177

10/28/2010 2:51:20 PM

10/30/2010 6:47:04 AM

A couple from UNC@UM

10/30/2010 6:21:40 PM

^^ Awesome...The building from the last scheme in Entrapment.
Catherine Zeta Jones was hot in that movie.

10/30/2010 6:23:43 PM

^^ Awesome shots!

10/30/2010 6:25:28 PM

hahah

Quote :

" Let me check your oil for yah."

10/30/2010 6:59:43 PM

Looking up like that at the Petronas Towers makes me a little dizzy.

But damn they are some good looking buildings.

10/30/2010 8:04:50 PM

i went and saw them during the day and went back just for that one shot at night then left

they were impressive

10/31/2010 12:41:37 AM

[Edited on October 31, 2010 at 6:13 PM. Reason : nevermind]

10/31/2010 6:09:51 PM

we hate hdr blah blah blah - couldn't resist

11/1/2010 1:20:15 PM

Nice angle, if there's HDR in it, it's very subtle. I would burn some around the large light sources on the top of the towers to tone down the bloom/flaring effect on them. Maybe do a little color correcting on the amber lights of the street lamps.

11/1/2010 2:38:02 PM

^^awesome

11/2/2010 10:24:03 PM

I'm thinking of getting that Canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens. I want something that will work in low light situations, and I'm not opposed to prime. Any thoughts on the 1.8 vs. 1.4.

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 5:07 PM. Reason : rowr]

11/6/2010 5:05:18 PM

The 1.8 is excellent, especially at the price. I couldn't justify the 1.4 cost over the 1.8 when I bought mine, but it is also a fantastic lens. I would say just go for the 1.8 and save the extra money for another fast prime.

11/6/2010 5:25:15 PM

1.4 >>> 1.8 if cost isn't a big issue or you can get a deal

i have both in 50mm (nikon mount, but it shouldn't matter)...the 1.4 was $40 from CL and the 1.8 was "free" (it came with my D90)...my 1.4 is OLD (nippon kogaku old, actually) and i'll gladly tote the extra weight and extra bulk

at retail prices, though, 1.4 isn't worth the extra over the 1.8

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2010 5:30:50 PM

I mean, yeah, if money ain't a thing definitely get the 1.4.

11/6/2010 5:33:37 PM

well, yeah

i guess my point is that i think the 1.4 is worth some patience looking around for a good deal...if you're in a hurry, the 1.4 isn't worth the premium

11/6/2010 5:38:19 PM

Agreed.

I'd love to trade up if the price is right, but for basically $100 you really can't pass up the 1.8

This page needs some pictures. *These are from fashionspark in september... Shot from the crowd with a Tamron 70-200 2.8









set on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cody_clark/sets/72157625110265917/with/5149657787/

11/6/2010 5:39:55 PM

i borrowed the 1.8 from a friend before i bought my 1.4 - i definitely recommend the 1.4 over the 1.8 - much faster/quieter focusing - better picture quality - only $200 or so more

i rarely shoot at 1.4 with it unless i absolutely have to because the pictures aren't as sharp as they are at

11/6/2010 9:55:04 PM

Not trying to be rude, but if you don't use 1.4, what's the point in spending the 200 extra dollars? (i guess if focus noise really is that big of an issue to you it's worth it)

And I'm assuming when you say it's "faster" you mean it's faster auto focusing. Because we all know 1.4 is faster than 1.8.

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : k]

11/6/2010 10:37:19 PM

without knowing the details for either the nikon or canon versions, i would ASSUME that the 1.4 has more diaphragm blades giving you a (generally) smoother out-of-focus image...there's probably some difference in the lens flare and distortion...color (washout) is another consideration...it could also be that the 1.8 is better at certain ranges than the 1.4 (or vice versa)

again, i'm not claiming to be an expert...it's just my understanding that in the case of nikons, the 1.4 is simply a "better" lens...i put better in quotations because i think that everything but speed is opinion rather than fact...worth the premium, to me? no...but as i mentioned earlier, i think trying to find a deal is worth a shot...no doubt there are tons of threads dedicated to this exact debate (and they probably have image comparisons)

fwiw, i found a canon 1.4 for $80 on CL a couple of months ago...passed it along to my friend and he bought it that afternoon...so deals CAN be had if you're diligent about checking and patient

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 10:52 PM. Reason : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=canon+1.4+vs+1.8]

11/6/2010 10:43:25 PM

Quote :

"Not trying to be rude, but if you don't use 1.4, what's the point in spending the 200 extra dollars? (i guess if focus noise really is that big of an issue to you it's worth it) And I'm assuming when you say it's "faster" you mean it's faster auto focusing. Because we all know 1.4 is faster than 1.8. "

the 1.4 lens at 1.8 is substantially better than the 1.8 lens at 1.8 - it's just a bit soft at 1.4 so i don't shoot at it unless i have to due to lighting conditions - the depth of field difference isn't worth it in most cases

by faster i was referring to the focusing not the aperture

after using USM - using the 1.8 lens was annoyingly loud but it could be lived with i guess

11/6/2010 11:10:51 PM

fair enough.

