The Photography Thread

[wipers]

I usually set my F stop to for white balance normal and shutter speed high.

[Tyche]

With the way technology has developed, I can think of 3 reasons why camera's still use CF cards...

1. You're old and hate change
2. You have huge hands.
3. You've been shooting for 10 years and you have 15 CFs.

OK, I thought of a 4th. Shooting RAWs to one card and jpgs to another. Honestly, how has CF lasted so long? Isn't the brainch;d of the old PCMCIA standard?

Most will say that CF has faster write speeds, and it does. Problem is the writer. Hell, Blabj mentioned the 1ds mkIII. I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong) that particular camera writes slower to CF than it does to SD.

Edit: I know the mkII writes slower to CF, not sure about mkIII

[Zansho]

I know some of the higher end Canon and Nikon bodies have slots for both, basically for redundancy purposes. I also think the camera body manufacturers keep a certain type of card to make sure their customers stay happy - I'd be pretty upset if I found out that the 32 GB CF Card I just bought doesn't work with my new camera body. Continuity, for continuity's sake.

To address the other OP's question regarding which camera body, Moots has a point. There's no substitute for actually playing and touching and holding a camera body to make sure it feels good in your hand. Do the controls feel intuitive? Is everything laid out logically and at places for you to easily find? Ergonomics are important too, and weight can be a huge factor if you plan to shoot for long periods of time. I've shot with my 7D at a sports event with a 300mm F2.8 attached to the body as well as a battery grip, and it gets HEAVY after a while. I do use a monopod, but even so, it gets weighty. Last thing I'd want is for all the controls to add to my frustration if I can't find them or feel comfortable.

And I'd recommend getting either an older generation body and GOOD lenses, because bodies will come and go, while lenses will, for the most part, hold their value and have a bigger return on your investment. And the 50mm 1.8, while a decently fast lens, isn't what I'd consider a quality lens - I'd grab a 50 1.4 as it has a better build, or even the Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. Tamron makes a very good 24-75 2.8 - it's a great all purpose walkaround lens, as is Sigma's 17-50 2.8, if you're looking for something slightly more wide angle. Bear in mind, that with a crop body like a 40D or a 50D, the lenses I mentioned will actually be "longer" than advertised due to the sensor size - so a 24-75 2.8 will be probably 40-100ish 2.8. Not a bad thing if you're looking for slightly longer reach, but if you need a wide angle, might want to use an EF-S lens. And if you're comfortable with shooting manually - f-stop, shutter speed, and focusing manually, then maybe looking into Contax Zeiss Lenses for your camera body and buying the proper adapter to fit them might be the way to go. Zeiss has been world famous for making amazing lenses, and this is a good way to get into that for a fraction of what the L glass will cost you.

And Flashes? Canon's 580 EXII is a great flash - albeit lacking in some areas compared to Nikon's SB series (I have a couple that I use in manual/stobist situations), it's still a great flash for pretty much everyone - it can swivel and bounce off of surfaces, it can be controlled manually and be used as a slave with a 7D and other bodies without a need for a pocketwizard or other transmitters. Metz and Sigma also make pretty decent flashes also.

www.strobist.com is a good place to look for a beginning understanding on flash and how it works, and there's a pretty cool link for making your own modifiers to be found here - http://vimeo.com/9577963 - it's a beauty dish, one of the nicer modifiers for a strobe head.

[Fhqwghads]

Speaking as someone who owns both a Nikon D80 and a Nikon D700, the differences between a DX body and full frame are pretty remarkable. Then again, the types of shots I've been taking a pretty demanding: indoor low-light no-flash sports photography of MMA events. The D90 just couldn't hack it. The smaller sized sensor really hurt, and you lose a few stops because of it. Losing stops with fast action in low light hurts very, very badly, and the D80 (and D90 for that matter) don't do high ISO very well. Put the two together and you wind up with grainy shots that still have a bit of motion blur. The venues I've been shooting in are by no means photographer friendly.

That said, the D700 is amazing when it comes to this environment. Even at ISO3000 the shots come out clean, the shutter speeds are high enough to freeze sweat & blood flying through the air, and all of this at craptastic light levels. For studio work, the D700 again really shines. It was annoying having to deal with the DX factor when it came to lens choices, since the focal length on the lens isn't the actual focal length when snapped on a DX body. Trivial to some, but I found it annoying. I could never use my Sigma 70-300mm in my home studio because I didn't have the distance with the D80, but with the D700 I get great portrait shots with it.

