Camera Thread

[tjcaustin]

To go along with some new hobby stuff I'm looking into, I figure why not make a thread so we can all discuss this, too.  Hopefully, dianoda will grace us with his generous knowledge as well.  Anyways:

I just picked up a Canon Eos t4i from mistakemistake, it has the EF-S 18-55 IS II lens with it.  I jumped from a powershot sx260hs to this as I wanted a dslr and it was a tremendous deal.

It's way too much for my photography ignorant brain right now.  I don't regret it as I know I can grow into it, but even the tripod I have isn't holding up well.

Once I can get this laptop to recognize this SD card, I'll try to post pictures of my trials so far into more in depth photography.

Also, I'd like recommendations on accessory gear.  Mainly I'll use this for macros of business related items, but as I get more comfortable, I know I'll start taking pictures of my dogs, gatherings and etc.

I'm looking at this, but dunno if it's all cheap junk - http://www.amazon.com/Accessory-Includes-Flexible-Gripster-MicroFiber/dp/B004VM5RBK

Edit numero dos:  That includes different lenses as well.

[norbauer]

Welcome to a super awesome hobby--one of the few that can easily get more expensive than keyboards rather quickly! When I was first getting started in DSLR, I found Ben Long's courses on Lynda.com to be extremely helpful and informative. He has an intro to exposure course and one on lenses that I particularly recommend. He also has some on gear that would address some of the items you mention. Lynda has a pretty cheap subscription model, so you could just do a month and probably see everything you could want.

http://www.lynda.com/Ben-Long/748177-1.html

[bueller]

Always happy to talk photography! Did live music photography for local press before I got serious about IT, now I just do street stuff and holiday photos.

[bueller]

If you're interested in doing macro's of business related stuff then I highly suggest you take a look at Strobist. I'd recommend getting a couple of cheap YongNuo slave flashes and a pop up light tent, should cost around $100 and will yield the best increase in quality for the price.

[ComradeSniper]

and a pop up light tent

I built my light tent out of a cardboard box and some white fabric from the thrift store, and I light it with 3 desk lamps. I've never used a purpose built light tent, but my makeshift one has worked just fine for me.

The tripod you posted looks decent enough for a starter one, but I guarantee it's not going to last very long if you like to go places and use your camera a lot. I had one a lot like it and one of the supports for the legs broke after a few months of use. I got a Manfrotto ball head tripod to replace it and I'm incredibly happy with it. Not only is the build quality much better than my old one, but it's loads easier to adjust and get things looking just right in frame. Also, the quick detach mechanism is super convenient. I'd highly recommend one of the Manfrotto 290 series tripods if you don't mind spending a little more.

Photography is a really awesome hobby. There's a lot to learn, but I think it's awesome to see yourself progress as you learn more about it.

[tjcaustin]

I've got a whitebox (kinda) set up in one of the partitions of a shelving thing next to my desk made of cardboard, white posterboard and is lit with a trio of bright fluorescent lights (which I've only now learned aren't the greatest for that stuff).  Downsides are all the visable corners, the cardstock getting dingy and a lack of flexibility. I was able to take alright pictures before (they seemed a lot clinical and cold and boring compared to what others were posting.  I'm thinking of completely redoing it with white fabric and a warmer light soon.

[infiniti]

Photography is an great hobby with a mix of creative and technical aspects.  Take the time to learn the features/functions of your camera and it will serve you well.  Oh and keep shooting since practice really does make perfect!

Building on what ComradeSniper already said:
+1 on keeping a record of your photographs so that you can see how you've progressed
+1 on Manfrotto; bought a used 055PROB years back and it's still doing great

And this pretty much sums up my view that a camera is a tool...

a group of artists are invited for dinner by a famous chef. in greeting the photographer, the chef comments "i love your photos, they’re wonderful, you must have a very expensive camera."

the photographer doesn’t reply and walks into the dining room.

after dinner the photographer approaches the chef and says "dinner was sensational, very exquisite flavors, a true work of art, you must have a very sophisticated stove.”