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 11:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2010 11:19:08 PM

the 1.8 is also built like a piece of shit.

11/7/2010 3:18:00 AM

It certainly is of lesser build quality than the 1.4, but saying it's built like a piece of shit might be a stretch. I've dropped mine a number of times without consequence.

11/7/2010 11:01:59 AM

no, its built like a piece of shit.

11/7/2010 1:18:21 PM

hah, i also would not say it's shit...just that the 1.4 is generally of better quality

better enough for the amateur to justify the difference in retail price? no.

11/7/2010 3:58:14 PM

a DSLR n00b here, please to recommend a camera (budget $500-700)

11/8/2010 1:36:39 PM

^used t2i with kit lens.

11/8/2010 1:39:00 PM

Peace has a used 11-16 Tokina, Canon Mount, for $500.

11/8/2010 1:42:53 PM

Do i really need 18 megapixel camera to start off with?

11/8/2010 1:45:05 PM

No; but you will want one in 2 years

11/8/2010 7:02:44 PM

I will 2nd the t2i, pretty decent camera for the money, the video is also a bonus.

11/8/2010 8:58:01 PM

11/8/2010 11:55:29 PM

I have a filter that I found at a thrift store that I don't know what to do with. It's so dark that I can't see any light through it. I just put it directly above a light bulb in a lamp and I see absolutely no light coming through it. Anybody got an idea what this might be? Is it for taking pics of welding or the surface of the sun or something?

11/19/2010 5:05:04 PM

^ IR?



[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:12 PM. Reason : image]

11/19/2010 5:09:01 PM

really dark ND?

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:10 PM. Reason : 10/20 stops??]



[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:11 PM. Reason : i don't know.]

11/19/2010 5:09:43 PM

sure it's not a lens cap?

11/19/2010 5:11:24 PM

^ my first thought.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:19 PM. Reason : why don't you tell us what it says on it, if you have it...]

11/19/2010 5:13:26 PM

or, failing that, take a picture and see what shows up (or what doesn't)

11/19/2010 5:29:15 PM

It kinda hurts my feelings that y'all think I might not know what a lens cap looks like.

The filter itself just says 67mm. The packaging says "UV CPL Infrared ND Filters". I wasn't really counting on the packaging being the original one for the filter, but I guess it could be.

Is it for taking a picture of Predator or something?

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM. Reason : s]

11/19/2010 5:39:36 PM

circular polarizers are dark, too, but i can't imagine not being able to see light through one

does it look like two filters attached to each other? does one spin?

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2010 5:41:58 PM

I've got a circular polarizer. That's kinda what I thought this was when I bought it, but I didn't even look through it in the store. I guess the CPL stands for circular polarizer along with the UV, IR, and ND traits. I guess it makes sense if it is an IR filter. What is ND?

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:44 PM. Reason : l]

11/19/2010 5:43:29 PM

Quote :

"What is ND?"

neutral density

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:47 PM. Reason : nm, new post]

11/19/2010 5:44:15 PM

So what would be a typical application for something like this?

11/19/2010 5:46:30 PM

^ hah, i answered that by editing

Quote :

"it can let you do a couple of different things, but i've used it to allow for long exposures during daylight so you can get more motion blur without being over-exposed"

11/19/2010 5:47:03 PM

I want a nice ND filter, but they're expensive. At least for good ones.

Some long exposure stuff during the day would be sweet, or being able to shoot outdoors wide open with a 1/250 flash sync speed.

This guy is local and has some sweet daytime long exposures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainflexible/





[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2010 6:08:13 PM

I, too, want some nice ND filters. But alas, the price tag is a bit steep.

And yes, that guys flickr is pretty sweet.

11/19/2010 7:00:56 PM

any of you guys have reco's for good camera bags? not looking to spend $70-80 on a lowepro but I am looking for something in the sling factor that'll hold a body + 2 zoom lenses

11/19/2010 7:02:56 PM

I have a Kata 3N1 bag that works great. Pretty low profile, has an extra strap that tucks away in the event you want to use it like a bookbag (as well as a waist strap), and fits a body and a few lenses/accessories easily.

http://www.amazon.com/Kata-KT-D-3N1-30-Sling-Backpack/dp/B001BP1YEE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290215574&sr=8-2

I'll sell it to you.

11/19/2010 8:14:08 PM