ed_lemko
-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by ed_lemko
-
-
<p>Dave- yup, IQ. That to me looks properly exposed. (from an amateur's standpoint)</p>
-
<p>Zooming out I could make due with a slower shutter speed, which will let in more ambient light.<br>
Or so I thought.<br>
The last photo puts me more into the realm of what I wanted in this lens.</p>
-
<p>Actually, I don't even know if I can set focus vs. shutter priority in a d40x-- I don't believe that's a choice for me.<br>
To get enough light, I do often goto my max ISO at H1/3600, and opt for grain over dark. My new lens is constant f2.8, and I dont change that on the camera-- I keep it wide open, again, to max out my light. And I opt for shutter priority mode, and try to lower that as much as I can to avoid that dark, dungeon-like lighting I've gotten before. When I see that I get too much blur, I increase the shutter speed, and zoom out to let in more light. <br>
Another example, just to show that the new lens did help me out:</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Thanks, David. I understand many of your points and agree. The size of the image was limited by the note I saw in the forum software when uploading (700 pix, <100k). I would have uploaded the 10mpx image if I could.</p>
<p>Few notes:<br>
1. I maxed out my exposure comp to 5 to make it brighter. But at f2.8 and the camera set to 1600ISO (wont automatically jump to H1=3200), does exposure comp really do anything at all?</p>
<p>2. I have the camera set to exposure lock on the focused-locked subject, and so I never use the AE-L button. </p>
<p>3.. I have it set to AF-C, and so I feel the lens constantly refocusing as I pan for my shot-- that part is working, I can hear it.</p>
<p>And here's another one. Again, don't know where the focus ended up. I have a lot of these.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>An example. This is not any kind of "winning" shot, I took about 500 at a recent meet, and this is one of the throw aways, basically. I don't know where the focus ended up. Maybe it's my d40x's 3 points of focus only, and when I zoom in to 150mm, and then recompose, there is the blurriness.</p><div></div>
-
<p>An example. This is not any kind of "winning" shot, I took about 500 at a recent meet, and this is one of the throw aways, basically. I don't know where the focus ended up. Maybe it's my d40x's 3 points of focus only, and when I zoom in to 150mm, and then recompose, there is the blurriness.</p>
-
<p>An example. This is not any kind of "winning" shot, I took about 500 at a recent meet, and this is one of the throw aways, basically. I don't know where the focus ended up. Maybe it's my d40x's 3 points of focus only, and when I zoom in to 150mm, and then recompose, there is the blurriness.</p>
-
<p>update<br>
Got the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 APO II. Nice difference in brightness. Getting a lot of blurry shots, even when subject still. Don't know if it's the f2.8 part or the "miscalibrated focus" that some people had to send their lens back and then it cam out sharp. Don't know if it's me with my narrow DOF with the f/2.8, and I don't know how to handle it, or the lens. Probably me.</p>
-
<p>I'm still learning about composition, but the removal of the flowers leaves it, for me, a portrait, not a wedding portrait. Something about the flowers gives it the right context. Is it usually better to crop to faces, leaving out the identifying features, landmarks and (natural) props that are emblematic of the moment and event?</p>
-
<p>Would be nice for the hotel to do something for you, considering they have no security nor cameras in the garage. At least it would be a nice gesture as it happened on their watch.</p>
-
<p>Wedding recently. I am not a wedding photographer. Just thought this was an interesting shot.<br /> Nikon D40x, Sigma 18-200 OS. F3.5, shutter priority, 18mm, 1/60.</p>
<p>Was photographing the bride with her dad emerging from the limo outside. Nobody was outside with them, because they were all scooped up by the wedding planner (pink) to line up inside the church. The real photographer was already inside, shooting the start of the procession from the front. Meanwhile, I took about 20 shots of dad and girl, and when I ran out of angles, squeezed my way inside the large wooden doors, and saw the bridal party starting to slowly shuffle forward, two by two. Put my shutter speed to 60, pressed my back against the shelf and pamphlets behind me, and zoomed out to fit everything.</p>
<p>SB-600 pointed up at the ceiling. The staff guy's (much brighter) flash inside happened to go off at the same time I took this.</p>
<p>Straight OOC. No PP.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>My buddy majored in philosophy and he would laugh at this discussion. Even philosophers can't figure out what reality is, nor where it begins and ends if it does exit. Now imagine an "artist" with a "camera" walking up the university bar where all the post-grads philosophers hang out. You need a PhD to come to the barstool...<br>
Anyway, this is from THEIR perspective, and is, of course, completely separate from what our concerns and questions might be as "Togs"...<br>
What about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which talks about scientists trying to view the elusive electron and other subatomic items: They are so small, that once you shine a light on them (or other method to see them) you actually move them by that act, and so it's impossible to tell both the location and velocity at that level. <br>