Source: The Daily Muse

[TheSoulhunter]

1. Flash
Useful for product photography (perhaps get 2), outdoor portraits (as fill light), indoor portraits (better get 2), more...
I use Canon, Metz and Yongnuo's (The Yongnuo YN568EX is a bargain, also works with TTL radio triggers, got 2 of em)

2. Radio trigger for flash
A lot of time you wanna shoot the flash off-camera, infrared triggering sucks, cables are complicated...
PocketWizard, Phottix Odin, or if you are on a budget -> Yongnuo YN-622C (Cheap and had no real problems so far)

3. Steady tripod
Basically you can decide between A: Heavy, B: Expensive, C: Cheap and Shi##y
I swear on Gitzo (aka. lasts a lifetime, and you can beat up people with it) but if you wanna spend less, search for Triopo at ebay.
Triopo makes some very good Gitzo knock-offs (I got both, and the Triopo delivers 3/4 the performance for 1/3 of the price, good stuff)

4. Remote trigger for the camera
There are simple ones (focus and shoot) and fancy ones (with interval shooting, EV or focus series, light / sound / motion triggering)
I got a DIY one (search SmaTrig) which can do more stuff than you will ever need, there are radio triggers as well...

5. Primes
Zooms are convinient, but primes deliver better performance (better image quality and much lower aperture) for the money.
A 50mm prime is a good start, its versatile and relatively cheap...

Unfortunately I cant recommend any 50 currently sold, they all have their shortcomings,
but as starter the 50 f/1.8 is perhaps a good idea, it's not good but it's dirt cheap.

You can also get good 50's for cheap (and awesome for moderate price) when going for old manual ones.
You have to know what to look for (I can help) and you will need a adapter to mount em on your camera.

If you are willing to spend more, Sigmas 35mm f/1.4 is great (as you are on Crop it makes a good standard lens)
The Canon 135mm f/2 is great as well (in case you wanna do tele'ish photos... zoo, concerts, whatever)
Canons 85 f/1.8, while not performing like the lenses mentioned above,
is a nice portrait lens for moderate price.

I don't have too much experience with super-tele and wide-angle primes,
so I cant help here ^^;

6. Zooms
Versatile, but they trade that for image quality and speed (aperture)
Super zooms (Zooms with wide range of focal length) gernerally offer poor image quality, try to split ranges!
I usually go with 2 zooms, a wide angle -> low tele (ie 15-85) and low tele -> upper tele (ie. 70-300).
Zooms I can recommend: EF 70-200 L (any) / EF70-300 L / EF-S 15-85 (not the newer 17-85).

7. Filters & Misc
Don't use protection filters (image quality is degraded), use lensshades for collision/bump protection instead (even when there is no sun).
Get some good quality ND filters for your portrait primes (when shooting wide open in broad daylight you often hit the highest shutter speed -> overexposure)

[TheSoulhunter]

Always happy to talk photography! Did live music photography for local press before I got serious about IT, now I just do street stuff and holiday photos.

Show Image

Show Image

Show Image

Awesome!

[badcop]

TJ go to the b&h YouTube page. They post all their seminars and they are really good. I spent a few days just sitting there watching some of them.

[Winther]

I hope I dont hijack your thread but from what I understand it supposed to be for everyone to discuss photography.

Recently I really wanted a DSLR, I ended up getting into another hobby so right now I have no money for a DSLR. But something I have been wanted to more about is the different manufacturers and the pros and cons about their cameras!

As far as I know Canon is very well regarded and probably the most popular, atleast with the amateur and beginners. They are also quite expensive and the stabilizer is in the lenses which makes the lenses alot more expensive aswell, correct?

What are the equivalent of something like the Canon 500/550D from the other companies (Nikon, Sony etc.)?

[TheSoulhunter]

...atleast with the amateur and beginners.

Hint: Every cam there with a white lens is a Canon...

[TheSoulhunter]

^ Which in itself is also a hint: Buy into a system because of the lenses, not the body!
Bodies will be upgraded at least every couple of years, lenses can last decades...
Mediocre body with great lens > Great body with mediocre lens

[CPTBadAss]

Sick! Pretty happy you posted this. I'm going to be picking up an Olympus E-pm1 or E-pl3 mirrorless camera very soon. I wanted a micro 4/3s mirrorless as my first "real camera". I wanted to stay in a budget range of $200-$250, max $300. The Olympus can be had for that price, I can get lenses for it later, and if I decide I don't like photography in 6 months, I'm not out too much money. I'll post more of my thoughts and my learning process once I get the camera. So far, I've only spent a few hours with a superzoom, learning about ISO, shutter speed, and aperture/f-stop.

