New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Essentials to go with a new DSLR - Page 4

post #91 of 112
gdc:

What a great link! All the essentials in one, easy-to-read blurb. The only thing I think is missing in a basic photography tutorial is some interpretation of "the rule of thirds." It's a basic composition teaching model that's simple and easy to grasp. If I can find a decent link for one, I'll post it here.

Edit:  Not necessarily the best image examples, but it gets the point across. I'm sure there's better ones out there . . .

digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds


post #92 of 112
OK, two things I'll add in to the mix...
1. A book: Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson
2. A website: Stop Shooting Auto. It has a series of lessons that help you understand how certain functions work on the camera and how to move away from the green square. http://stopshootingauto.com/exposure-lessons-in-order/
post #93 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

 Can't wait to see what you get with your new camera/lens combination Rick

So, to practice with my camera/lens I went birding with my sister today and practiced in the great outdoors.  The good news is, we saw a ton of great stuff.  The bad news is, it rained most of the day.
A shot of Jester playing with a pillow we gave him to "give the business"
IMG_1014.JPG
And some wood ducks minding their own business.....
IMG_1185.JPG

IMG_1023.JPG
What I noticed with this camera while birdwatching with my sister was how much of a different focus I can get depending on the settings.
I'm just not sure how to use the settings yet, but I'm getting there.
I really think I'll sign up for a class at the community college when I get the time.
post #94 of 112
 Know how to change your focus point yet?  Or how to use manual focus?  Figured out why that bird is so blurry?  Did you notice it is?  
post #95 of 112
By the way, Trek, Little Tiger just purchased a 50mm 1.4 for her new rebel.  It's a great lens, but costs over $300.  I got a 50mm 1.8 for my canon 40d as a learning lens, and am very pleased with it.  At only $100 I think you'd find the 1.8 a very useful addition to your bag.  
post #96 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

By the way, Trek, Little Tiger just purchased a 50mm 1.4 for her new rebel.  It's a great lens, but costs over $300.  I got a 50mm 1.8 for my canon 40d as a learning lens, and am very pleased with it.  At only $100 I think you'd find the 1.8 a very useful addition to your bag.  

 

Agreed!

Also, the beauty of a 50mm lens, on an APS-frame camera (such as yours, Trek), is that its 35mm, full-frame equivalent is equal to about an 80mm lens for Canon systems (75mm for Nikons). That's just a few millimeters shy of perhaps my favorite (full-frame) focal length of all time: the 85mm. Considered a "short-telephoto," it's great for people shots because it has a hint of compression (foreshortening), which tends to be more flattering for faces, and its wide-open maximum aperture makes generating fuzzy, abstracted backgrounds a breeze. Slap an "80mm-equivalent," 50mm, f/1.8 lens on your favorite Canon body and get ready to take some gorgeous people pictures!

As Rick pointed out, most manufacturers' f/1.8, 50mm lenses are pretty reasonably priced. You can gain another half-stop with an f/1.4 lens . . . and yet another, with an f/1.2 lens. But, that extra bit of speed costs, and costs dearly--Canon's 50mm f/1.2 is $1,500--yikes! Plus, fast lenses weigh a lot. But for most, the venerable, affordable, f/1.8, 50mm is a great choice! Considering that a "real" 85mm, f/1.8 Nikkor AF lens costs about $450, getting the "same" results for only about $100, is a real bargain. 

[Note: I wasn't actually aware of this until I wrote this post--Canon APS-frame cameras actually have a crop factor of x1.6, as opposed to Nikon's slightly smaller crop factor of x1.5. In previous posts, I wrote in the context of thinking both were x1.5]
Edited by studio460 - 4/12/10 at 11:53pm
post #97 of 112
Studio, Canon also have a 1.3 crop (APS-H), but that one is a bit beyond most amateur's budget.

The 50mm f1.8 is frequently referred to as the "nifty fifty" and is used by a lot of pros - not just the budget conscious. A great little performer. It's on my shopping list, but I'll probably get a 180mm L macro and 300 f2.8 or 400 f5.6 first.
post #98 of 112
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4: shallow depth-of-field examples

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is one of my most-favored lenses. Previously referred to as a "normal" lens, back when they were used exclusively with 35mm film SLRs, this lens was designated as such due to its "normal" perspective, which is similar to that of the human eye. Often, beginners (including myself, when I was a beginner) may be quick to judge the lowly "fifty-mil" also as, "the boring lens." But, because of the lens' slight-telephoto effect on non-full frame DSLRs, and the lens' narrow depth-of-field, the modest 50mm makes for an arty, perceptive lens. [Note: the Canon 50mm f/1.8, wide-open, would shoot very similarly to the examples below, and would have a slightly longer, 35mm-equivalent focal length of 80mm. Which is nice!]