So to sum up, it really depends on your demands. If you think you will ever do any sort of demanding low light shooting, the D80/D90 won't cut it. Also, for the love of all that is holy, do not EVER buy a DX lens. That is, unless you are absolutely, positively, 1000000% sure you will never ever upgrade to a full frame camera. You will lose a good chunk of money trying to resell DX lenses if you do make the upgrade. I learned this the hard way.

Also, you can see my photos here: http://www.adamlphotography.com

[Doombear]

Outstanding info Zansho, thank you. And for the Nikon input Fhq.

And I'd recommend getting either an older generation body and GOOD lenses, because bodies will come and go, while lenses will, for the most part, hold their value and have a bigger return on your investment. And the 50mm 1.8, while a decently fast lens, isn't what I'd consider a quality lens - I'd grab a 50 1.4 as it has a better build, or even the Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. Tamron makes a very good 24-75 2.8 - it's a great all purpose walkaround lens, as is Sigma's 17-50 2.8, if you're looking for something slightly more wide angle. Bear in mind, that with a crop body like a 40D or a 50D, the lenses I mentioned will actually be "longer" than advertised due to the sensor size - so a 24-75 2.8 will be probably 40-100ish 2.8. Not a bad thing if you're looking for slightly longer reach, but if you need a wide angle, might want to use an EF-S lens. And if you're comfortable with shooting manually - f-stop, shutter speed, and focusing manually, then maybe looking into Contax Zeiss Lenses for your camera body and buying the proper adapter to fit them might be the way to go. Zeiss has been world famous for making amazing lenses, and this is a good way to get into that for a fraction of what the L glass will cost you.

I am surprised that I hadn't looking into Contax lenses as an option until now. Would you recommend something like this (only coded for Canon) or like this Zansho? A ring with AF confirm? Or would you simply just pick up a basic adapter? More to think about, but all in all it certainly pushes me back towards the 40D end of things and having money for lenses. The 50mm 1.8 which is essentially an 80mm annoys me at times, and i would much rather have a closer to or true 50mm.

I really do appreciate all of the amazing feedback here. I am the type of person that will spend months poring over purchase options, and having all this time now to figure it out can only help.

And... a few more recent shots:

http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/x...MBC_9229_S.jpg

http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/x.../MB_9222_S.jpg

I need to remember to have her brush her hair before we go out shooting... the flyaways are a bit distracting to me and hell to remove that many in PP.

[zoobernut]

I know some of the higher end Canon and Nikon bodies have slots for both, basically for redundancy purposes. I also think the camera body manufacturers keep a certain type of card to make sure their customers stay happy - I'd be pretty upset if I found out that the 32 GB CF Card I just bought doesn't work with my new camera body. Continuity, for continuity's sake.

Real quick Moots and Zansho are right there is no good way to buy a camera or choose what you want except to go play with it in person. The two camera brands are very similar in quality of build as well as quality of pictures they take. At this point choosing one brand over another at least between Canon and Nikon is really about how comfortable the camera is for you to hold and how easy it is for you to use. Another factor to think about is if you have photographer friends what equipment do they use because if you use the same brand as them then you can swap equipment and lend/borrow lenses.

Haven't been part of the whole conversation so I won't get too deep into it but just wanted to touch on the memory card thing. CF cards are many magnitudes faster in write speed as well as read speed. They are not only faster inside your camera so it actually makes it possible for a CF card to keep up with a 8-10 FPS Nikon D3s but it actually cuts down considerably on your time later on transferring those photo's to the computer.

Also I don't know about Canon but Nikon doesn't make any professional cameras that take SD cards. Their pro level cameras only take CF cards. The only camera they make that has dual slots one SD and one CF is the D300s. Their higher end cameras do have dual slots but both slots are CF cards.

Another advantage of CF cards is they are considerably more durable in their construction and less prone to falling apart or breaking which does happen if you use them day in and day out constantly. They are also more stable in software and less prone to corrupt files.


This is just what I have noticed from reading forums and also from personal experience.


Fhq is correct about full frame vs. dx lenses and I also second the bit about the D700 camera it is an amazing camera. I don't own one but I have used one and I absolutely loved it and will pick up one or the current gen equivalent as soon as I can afford it.