[Larken]

Sick! Pretty happy you posted this. I'm going to be picking up an Olympus E-pm1 or E-pl3 mirrorless camera very soon. I wanted a micro 4/3s mirrorless as my first "real camera". I wanted to stay in a budget range of $200-$250, max $300. The Olympus can be had for that price, I can get lenses for it later, and if I decide I don't like photography in 6 months, I'm not out too much money. I'll post more of my thoughts and my learning process once I get the camera. So far, I've only spent a few hours with a superzoom, learning about ISO, shutter speed, and aperture/f-stop.

get the epl3 if those are your two choices. far better controls - and all in all, one of the better m43 cameras of its generation.

[CPTBadAss]

Cool! I was thinking about getting a Lumix GF3, but the used one I saw on B&H sold before I got a chance to look into it more.

Edit: Hm, there appears to be a used Lumix GF1 for sale. Does anyone have an opinion on the Lumix GF1 vs the Olympus E-PL3?

[Larken]

Cool! I was thinking about getting a Lumix GF3, but the used one I saw on B&H sold before I got a chance to look into it more.

Edit: Hm, there appears to be a used Lumix GF1 for sale. Does anyone have an opinion on the Lumix GF1 vs the Olympus E-PL3?

I'll stay with the E-PL3. The GF1 was a great camera (decent af speed, decent IQ, low iso capabilities compared to the current crop of camera), but it's several generations behind the EPL3. I was quite into the m43 system for a while before I settled on my current set up. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat more about it?

[CPTBadAss]

PM'd you good sir

[tjcaustin]

I hope I dont hijack your thread but from what I understand it supposed to be for everyone to discuss photography.

Recently I really wanted a DSLR, I ended up getting into another hobby so right now I have no money for a DSLR. But something I have been wanted to more about is the different manufacturers and the pros and cons about their cameras!

As far as I know Canon is very well regarded and probably the most popular, atleast with the amateur and beginners. They are also quite expensive and the stabilizer is in the lenses which makes the lenses alot more expensive aswell, correct?

What are the equivalent of something like the Canon 500/550D from the other companies (Nikon, Sony etc.)?

This is totally meant for everyone to discuss the hobby, not just me.

[tjcaustin]

I've been messing around a bit with camera (see my picture thread in d-squad subforum) and I kinda dig the touch screen shutter command.

[vun]

I've got a D90 that I use with a Sigma 18-200 lens and a cheap Nikkor 35mm. I wish I was dedicated enough to justify some proper lenses, but while I do use it fairly often it's not enough, nor serious enough, that I feel the money I'd have to spend to upgrade either my camera or lenses is worth it.

[norbauer]

Sigmas 35mm f/1.4 is great (as you are on Crop it makes a good standard lens)

I can strongly concur with this. My 30mm sigma 1.4 is my most used lens on my carrying-around camera (Nikon D5100). With my crop factor, it's basically a 50mm. I got it affordably from B&H online. It is just the right focal length for taking portraits across a dinner table. (The 35mm is good too, but a little just a little too tight for my taste to comfortably take shots close up to people and objects at close range.)

Here are a few samples of images I took with it:











For when you need a wide angle or telephoto, the Sigma 18-250 is also pretty great for the price. Examples:





Those two lenses are all I've found that I ever need, honestly. And they come in special "DC" form factor especially for cropped sensors, making them smaller and more affordable.

[TheSoulhunter]

Trust me, the Sigma 35 1.4 plays in another league regarding sharpness and contrast wide open!
Clearly outperforms my 35L and most other primes I used so far...

[vun]

Trust me, the Sigma 35 1.4 plays in another league regarding sharpness and contrast wide open!
Clearly outperforms my 35L and most other primes I used so far...

So I should be looking at upgrading my Nikkor 35mm? Not anytime soon most likely, but I just had a look and the Sigma isn't too pricey, though it's still more than twice that of my current 35mm. Although I love the small form factor of the Nikkor, so much better after being used to have to lug the 18-200 around for years.

[TheSoulhunter]

Trust me, the Sigma 35 1.4 plays in another league regarding sharpness and contrast wide open!
Clearly outperforms my 35L and most other primes I used so far...