One would think that it would be impossible to capture reality, because by capturing it with your lurking and clicking, shuffling and snapping, chair-climbing and panning, you're changing it. Or maybe after the wine is served, nobody really notices at all...<br>
(And electrons don't drink wine.)</p>
-
<p>You didn't connect the dots right. I was addressing Gregory's specific point, not the couple in this case.</p>
-
<p>Heads up guys on this old thread-- the vendor in question is no longer an authorized Sigma reseller-- just spoke to Sigma twice about it-- and so the new warranty that sigma is offering will not be honored. I spoke to them Oct 8, 2009, and so time ago, they (sigma) instituted a new warranty system where they are encouraging purchases from non-shady dealers (the authorized list), discouraging the patronage of gray sellers. Upshot = 2 yrs extra (3 yrs total) warrantee on any sigma lens, and 3 yrs extra (4 yrs total) on EX level sigma lenses.<br>
4 yrs starts to compete now with the tamron 6 yr warrantee. I'm happy.</p>
-
<p>Jose, <br>
I think what Gregory is saying is that Brides do not want to pay for money for experience, because they do not recognize it-- the soft art of arranging people, herding cattle, negotiating, getting the good crunch pictures-- they'd rather skimp on budget and get 1000 photos on a DVD, hoping some are good-- and then get disappointed when they're not.<br>
High-end is out, service is not as important as price, but low price is creating a lot of disgruntled clients who learn, "you do indeed get what you pay for."</p>
-
<p>Done. Chickened out from the Samyang 1.4. Wasn't convinced that manual focusing would fit the bill with fast-moving water, in spite of the F1.4 benefits. Went with the Sigma - AF DC APO 50-150/2.8 EX HSM II.<br>
Got a good deal for the mid 600's while everyone like adorama and amazon is selling it for 750. More than double the cost of the Samyang, but I get a lot more than double the benefit, with auto focus on my D40x, and a zoom at constant F2.8. I previously had only about F5 at 150mm zoomed in, and now I drop down to F2.8. I hope this will take a bite out of my problem. <br>
Next will be a possible D90, maybe for the holidays or early next year.<br /><br />Thank for everyone who chimed in! I learned a lot in the process. </p>
-
<p>RT-<br /> Those are the exact variables I've been juggling- the lack of Tokina focus motor, the lack of Tamron having a midrange zoom. Here's a neat Tamron that's new, has vibration control, and a motor for "low end" Nikons, but it's too short at 50mm<br /> <a href="http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/11850">http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/11850</a><br /> The decision seems to be making itself: Settle for the 1 year warrantee of Sigma, since they stand alone with a 50-150mm product, with HSM that my D40x requires, long enough to get a bit of zoom going, bright enough at 2.8 to up my quality, wide enough at 50mm to get some varied shots of people and pool in addition to my swimmer.<br /> I agree David that although I could get good at focusing with the Samyang 85mm MF, it will be difficult and straining on the eyes, plus even if I'm successful, I understand RT's earlier point about achieving a focus on a nose, yet having the eyes blurry..<br>
And the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM would remain a modern tool for me when/if I upgrade to the D90</p>
-
<p>The fun part is juggling the mass of interlocking and interdependent trade-offs between F, focal range, AF on a D40x, and even warrantee (tamron's 6 yrs vs. sigma's 1)<br>
I agree that 75mm on the tamron is not quite long enough. At the same time, I wouldn't get a 70-200 2.8 zoom, as that 70 is a big high on the wide end. Again, I have a sigma slow glass 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and on 70 I have to literally run away from the pool if my daughter gets out to fit her in... not like land pictures are my main interest in a pool, but if she wins something, and carries a medal toward me in triumph, I my wife is going to hope I got that shot...<br>
Yeah, I have f4 at 70mm now, and the Sigma discussed above can get me 2.8 at 150mm, that's quite an improvement, so it's helping me not mourn the "loss" of the F1.4 samyang if I decide against it due to the MF.<br>
this guy have some bad luck with focus calib, twice,<br>
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx<br>
but these are decent reviews:<br>
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Sigma-APO-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-AF-Lens-Test<br>
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0607sigma/index1.html<br>
seems like it was updated in 2009, original version was 2007<br>
so I guess we're now in the $600 and change range.<br>
I would get back my autofocus, and I would get the flexibility of a zoom at a constant 2.8.<br>
I'm not plussed about their 1 yr warranty. I have a sigma I already sent in, their higher end OS model. They fixed it free a year and a month after purchase, so they worked with me. The chip had to be replaced in my sigma 18-200 OS after it stopped being able to autofocus...</p>
-
<p>The more I read, the more I see how in practice, people are having a devil of a time focussing properly, and they buy focus screens and whatnot to help with that to increase their keep rate. I read somewhere where someone got berated for thinking they can capture sports (like my kid swimming) properly without autofocus...<br>
I'm starting to read about various midrange zooms at f/2.8 that will autofocus on my d40- tamron<br>
and sigma-<br>
