x2800 to about 12000x10000 on a 10x10' fabric with genuine fractals 5 pro software and worked really good. If you are still a student, you can get the software from the academic pro software sight for half off (I think it's a $300 program so 150 for students) and it's worth every penny if you plan on doing a lot of enlargements yourself, but I do believe if you are outsourcing your printing needs to a real pro photo lab (like millers, etc...) then they should give you an option, for an extra charge, of using software enlargement tools for really big prints, like 30"+.

6/23/2009 5:23:32 PM

Do you guys have a UV filter on your 50mm?

I was talking to a photography veteran and he said that it was really the dpi that would determine how big you could blow something up, he said with the right dpi you could blow a 2MP up to a wall sized piece...

6/24/2009 12:21:46 PM

Quote :

"Do you guys have a UV filter on your 50mm? "

i have a UV filter on every lens i have if for no other reason than protection. if i put on a polarizer or something else, i'll sometimes take it off, but i'd rather replace a UV filter than a lens if something were to get scratched.

6/24/2009 12:23:58 PM

Word, just wondering because the glass is inside so it'd be slightly harder to bang. slightly

I have one UV filter that I switch to the lens I'm currently using because I usually only bring one with me at a time, I hate being weighed down by bags hah. I need more though!

Can't wait to play with this beast tonight.

6/24/2009 12:26:42 PM

Quote :

"i have a UV filter on every lens i have if for no other reason than protection. if i put on a polarizer or something else, i'll sometimes take it off, but i'd rather replace a UV filter than a lens if something were to get scratched."

exactly...a $10 investment protects your lens in most cases

6/24/2009 2:47:06 PM

I bought a bunch of Canon UV filters in bulk two years ago for $7ish each with free shipping at Amazon. Was a killer deal. I ordered like 10 and sold the rest to friends.

6/24/2009 4:14:18 PM

It's here! have had a few hours to play with it...

6/26/2009 8:40:31 PM

I want to try again later on and get closer with the wide angle, maybe setup a remote camera on the track, looking directly up at the subject when the sun is still up.

My award winning nightlife pic at school.


[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 3:20:23 PM

anyone have a spare 52mm UV filter they'd like to sell for cheap?

6/30/2009 2:49:12 PM

i havent posted here in ages so ill throw in some contributions

ive been trying to catch up on some post processing and uploading. im so fucking behind. im just now getting to uploading pictures from my trips last year and christmas.

6/30/2009 3:09:22 PM

7/1/2009 9:52:36 AM

fish is all like "oh hai!"

7/1/2009 1:34:30 PM

cool shots gunzz. i like the tunnel one best. the m&m one is cool, but i feel like the crop is too tight on the left.

bumping this for the upcoming weekend...
anyone have any tips for shooting fireworks? i've never tried before. i'm thinking cable release, bulb setting, pre-aimed and just fire before the thing goes off and hold until after the explosion. make adjustments as we go. anyone shot them before?

my only source so far is:
http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-photograph-fireworks

7/2/2009 10:33:01 PM

^^^second from the bottom is really cool, and that sky one you have up there is pretty awesome

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 10:40:26 PM

That's what I did, tripod, point to sky, bulb setting, aaaaaaaaaand go! It's actually easy!

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM. Reason : oh, remote too]

7/2/2009 10:45:18 PM

after reading, it didn't seem too hard. did you use a remote, or a cable release? i have a remote, but there is a countdown timer so timing could be an issue.

i think i'm going to get a cable release tomorrow.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason : k]

7/2/2009 10:48:27 PM

doing some internal debating and wanting to see what this thread thinks...

I currently have the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS as my walk around lens. It's okay, but I do not like how the lens barrel extends out in zoom mode or while just walking around. My other two lenses are the 50 f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4L. I was looking at going after the 17-40 f/4L as my new walk around. This is mostly for travel, where I pretty much stay in the wide range of the 17-85. I do like the little bit of extra reach that it has, but when I need anything toward the narrow end I go ahead and slide the 70-200 on, which takes much better shots in my opinion.

So has anybody else made this switch? Or have opinions on the 17-40 v. 17-85?

thanks

7/2/2009 10:50:36 PM