So I should be looking at upgrading my Nikkor 35mm? Not anytime soon most likely, but I just had a look and the Sigma isn't too pricey, though it's still more than twice that of my current 35mm. Although I love the small form factor of the Nikkor, so much better after being used to have to lug the 18-200 around for years.

Not much experience with Nikkor glass, only checked some tele-zooms back then and went with Canon ^^;
Perhaps lend it or buy it from a shop with 30 day money back guarantee, so you can compare...

[norbauer]

Trust me, the Sigma 35 1.4 plays in another league regarding sharpness and contrast wide open!
Clearly outperforms my 35L and most other primes I used so far...

That is good advice. I do get a lot of unwanted softness wide open. Have been thinking of getting the 35mm or 50mm as an alternative slight variation that might improve other properties like this, which I would use for studio type situations.

The most annoying thing for me with my Sigma 30mm is that the minimum focusing distance is pretty high. I always want to close up on something with shallow depth of field, and each of my lenses can do one but not both.

[hashbaz]

Always happy to talk photography! Did live music photography for local press before I got serious about IT, now I just do street stuff and holiday photos.

Show Image

Show Image

Show Image

I can strongly concur with this. My 30mm sigma 1.4 is my most used lens on my carrying-around camera (Nikon D5100). With my crop factor, it's basically a 50mm. I got it affordably from B&H online. It is just the right focal length for taking portraits across a dinner table. (The 35mm is good too, but a little just a little too tight for my taste to comfortably take shots close up to people and objects at close range.)

Here are a few samples of images I took with it:

Show Image

Show Image

Show Image

Show Image

Show Image

For when you need a wide angle or telephoto, the Sigma 18-250 is also pretty great for the price. Examples:

Show Image

Show Image

Those two lenses are all I've found that I ever need, honestly. And they come in special "DC" form factor especially for cropped sensors, making them smaller and more affordable.

This is good stuff guys. ^^  Nice work.

At the risk of going off-topic, I just want to note with satisfaction that the difference between actual photography (see above) and candid creeper photos is really obvious.

[norbauer]

This is good stuff guys. ^^  Nice work.

At the risk of going off-topic, I just want to note with satisfaction that the difference between actual photography (see above) and candid creeper photos is really obvious.

Ha. Candid creeper photos? Is that a photographic genre I'm not aware of?

(Thanks for the kind words, btw!)

[hashbaz]

I'm just referring to a recent incident where someone posted some questionable photography.

[Larken]

I've got a whitebox (kinda) set up in one of the partitions of a shelving thing next to my desk made of cardboard, white posterboard and is lit with a trio of bright fluorescent lights (which I've only now learned aren't the greatest for that stuff).  Downsides are all the visable corners, the cardstock getting dingy and a lack of flexibility. I was able to take alright pictures before (they seemed a lot clinical and cold and boring compared to what others were posting.  I'm thinking of completely redoing it with white fabric and a warmer light soon.

let's not forget the post processing portion of things. I know certain groups photography enthusiasts frown on using pp as a crutch, and prefer to 'get it right straight out of camera'. But I find understanding how to make adjustments to the sub-par shots you get at first helps to get images to an acceptable standard, before you slowly move towards 'getting it right' straight out of camera - yes, learning what I did wrong taught me how to be a better shooter. Plus, occasionally you just want to achieve a certain feel with the picture that isn't intended to reflect actual shooting conditions.

Of course, there's the overprocessed:



The natural colors (I swear I didn't do much pp on these - it was a beautiful morning/and day)





And turning the outright bad into something more.... eye-catching. Before PP; these were done in my early days of learning what can be done with extreme PP (which I know many frown on). I'd tended towards more subtle adjustments in recent times.



And after PP:



The last two shots were shot using one of these, just to show how far pp can go, even on a jpg file:



I shoot most of my pictures using a fixed lens 35mm nowadays - forces me to think about the shot, 'zoom with my feet' (I guess most in the hobby would have heard this one before).

And TJ, in lieu of changing your lighting set up, sometimes a slight tweak in white balance can change the tone of the picture with much less effort. e.g.

[norbauer]

I'm just referring to a recent incident where someone posted some questionable photography.

Oh well, in that case I guess I'm better off ignorant.

