Photographic Equipment...

[donnnnnny]

Just with regards to new generation lens . Nikon has a 18-200 dx lens at around $750 aus . But i am unable to buy one due to a shortage of the above mentioned piece of hot glass.

[Torurot]

I should let RX answer your question Donnnny but... he may not be back here until tomorrow. That photo was taken with the "cheap" kit lens that came with the 5D (6MP) which I,. and Dieter and some other board members also shoot with. Dieter BTW has all the expensive top end glass. If I get my computer together long enough I should post some of my Shroom macro pics. The 5D (cannon also has a 5D but it's FULL FRAME) has especially good colour, frequently commented on. Nikon use SONY Chips. Naturally I'm going to root for the Sony team. The "system" is expanding all the time. Built in antishake is way useful. I guess it's what you like and feel comfortable with. Looker, it's like choosing a bed, or a lounge chair. You HAVE to SIT in or LIE on the equipment to see if it's comfortable; fits does what you think will be the range of jobs. Same same cameras. Having used top end Nikons, I just like the feel, the fit, the ergonomics, the software, the menu system of the Sonys better. Could I get used to a Nikon?? Hell yes, but I invested time & money in learning (reading the entire manual), playing with, and best experimenting with my Konica Minolta digital tool. It's just a tool. That's the absolute beauty of digital, experimenting like you never could or would with film unless you were doing it on someone else's dime/time cause it was just too damn expensive. Digital, you take the picture, try this and that, getting better all the time as you find what works best.

So, if you have the chance try out a few different cameras, see if someone will loan you one for an hour, a day, even if you have to pay a few bucks to do so and go play. When you find the one that "fits" best for YOU, you will know. If weight is a factor DO get a springy neck strap. It REALLY does magically take off a lot of the weight. Don't know how, just does.

[donnnnnny]

torurot you have a great way with words EXperimenting. is exactly why i love digital photography. i can snap away at the sun set and mess around with white balance temperature settings iso etc and get some spectacular results. the crap ones bin em. As i travel along the road which is photography i feel i can only get better through my trial and error. in the process save a massive amount of money on processing fees.
i rarely print pics and if i do i go to the local shop to do it. usually prefer to make my photos into slide shows add music captions and the like and hey presto have an hours entertainment for those who, would like to view.macs a re wonderful computers for this kind of graphics
EXperimenting i n digital is a great fun way to learn and i really love it
cheers donnnny flashing away all the time

[Torurot]

I used to roll my own film, from 100m rolls black & white Agfa, and Ilford FP4, D & P it all in a dark room, up to A3 size. It really was MAGIC!! The dark art in more ways than one. Only because I did it all myself could I afford to try all different techniques. Since I've had my digital I've shot over 12K pictures, many of them are crap, but the beauty of digital, any digital not just DSLR is that you [can] take pictures of anything and everything. Things you would have never "wasted" a picture on if you had to use film, and then take it to the lab to get done. Computers and digital has saved Photography for me and restarted a hobby I genuinely loved. Always the photographer never the photographed.

[donnnnnny]

i started way back in 1980 with a russian zenith slr built like a brick but a bit basic. then i moved onto my canon a1 in 1982. had the lot stolen and just gave up until last year when i bought the D80.
i also remember developing out pics at the youth club( black and white) great fun in the dark room and fairly simple to do , as far as i can remember.
we might hit 200 posts tonight lol
donnnnnny

[Looker]

Tourot, Donnnnnny, RX, Pacman ....you guys are great because can share your experiences.
As I said, I'm a bit stuck in Jurassic era but I read with pleasure the "beginning" mentioned in the last couple of postings. I too started in 1980 with my OM-1 I bought second hand. So the camera has probably 30 years now or even a bit more. Still works very well. Let me post a pic taken not long ago with 50mm Zuiko (no flash) and scanned with my HP 1410 All-in-One. It's one of my older painting  

[donnnnnny]

you crack me up
on a serious note i love the painting and congratulations we now have 200 posts on this thred

[donnnnnny]

(Beavis @ Aug. 17 2008,23:00)

(rxpharm @ Aug. 16 2008,17:41) Looker, Tourot is right, Rockwell's site ignores Sony/Minolta, Pentax and Olympus DSLRs. All of these companies make very good cameras and should not be ignored when making a choice of what system to buy...