[Tyche]

Any of you guys shot an M42 lens? I'm thinking about buying an Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4. I hear the sharpness is beyond reproach. Manual focus, but at ~100 bucks for the lens and adapter, is there really much to lose?

[Doombear]

I haven't shot with one Tyche, but I did a fair bit of reading up on one when I was looking for a 50mm for Ky. I have heard reviews all over the spectrum. There is a lot of love for the lens, and some distaste. A couple seeming consistants were that it was a bit on the soft side, especially opened up, and that it truly had a look that was 100% unique to itself. In the end, I threw it in my 'maybe later' list. There are quite a few discussions on Flickr, with many many user examples. If you hold out (not sure where you are getting one from) I have seen them for half that press and less. Keep in mind too, something else I learned while doing my research a few months back, is that the glass in those lenses very often ages with a yellow tint. That was another reason I avoided the purchase at the time, which was from a few reputable eBay sellers.

It is still on my 'mayber later' list though. =P

[Zansho]

the Pentax M42 is a great lens - however, buyer beware is all I can advise. I like them a lot, I shot one with my 7D for movie mode (is shot the right vernacular for shooting video..?) and it's good for manual focus. I prefer the Zeiss Contax lenses, which are about 300-400 depending on which one you get.

And yeah, Grae, the adapter you have listed is the one. Be sure to get one with AF confirmation, or you could switch out the focusing screen for your camera body and use that to help you with focusing manually. The one I have is from Fotodiox - found here on Amazon.com - http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapt.../dp/B002JX1CCG. As for focusing screens, I liked the ones from Katz Eye - http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/ - they're easy to replace, and they're really good for manual focus and closeup/macro work.

When you shoot with the Zeiss, bear in mind you need to focus wide open, to let in the most light - then stop down to the proper f-stop to get the amount of exposure you want. This really needs you to understand depth of field and how to make sure what you have in focus will stay in focus when you stop down the lens.

[Zansho]

Outstanding info Zansho, thank you. And for the Nikon input Fhq.



I am surprised that I hadn't looking into Contax lenses as an option until now. Would you recommend something like this (only coded for Canon) or like this Zansho? A ring with AF confirm? Or would you simply just pick up a basic adapter? More to think about, but all in all it certainly pushes me back towards the 40D end of things and having money for lenses. The 50mm 1.8 which is essentially an 80mm annoys me at times, and i would much rather have a closer to or true 50mm.

I really do appreciate all of the amazing feedback here. I am the type of person that will spend months poring over purchase options, and having all this time now to figure it out can only help.

And... a few more recent shots:

http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/x...MBC_9229_S.jpg

http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/x.../MB_9222_S.jpg

I need to remember to have her brush her hair before we go out shooting... the flyaways are a bit distracting to me and hell to remove that many in PP.

The flyaways in her hair should be easy to do if you have CS5 - just select them and use content aware fill - it really is quite amazing. What used to take hours in removing/masking/clone stamping now takes mere seconds using content aware fill.

[Scorp]

I've spent a month or so looking for the right DSLR, I'm finding it difficult to work out how much of a downside the negatives on professional reviews are actually going to be in practice.

I've got a budget of $300 to $500 or so but would prefer to stay on the lower side.

Experience wise I've never owned a DSLR, I've not done much photography in the last 8 years or so now. My last camera was a Canon T50 which I loved, I mainly used it for sports stuff (cars/canoeing/skiing). I'm aware of how to take decent manual photo's but I'm not well versed in how to improve on decent.

What I'm looking for is a solid DSLR that I can either use with just kit lenses (or a reasonable extra) or if I get back into it build up.

From reviews I've been leaning towards the Nikon D3000 mainly because the kit lenses get a good write up, and I've like what I've seen of Nikon's interface. I know I should be out trying stuff, but I want to narrow it down a bit first. The main thing putting me off the D3000 is the reviews keep pointing out "poor performance" in low light situations. I anticpate needing this for quite a bit of inside work home/sports hall but I will of course be using it elsewhere.

So, D3000 ok for indoor stuff? and if so will it be a good choice as a base to build from. I'm open to other suggestions of course.

[zoobernut]

I doubt you are going to be able to find a good low light camera that doesn't have "poor performance" for the $300-$500 range at least right now I have not seen one. The D3000 does great up to around iso800 for my taste but there is a little bit of noise. Just get a 50mm f1.4 or even the 35mm f1.8 for low light stuff.