Nikon D70; Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
ISO: 800; exposure: f/1.4 @ 1/250th; lighting: fluorescent


Nikon D70; Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
ISO: 800; exposure: f/1.4 @ 1/200th; lighting: incandescent, neon.


all images copyright studio460.
Edited by studio460 - 4/19/10 at 10:07pm
post #99 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post

Studio, Canon also have a 1.3 crop (APS-H), but that one is a bit beyond most amateur's budget.

The 50mm f1.8 is frequently referred to as the "nifty fifty" and is used by a lot of pros - not just the budget conscious. A great little performer. It's on my shopping list, but I'll probably get a 180mm L macro and 300 f2.8 or 400 f5.6 first.

Hey there, Fox!

Holy cow! A 300mm f/2.8!!! Those are like $6,000! I've always wanted a 300mm f/2.8, but again, I could never justify the cost since I don't shoot stills for money. Luckily, I now have a 180mm f/2.8 ($400, used), and a 70mm-200mm f/2.8 (non-S, non-VR), so with the Nikon x1.5 crop factor, it's "just like" having a 300mm f/2.8 hunk of glass on a film SLR.
post #100 of 112
I currently have a 70-200f2.8 IS, which is the dog's dangly bits (as we say over here). I've also got a 2x converter, but don't like the IQ I get with it, So I'm thinking of getting a 1.4x converter, which, when paired with the 300mm would be 420mm (my bodies have a crop factor of 1 )
Canon do a 400mm f5.6, but it's got no IS. They also do a 400mm f2.8 with IS and a price tag to match!
One of my pro friends has just got the 500mm L f4.0, but that's not for me.
post #101 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post

I currently have a 70-200f2.8 IS, which is the dog's dangly bits (as we say over here).


 

Well, Fox, you have some mighty colorful sayings "over there!" Full-frame is nice to have at the short end, but gets pricey when buying those long, fast lenses! I would just love a Nikkor 70mm-200mm f/2.8 VR-S someday for myself. And, that 300mm f/2.8 has long been hailed as one of best "bikini" lenses (although the last time I was on a bikini shoot, the photographer was shooting with a 600mm--they needed radios just to tell everyone what to do).
post #102 of 112
 My canon 100-400 arrived today.  
post #103 of 112
studio460,
Not a bikini shot, just a heavily cropped image...
4519816581_04f4ef12e4_b.jpg

Camera:

Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Exposure:

0.003 sec (1/320)

Aperture:

f/8.0

Focal Length:

200 mm

ISO Speed:

200

   

Image Width:

1064

Image Height:

1418




And for all you budding photographers out there, here is an example of depth of field and leading lines...
4430026208_1e83178839.jpg
post #104 of 112
Okay, one more shallow depth-of-field shot . . . 

IDOL600.jpg
Nikon D70; Nikkor 70mm-300mm f/4.0-f/5.6 AF-ED zoom
ISO: 640; exposure: f/5.6 @ 1/250th; focal length: 300mm; lighting: daylight.


copyright studio460.
Edited by studio460 - 4/19/10 at 5:40am
post #105 of 112
 Studio, thanks for posting the images.  I have a nikon friend who's been debating whether or not to get the 70-300 vr.  She doesn't want to lug the monstrous 80-400 around all day,,, she's petite,,, so I told her I thought the 70-300 would be a good compromise.  Your photo endorses that opinion.  What caused the multiple layer background blur?  Just the different distances from the lens, or something you did to make it happen?  

Fox, I like your dog shot.  f8 seemed to have provided a nice depth of detail.  
post #106 of 112
This is Millie. We pick her up in 2 weeks time. She's a 7 month old English Springer Spaniel (Taken with a compact camera)
4521297481_57b5836955.jpg
post #107 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

What caused the multiple layer background blur?  Just the different distances from the lens, or something you did to make it happen?