[vun]

On the subject of PP; if you shoot in raw this is often necessary as raw files tend to be fairly bland. If you shoot in jpeg the camera will often auto adjust the image for you, so the jpeg tends to look better.

[davkol]

^ Which in itself is also a hint: Buy into a system because of the lenses, not the body!
Bodies will be upgraded at least every couple of years, lenses can last decades...
Mediocre body with great lens > Great body with mediocre lens

That's why I went with Pentax. Plenty of vintage lenses. Also, it works on AA batteries rather than proprietary battery packs.

BTW get a gorillapod, it's awesome.

[davkol]

...and another thing. If you're really interested in macro, there aren't more options than Canon MP-E65. If you take a look at any really good photos of beetles, they were almost certainly taken with either this, an old Nikon compact, or some special camera mounted on a microscope.

[eth0s]

I'm still a nub.  I moved up from a Canon PowerShot to a Nikon d7100 about 2 months ago.  These photo's were taken with a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 prime lens:

Sunflowers:



Water faucet:



Steeple:



Manhattan skyline from across the Central Park Reservoir:



Traffic going uptown:



Guggenheim Museum:



Lamppost:

[norbauer]

Water faucet:

Show Image

I really like this one, FWIW. :)

[regack]

I have a Nikon D3.  These photos were taken recently with a 85mm 1.8G... yes, I love shallow DoF

Made it to the top...


Symmetrical rock stacking...


After the fire...

let's not forget the post processing portion of things. I know certain groups photography enthusiasts frown on using pp as a crutch, and prefer to 'get it right straight out of camera'. But I find understanding how to make adjustments to the sub-par shots you get at first helps to get images to an acceptable standard, before you slowly move towards 'getting it right' straight out of camera - yes, learning what I did wrong taught me how to be a better shooter. Plus, occasionally you just want to achieve a certain feel with the picture that isn't intended to reflect actual shooting conditions.

I agree with Larken here.  I'm pretty sure every one of my photos ends up with just a bit of post processing, some heavier than others, because even when you have essentially unlimited shots available, you don't always have unlimited time to get those shots (waiting for the perfect light, finding that perfect moment, etc).  I'm not arguing that you should rely on post processing, my preference would be for it to be perfect when I get it off of the camera, but reality often comes between me and that goal.

I would hazard a guess that anyone who considers post processing to be a crutch must never have worked with film.  Half of the art was spending time in the darkroom making that print come out just perfect, trying several crops, papers, different exposure times, dodging here, burning there, changing filters, cleaning dust... Now the workflow is just in the computer so it's a bit easier for everyone to get into it.   

[mkawa]

tj wanted me to post in here HAPPY TJ?!?!?

[Binge]

inb4CPTBadAss

[tjcaustin]

tj wanted me to post in here HAPPY TJ?!?!?

No, because there's no content!

CONTENT!!

[CPTBadAss]

Hopefully my last potato picture ever. I just go this in today



Olympus E-PL3

[Altis]

I use a Sony NEX 6 with the SEL 35mm f1.8, SEL 16-50, SEL 55-210, and still have 18-55.

I love mirrorless cameras.  The NEX 6 has a nice APS-C sensor used in some Nikon DSLRs.

My friend always does things "properly" and purchased around $5000 worth of Canon 5D Mk II and L lenses, but just announced that he's selling it all because he never brings it anywhere and doesn't bother taking well composed photos anyways.  He always criticized my NEX, but in the end, I bring it places!

Also, I use Lightroom 4 to do my editing.  It's really 3/4 of where the magic happens!

[eth0s]

Canon 70D is now available, and is a great DSLR. 

But if you want the best ~ $1K DSLR, I recommend the Nikon D7100.

Mirrorless cameras however do give you great photo's at much lower price.