It's 1:00a.m. and I'm getting a serious chickening out feeling from the manual focus. Gotta "refocus" myself on the IQ of the samyang/rokinon prime, and the benefit of the f/1.4 over the 2.8. Going to sleep.</p>
-
<p>I agree with the spirit of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4199263">Jim McKinnon</a>'s comment- a call to get to the point. Interesting, right after his post comes another repeat of the nonanswer.<br>
We still don't have a response to the OP's question. For those "preaching" (not my term, but still not wholly off base either), wouldn't getting to the point of discussing anti-theft technology-- the original question-- do more to spread the use of it (copyright protection), than more preaching?</p>
-
<p>Alex,<br /> The pics with the 35/1.8 look fantastic. It's defiantly more in the realm of less noise, more bright, more leeway to up the shutter speed to produce both low-noise, low-darkness, and low-blur photos, three of my (certainly not alone here) problems...<br /> But the 35mm produces all the "same photos". How many room-size or pool size photos can you take, right?<br>
Of course, I do move around, I lie on my stomach on concrete 5 meters from the pool edge, I go into a hallway flanking the perpendicular edge of the pool to get another angle, etc. I try to mix it up, but with dark zooms, and just one prime, all my photos are starting to look the "same". Sure I luck out 1/5 times, going low on shutter speed with my zoom and gambling to get a bright shot in focus. And I "love" all the other parents' kids, but I really want mostly mine in there, being a slight bit self-interested.</p>
<p>And so the telephotos lens, my "dark" zooms so far, have done the job to isolate my kid in a descriptive way, with shots that are close enough to show the tiredness, deflation, and euphoria of heats lost and won, on my girls face.<br>
The 35mm shows the pool, or a large half of it, wonderfully lit, but with 15-30 people practically in every shot.<br /> I'm looking forward to a mid range lens, perhaps this 85/1.4, to bring me closer, and even brighter (from 1.8 to 1.4).<br /> I agree about needing something less than f2. You know how they advertise a peanut butter cup-- where the chocolate van crashes into the peanut butter truck, and they turn an accident into a chocolate-peanut treat? I find myself wanting to crash my 35mm 1.8 nikkor AF-S into my sigma OS 18-200 to produce a flexible zoom without all the noise and darkness.<br /> The reason I'm almost set on the samyang (or rebadged equivalent) is that it looks like it does the trick, at a reasonable 250$ price, albeit with a bit of MF learning curve.<br /> It doesn't look all that bad thrown up against the nikkor 85mm-- which I'd have to buy used with no warranty.<br>
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/korean-made-85mm-14-pics-and-thoughts_topic47750_page1.html</p>
-
<p>
<p>Just thinking aloud, if this lens is so good, why did Nikon stop making it? <br>
Wouldn't I be losing the Samyang f/1.4 going to 2.5 (in this instance), just for a used lens's better build? And isn't the leap from 1.4 to 2.5 fairly important in practical terms? (more noticeable than 2.4 to 2.8 or 1.4 to 1.8)<br>
Nah, I'm in NY metro, but my wife is from Montreal, but that doesn't help either of us... Very much appreciate the offer, however. Gives me the impression that Vancouver is stocked with good people...</p>
</p>
-
<p>Yikes. I have some serious reading and math to do. Thanks guys, you're more than generous in conversating with me and my organically-unwinding thought process here...<br>
The used lens is an idea. I also see this:<br>
Here's a review of the Rokinon/Samyang/Polar/Opteka/Bower/Vivitar vs the Nikon<br>
at $259, it appears to be a decent price.<br>
Oh, and I've abandoned my fantasy about a teleconverter. Didn't realize it was that much of a tradeoff-- obviously not worth it. </p>
-
<p>I see. So I can go ahead and adjust shutter on my d40x dial as before, but I'd have to adjust aperture using the ring on the lens itself. Thank you. ( I realize that this must sound like a kindergarten class here to many of you, stating the most obvious of facts, but I've always dealt with digital, and don't have the solid underpinning many of you do with earlier cameras and lenses)<br>
By the way, there's no reason a teleconverter wouldnt work on a Samyang 85mm 1.4, would there?<br>
ie.<br>
I know that the combination of the f/1.4 samyang and the teleconverter would cut light out of my 85mm in order to let it function as a 170mm, but if I want to get a series of tele shots, it still might give a better f value than my existing cheaper sigma zoom (without the teleconverter)<br>
<p> </p>
Who own the images--second photographer?
in Wedding & Event
Posted
<p>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3864413">Charles Beddoe</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 28, 2009; 02:25 p.m.</p>
<p>"You <em>probably</em> own the photo rights since he was working for you."</p>
<p>-interesting.. I'd guess just the opposite.<br /> You were working for the bride, but she doesn't own, because unless you specifically sign over rights, they're yours by pressing the shutter (is what I"ve read over and over-- not a lawyer). And by the same token, if he was working for you, the same would apply (he keeps rights), unless your contract with him states otherwise. If he was working AS AN EMPLOYEE of you (which I'm guessing not), then he'd likely sign an employment contract giving rights to his creative work to you. Either way, if you don't spell it out in contract, I'm guessing he's got rights. At least, in the U.S., agree with the Canada comment above.</p>