I would say with that budget I think you are sitting between a D3000 or a Canon T1i (I think that is their entry level camera). Or if you feel comfortable you might be able to get a good used or refurbished camera in that price range.

I have the D3000 and I like it very much and I have used it for many different situations.

[Scorp]

Yea sorry if that was confusing, I'm aware I won't be getting great low light stuff without at least doubling the budget. I mainly want to avoid a camera that is noticeably worse in low light than similar cost models.

[mootsfox]

With the way technology has developed, I can think of 3 reasons why camera's still use CF cards...

1. You're old and hate change
2. You have huge hands.
3. You've been shooting for 10 years and you have 15 CFs.

OK, I thought of a 4th. Shooting RAWs to one card and jpgs to another. Honestly, how has CF lasted so long? Isn't the brainch;d of the old PCMCIA standard?

Most will say that CF has faster write speeds, and it does. Problem is the writer. Hell, Blabj mentioned the 1ds mkIII. I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong) that particular camera writes slower to CF than it does to SD.

Edit: I know the mkII writes slower to CF, not sure about mkIII

CF uses UMDA, basically the IDE interface, speeds can match those of a UMDA6 drive (133MB/s). SD can hit like 40MB/s.

CF is not limited to 32GB like, this year the format got support for 48-bit addressing (128PB)

CFast is the continuation of CF, which speeds up to 300MB/s right now (SATAII) and higher in the future.

In the past CF cards used higher quality flash types, that may not be true in every case today.

CF cards come with higher speed ratings. If you are getting slower writes/reads with a CF card, your camera body is to blame.



You should be asking why we are still using SD cards

[zoobernut]

CF uses UMDA, basically the IDE interface, speeds can match those of a UMDA6 drive (133MB/s). SD can hit like 40MB/s.

CF is not limited to 32GB like, this year the format got support for 48-bit addressing (128PB)

CFast is the continuation of CF, which speeds up to 300MB/s right now (SATAII) and higher in the future.

In the past CF cards used higher quality flash types, that may not be true in every case today.

CF cards come with higher speed ratings. If you are getting slower writes/reads with a CF card, your camera body is to blame.



You should be asking why we are still using SD cards

Interesting information. I didn't know about CFast that is sweet. And your last question is very good, I started with SD cards and I hope eventually that I can switch to a body with CF cards instead. I like them much better.

[Tyche]

I'm no going to discredit speed to the pc from the camera, but for shooting I find it rather irrelevant with today's tech. Outside of shooting absurd bursts in RAW, it's impossible to overflow the camera buffer and overtake the write speed. I don't even think it would be possible to do on a 60x card outside of having a really slow camera, which isn't the cards fault.

[zoobernut]

I'm no going to discredit speed to the pc from the camera, but for shooting I find it rather irrelevant with today's tech. Outside of shooting absurd bursts in RAW, it's impossible to overflow the camera buffer and overtake the write speed. I don't even think it would be possible to do on a 60x card outside of having a really slow camera, which isn't the cards fault.

Well that is the distinction to me is that if you are taking pictures professionally you will do whatever you can to not miss a shot. Specially if you are shooting sports or any other situation where you are doing bursts of shots. For casual photography I agree with you though SD is fine.

[mootsfox]

I'm no going to discredit speed to the pc from the camera, but for shooting I find it rather irrelevant with today's tech. Outside of shooting absurd bursts in RAW, it's impossible to overflow the camera buffer and overtake the write speed. I don't even think it would be possible to do on a 60x card outside of having a really slow camera, which isn't the cards fault.

That's not true. Anyone shooting lots of bursts will hit the limit fast.

My buffer is 12 images and it takes about 3-4 seconds to recover from that. If I'm shooting faster than about 3-4 frames per second (camera does 8) I'm going to overflow fast. Granted, this is on a shitty 16GB SD card, if I would actually invest in a real CF card (current one is 66x) this wouldn't be a problem.

I've had at least two times shooting when I had to wait a couple seconds and missed shots. And I don't even shoot that much or that often.

[Tyche]

I'd call 12 Raw bursts absurd though :/

Absolutely relevant for sports (if your camera writes fast enough), but for studio work I cant image the card being the bottleneck.

[Tyche]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/cf-sd.htm