[mkawa]

i've been spoiled by kawa kamera (which is a d700 and 35 1.4g). the lens is fantastic, and the nikon pro am FX series is just a joy to use. that said, it's big and heavy. but, it fits. dunno. the d700 and d800 are just the only bodies that feel right to me now.

once you spend enough time with a camera you and the camera become a bit more of a unit than you or the camera alone. having an slr with a single "walkaround" lens makes this even more natural. you can see and frame your shots, and know via muscle memory what you may need to flip to get it all right in that one second you'll have to make the capture.

the cool thing is that it doesn't matter what camera you become one with. it's a zen thing that applies to all reasonably well designed imaging tools. your brain adapts to seeing through the lens, your hands adapt to the controls, and the only thing you have to consciously think about is where you are and what you're seeing. to be fair, i went through a series of nikon bodies and rejected a bunch before i got here, but once i did, i started to see what thom hogan refers to as something silly like "unconscious precomputation" or "previewing the image in your head" or some such. i intuitively know silly things like the amount of dynamic range at different light levels and have completely internalized both the frame and DOF of my lens, as well as distortion and acuity properties across the frame.

and it's not a function of the camera or lens. it's just your brain getting really used to using a tool. i've had my body for 5 or 6 years now, and i didn't even get the zen bit until at least 2-3 years in. dunno. cameras dude. they're like keyboards but every time you click the button you get 10k words instead of a single letter.

[tjcaustin]

And here's a folder of stuff I did last night with a reworked light box.  I may have some more stuff soon for critiquing.
http://s978.photobucket.com/user/tjcaustin/slideshow/Bento

I know the full listening stack is dark, but I don't have an overhead light yet (soonish).

[CPTBadAss]

So I've been getting used to the automatic mode on my Olympus. I haven't had too much time to play with it and I wanted to know what the pictures were like. But I'm having a bit of an issue. The camera doesn't seem to want to focus when it's very close up. I was trying to take a picture of some screws on the Orbweaver PCB.

On the superzoom I used before, there was a "macro" setting/button that I could enable. But I can't seem to find that same function on this camera. Is that because I need to physically zoom in with my lens and then adjust where I'm holding the camera to get it to focus?

Or what am I missing?

[vun]

So I've been getting used to the automatic mode on my Olympus. I haven't had too much time to play with it and I wanted to know what the pictures were like. But I'm having a bit of an issue. The camera doesn't seem to want to focus when it's very close up. I was trying to take a picture of some screws on the Orbweaver PCB.

On the superzoom I used before, there was a "macro" setting/button that I could enable. But I can't seem to find that same function on this camera. Is that because I need to physically zoom in with my lens and then adjust where I'm holding the camera to get it to focus?

Or what am I missing?

My camera terminology is failing me atm so someone will probably explain this in a more professional manner; but lenses have a minimum focus distance, so if your lens is too close it just won't focus, so you'll have to step back a little.

[Larken]

So I've been getting used to the automatic mode on my Olympus. I haven't had too much time to play with it and I wanted to know what the pictures were like. But I'm having a bit of an issue. The camera doesn't seem to want to focus when it's very close up. I was trying to take a picture of some screws on the Orbweaver PCB.

On the superzoom I used before, there was a "macro" setting/button that I could enable. But I can't seem to find that same function on this camera. Is that because I need to physically zoom in with my lens and then adjust where I'm holding the camera to get it to focus?

Or what am I missing?

My camera terminology is failing me atm so someone will probably explain this in a more professional manner; but lenses have a minimum focus distance, so if your lens is too close it just won't focus, so you'll have to step back a little.

your answer is actually spot on. iirc, that particular kit lens has a minimum focusing distance of 25cm.

@cpt - take a step back, zoom in optically. stop down the aperture if the depth of field is too thin, and a tripod always helps in absence of good light.

Usually, when you half press the shutter button, there is a half second pause while the camera searches for the focus - and the 'macro' function on cameras just tells the camera to limit/focus this 'search range' to certain distances - ie. from 10cm - 25cm. It's a function that doesn't actually matter to certain cameras as they don't have an issue searching for close objects, so it doesn't exist on every camera.

[CPTBadAss]

Cool. I moved the camera back and was trying to figure out the distance where it would focus. But I wasn't sure if I was missing something. Thanks.

And for what it's worth, I have the 14-42mm lens that came with the camera.

[TheSoulhunter]

My friend always does things "properly" and purchased around $5000 worth of Canon 5D Mk II and L lenses, but just announced that he's selling it all because he never brings it anywhere...

Word of advice when getting a expensive model: Get a "everything but the kitchen sink" insurance...
Got it back then for my 7d and the pricy lenses so I can (Ab)USE the the stuff and bring it anywhere without fear, saved me 300 bucks so far ^^