 

Rick:

Funny you should mention that! I was a bit puzzled myself when I was looking at that photo last night. I had to look up the original file to make sure: it's in fact, an unaltered, original file (only resolution was reduced for publication in this thread). Sometimes I'll apply a blur in Photoshop to diminish a distracting graphic or something, but I didn't in this case. So, yes, it is simply the varying distances of the background and foreground elements causing what appear as "layers" (i.e., "bokeh").

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Studio, thanks for posting the images. I have a nikon friend who's been debating whether or not to get the 70-300 vr.  She doesn't want to lug the monstrous 80-400 around all day . . . she's petite . . . so I told her I thought the 70-300 would be a good compromise. Your photo endorses that opinion.

No problem! I often feel a bit self-indulgent when posting photos in a thread, but I'm glad it helped! I've been looking at getting a new long lens myself, and in doing so, I found that my non-VR, 70mm-300mm f/4.0-f/5.6, was really inexpensive! The 'G' version, non-VR, 70mm-300mm f/4.0-f/5.6 sells for only $139 (I bought the non-G version for $159 so I can still use it on a 35mm film SLR).

Speaking of zooms, however, I've noticed that whenever I have my short zoom on, I'm always racked out to its maximum wide-angle, at 18mm, and, I find that I only rarely push to the end of its 70mm tele end (at a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, I feel I have too much depth-of-field for such a short "tele").

Conversely, I find that that when I have my 70mm-300mm on, I'm always racked out to my 300mm end. So, now, I'm thinking about a fixed-focal length tele lens, the Nikkor 300mm f/4.0 AF-S ($1,369). It's not a VR lens, but I gain an extra stop, and I get a silent-wave internal focusing mechanism, which I don't have in my 70mm-300mm zoom (the 18mm-70mm does).

Fox:

That 200mm-shot is sharp as a tack!

 

Edited by studio460 - 4/15/10 at 1:59pm
post #108 of 112
Trekchick:

I wrote a big, long post, then later realized I may be high-jacking your thread, so I started another thread. However, there is some on-topic content in the new thread on carbon fiber monopods, tripods, and heads, in which you may be interested: new, "suggested accessory gear" thread.
Edited by studio460 - 4/17/10 at 10:38pm
post #109 of 112
Thread Starter 
Because I have subscribed to this thread, I see all the activity that happens with it and I see some editing but not sure what was edited.  Mostly I see some amazing work and great info.......what could possibly need to be edited.
Studio460, you've been incredibly informative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by studio460 View Post

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4: shallow depth-of-field examples

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is one of my most-favored lenses. Previously referred to as a "normal" lens, back when they were used exclusively with 35mm film SLRs, this lens was designated as such due to its "normal" perspective, which is similar to that of the human eye. Often, beginners (including myself, when I was a beginner) may be quick to judge the lowly "fifty-mil" also as, "the boring lens." But, because of the lens' slight-telephoto effect on non-full frame DSLRs, and the lens' narrow depth-of-field, the modest 50mm makes for an arty, perceptive lens. [Note: the Canon 50mm f/1.8, wide-open, would shoot very similarly.]


Nikon D70; Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
ISO: 800; exposure: f/1.4 @ 1/250th; lighting: fluorescent


Nikon D70; Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
ISO: 800; exposure: f/1.4 @ 1/200th; lighting: incandescent, neon.


all images copyright studio460.
 
post #110 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Because I have subscribed to this thread, I see all the activity that happens with it and I see some editing but not sure what was edited.  Mostly I see some amazing work and great info.......what could possibly need to be edited.
Studio460, you've been incredibly informative.
 

 

Gee, thanks, Trekchick! Yeah, I edit a LOT! A little OCD about my posts, I guess. I found it difficult at times to stay on-topic in your thread because after reading your initial post, I started to get excited about photography again! Thank you!

Probably a useful tip for you and your new Canon body is to get one of the many excellent third-party books, specific to your camera model. Type "Canon T1i" into Amazon (in the "books" category), and you'll get 18 results for camera-specific "how-to" books. I once purchased a Magic Lantern-series book and found it very useful--but there a number of new titles that may be as good or better, that I also saw. These kinds of books are great at simplifying techniques that are often obtusely laid out in the user manual and far more "usable." Good luck, Trek!
post #111 of 112
Thread Starter 

I saw this and was reminded of much I appreciate the assistance in my lens selection.  Thanks

 

418530_245433655530684_126894987384552_567862_545897328_n.jpg

post #112 of 112

Check out professional lens reviews and buy from bhphotovideo. They have a good return policy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: