Jump to content

paul_ferrante

Members
  • Posts

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by paul_ferrante

  1. Did you try reasoning with the little buggers? You know, "Hey little dudes, I'm sorry I stepped on you nest. If you let me just get my equipment I'll leave you alone and be on my way." Or maybe pay a ransom for you equipment "I'll bring you a can of beer if you let me have my sh*t back." You know they love beer. I got stung on my lip once when I grabbed my beer at a barbecue. It was like a super collagen injection and it didn't cost me $100.
  2. E.L. I agree with your sentiment, where does the photo end and the manipulation begin. This argument is only new as it concerns digital photo software. Over the years people have questioned the validity of colored filters and complained when Fuji first introduced their super color saturated film as unnatural, while others swore by them. I guess it is really just up to the individual and their tastes. Some people are more conservative purists and others welcome every innovation. I lean towards less manipulation and more natural, but I certainly enhance my digital images with software if I think it needs it. Sometimes I think colors are more intense when I see them in nature and the photo image seems dull so I enhance. But I could just be compensating for my lack of skill. ;>)
  3. P&S cameras are pretty sophisticated these days. I still have my Coolpix 4300 (4+ yrs. old) and have taken some very nice shots with it over the years. I keep it in my car so I always have a camera. I don't want to leave my D80 in the car, that's for sure. That is a pretty amazing shot you linked to, musta had some macro attachment because I don't think my Coolpix could focus that closely.
  4. But you never really have to hurry to take a landscape shot so you can take your time to change the lens. If she kept her 18-55 and got the 70-300 she would have the best of both worlds. A sharper, longer lens to carry around and the wide-zoom to switch to when she wants. The 18-55 is very small and very light.
  5. Your choices are fine. Sure, if you can afford thousands of dollars you can do better, there is always something better. But, you should be able to take some great pictures with that selection. It has more to do with the photographer than the equipment. Ansel Adams took his pictures with a box camera and I would guess that no one has sold more pictures and posters than he.
  6. You already have the 18-55, keep it and go with the 70-300 like Mike Dalberg suggested. From all reports it is optically superior to the 18-200 and you have a longer range. I have the 18-55 and it is not bad at all for a kit lens, I use it all the time. They would complement each other nicely.
  7. You said stadium right? Daylight? If so the 55-200 should be Ok, if you have a monopod that would be a plus. But, don't expect group shots unless you are shooting from a little distance, especially if using a digital camera, due to the 1.5x bump that would make the low end like a mild zoom.
  8. No, really the best bang for the buck is the slick 700dx. At 7 lbs. a little big and heavy for hiking, but perfect for what you mention. look here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=slik+700dx&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

    check for reviews, highly regarded. You won't find anything like it for $100 more than the $130 price (including a pan/tilt head). A nice ballhead might be a nice addition, but for portraits you don't even need it. The pan/tilt head that comes with it is adequate.

  9. I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 ($100 +/-), sharp, good in low light, best bang for the buck, the f1.4 is triple the price but not triple the performance. Also, a Sigma 105 f2.8 macro ($350 +/-), excellent lens, very sharp, great reviews. The 2 will cover most portrait and macro situations. These, with what you already have, will give you a very nice outfit, then you can save for a long lens.
  10. If you have a digital camera practice shooting "from the hip". Not literally from the hip but from the camera hanging from it's strap, just above the waist. With a little bit of practice you should be able to aim with decent accuracy. Use multiple shot mode and shoot away. That is the beauty of digital, just shoot away and delete the chaff.
  11. Larry, of course a tripod is alway a plus, but you should be able to take some very nice shots without one in Yosemite, particularly on bright sunny days. Perhaps a monopod that can double as a hiking staff might be a good solution. Remember that Yosemite is a valley surrounded by high peaks, so there is a lot of shade early and late in the day. However, when the cliffs are lit by the bright but waning, golden afternoon sun, you can get some stunning shots. I was there 20 yrs. ago with an Olympus OM2S and most of my shots were handheld. I envy you the trip, good luck and enjoy.
×
×
  • Create New...