Ken Rockwell actually recommends a Canon 5D for landscape work - hardly the actions of a 'Nikon shill'.

As for the other companies...he focuses (no pun intended) on Nikon and Canon as they are the brands the pros use. As such, their R & D departments are at the cutting edge and developments trickle down to their more affordable models. I used to use an Olympus 4 before I switched to digital and was very satisfied, but the 'Big 2' are definitely the ones to watch for digital cameras. They also spawn a bigger market from the 2nd-party manufacturers and so you will get a wider choice of lens/accessories/whatever at more affordable prices.

yah Bevis excellent stuff here , with regards to aftermarket producers such as Sigma Tamron and the like
cheers Donnnnnny

[rxpharm]

Looker, quite the interesting painting! Donnnnny, Tourot answered quite well about the lens I used. It was the 18-70 kit when I took that shot. I usually shoot *.jpg, Large, Extra Fine. The great thing about the Konica/Minolta 5D and 7D are the very good quality *.jpgs they can produce. This minimizes the need to shoot raw - but there is less flexibility to recover a badly exposed photo. Fortunately that doesn't happen often.

As for the particular night shot - I haven't done anything to it except resize for posting. The original is sharper than the posted photo as resizing can cause a bit of quality loss.

I don't usually adjust the White Balance, generally leave it on automatic and if I want some special effects, I will use Photoshop.

Tourot, Dieter shoots with the Sony Alpha 100 or the amazing Minolta Maxxum 9, one of the best film SLRs made. He does have some of the best Minolta lenses to use, lucky guy!

[donnnnnny]

Thanks rxpharm. i have played with white balance a lot and am amazed at some of the results one can achieve.
RAW is the digital equivalent of negative film photography.In my Nikon i can shoot RAW and JPEG fine at the same time, draw back is the amount of memory the raw file uses. the jpeg only has 8 bits of depth with the Raw the bit depth is 14-16, giving a far greater overall ability to process into better pics.In most cases RAW files will provide the best solution due to its technical advantages, along with the decreasing cost of memory cards . you have far more control with RAW but with this comes the disadvantage of speed storage and ease of usage.JPEG is better for sports and photojournalism where landscape fine art photographers use RAW
there is never an easy answer
personally i like to play in the computer and i love landscape photos, sunsets and the like.
so i guess its horses for courses,.

[donnnnnny]

a sequence of three photos very similar and taken at the same time one shot in auto white balance one shot in incandescent and the 3rd shot in fluorescent . see if you can pick which is witch
cheers donnnnny

[donnnnnny]

no 2

[donnnnnny]

noi 3

[donnnnnny]

just to confuse the issue more , there is a Colour Temp setting in the white balance menu on most good DSLRs which can be adjusted to suite the conditions. Also a pre set white balance option where you pre set the white balance by following your cameras menu for optimum results. This for me is going a bit too far, and more for the professionals, but for that certain pic where you want it so perfect, ie portrait it may be worth while.
and change the colour's in the shoot.
i just love doing this as its a great way to come up with wonderful and exciting pictures
the flash

[Torurot]

>>i started way back in 1980 with a russian zenith slr


Kodak Instamatic way back 19?? then a long break to 1976 with a Minolta XD7 1.2 50mm lens quickly followed by 100mm Macro. Bought it because I really liked the ad in National Geographic. That camera literally ran thru 100's of meters of film. I still have it. Then a Minolta X700, then my first auto focus in 1990, Minolta 8000i Once you start with a company why not stick with it. Go Sony - Minolta!

Fck is this camera porn or what, as bad as bloody train spotters!