craig_big

There's no reason he shouldn't have backed all the way up to get out of the way and then adjusted his zoom as the couple advanced. His behavior seems very intrusive to me. Instant karma.

Regarding the circular diaphragm blades: Like I said, I doubt it makes any difference. Both lenses will show creamy bokeh, but bokeh at f/2 is independent of diaphragm shape, as the diaphragm blades are hidden when the lens is wide open. As you stop down, however, the shape of the blades determines the geometry of the aperture, whether it be an octagon, pentagon, hexagon, etc. If the blades are curved just right, the aperture remains approximately circular throughout the range. This mainly affects reflections and point of light that may flare and create ghosts and artifacts in the shape of the aperture. What does this have to do with this discussion? Painstakingly making diaphragm blades to a certain geometry and tolerance costs money. I only presumed that it might add a little cost to incorporate blades of a certain shape. And for the record, prices are not ONLY determined by marketing/sales. First, a company must consider manufaturing costs, then distribution and administration costs, then advertising costs. Finally, they will take market demand into account, and in certain countries there will be a difference based on currency rates. The biggest factor, however, is always manufacturing. This is the basis of all pricing. Even when you have your rate structure set up after considering market demand, etc, the items that cost more to make are the ones that cost more to buy.

Correction: The older Canon 220EX did not have a bounce option, but the new 270ex DOES. It totally swivels up 90° to bounce. I'm not saying it's worth $150, I'm just saying it bounces. You're not going to get a Bower flash for under $10. Sorry. It's just not going to happen. Those really are worth the $50-60 that people pay for them, even used. Other buyers know this, so don't expect your auction to die down at less than $10. They work, and they work well. Even though they are TTL only, they are alot more powerful than the Canon 270EX, which incidently are also TTL only.

Maybe with the Canon you are paying for the lighter weight. Canon has a reputation for their long-angle primes (big white lenses), so in part you might be paying for the reputation. Not that Nikon isn't reputable, but their reputation doesn't directly play into this area. Also, the Canon goes to f/32. I believe the Nikon only goes to f/22. The Canon also uses circular aperture blades. The Canon also has 17 lens elements, while the Nikon only has 13. Not that these differences make any practical difference at all in shooting conditions, but it might indicate that Canon is spending a little more money in the manufacturing than Nikon on this particular lens.

Are you sure you want hotlights? These are so cheap because they are 1-setting only, constantly lit, hotlights. They would be very bright for a model to work under, and you need a constant 110V AC power source to run them. So if you're outside, you either need extension cords and access to plugins, or a generator to run these. If what you want is portability and nuanced control, you should be looking at speedlights instead, or monoblocs for studio use. These both have adjustable brightness, and even the monolocs can sometimes run on batteries. For $200, you could get a single Alienbees light with stand, or a single speedlight (used) with stand and other accessories for connectability. Not that you can't do miracles with hotlights, because of course you can. And especially if you aren't photographing people, the hotlights might speed up your workflow. Alot of people use the hotlights for product and architectural photography. Of course, a couple of hotlights could always supplement your portrait photography, but your key light should probably be a flash so you aren't blinding the subject with lights in the eyes. This is like lighting your family's faces on vacation by making them stand in the sunlight staring into the sun (a favorite of my parents when I was a child). Also, you shouldn't feel jipped by only being able to get 1 light instead of 3. Often, you're better off with fewer lights, as it clears up your thinking. At any rate, you need to start with 1 and build up your skills to be able to manage multiple lights.

Popup flash diffuser is available on eBay for about $4. It's not worth much more than that. You can get a third-party flash (full-size) for about $50. Canon has a new small attachable flash (the 270EX) for about $150. Their base full-size flash is the 430EX for about $280. The pro model is the 580EX II for about $450.

 

The cheapest you can realistically upgrade your flash is with a TTL-only third-party model like a Bower for $50-60, and don't worry (or bother) about diffusion. That will not have as much impact as you think. Not on such a small scale, anyway. On-axis fill is on-axis fill, and a little diffusion doesn't affect it much. You're better off to bounce flash off the ceiling indoors, and use the flash bare-bulb outdoors. Anything more specialized and you'll need off-camera flash to control direction, shadows, etc.

oh please...I use a Sandisk Extreme III 8GB in my D70. This has nothing to do with the size of the memory card. It sounds like you just have 2 bad cards, instead of 1. Try a different card. The Lexar Professional line are really tops, even better than Sandisk. I use Lexar Pro's in my other cameras. If you get a Lexar Pro, I think you want the 133x version (Class 6). I'm not certain on this point, but I believe the newer UDMA 300x and 600x, and maybe even the 233x, require newer cameras. If you really want to get to the nitty-gritty, we could take a look at the D70 manual and see what cards Nikon recommends.

I can't think of any compelling reason to get the XSi over the XS. If you're really concerned about $80, then this is a good place to save the money. In practical use, I'd wager that you could never produce consistent results to prove that either of these cameras is any better than the other. When you look at a 10MP test image next to the same 12MP test image, even at 100%, the difference is startlingly miniscule.

 

Save your money, get the XS, and by all means avoid the 75-300! It is a complete junker. Get the 55-250 IS instead. The difference between these two lenses is collossal.

Seriously, 1000 photos? Please post 1 or 2 specific examples. From what I can tell from your online gallery, there is no sharpness problem that can be attributed to your equipment.

I think more examples are definitely in order. You should post at least 2 very specific examples, with 100% crops on the eyes, and give the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length. It may be a focus problem, a slow shutter problem, a shaky hands problem, or a depth of field problem. It might even be a JPG problem. I find that my in-camera JPG's are not as sharp as my raw files processed in the PC to high quality 8-bit JPGs. It is NOT likely to be a camera sensor problem or lens hardware problem (meaning that switching brands is probably not your solution).

That rocks. I spent 8 weeks paddling once, without a single photo to show for it. I would have killed to have a waterproof pocket digital with me at the time., especially one with 10MP and this kind of quality. It's a pretty tall order to produce a camera that's small enough to fit in your front life-jacket pocket, or even one that you can quickly tuck away under your skirt, and be water and shock-proof at the same time. I once paddled with a guy that would get ahead about 5 minutes, disembark, and produce from behind his seat a dry-bag with a full-size camcorder, safely tucked away and padded. He got great footage of the rest of the group hitting various stretches of the rapids. It was great trouble for him, though, to have to meticulously guard his gear against water and shock. I'm sure that guy today has one of these waterproof digitals, which are also capable of taking video.

Oh! So it's in May, just a few days hence, rather than in April, already almost 4 weeks past, as you had previously reported (making yourself look quite foolish). That DOES make a difference!

The one thing I recommend to everyone is MUSIC! Lots and lots of loud music. The best kind is the music that starts really loud and doesn't include a pause button in an obvious location. The longer that music plays loudly, the better. You want to engross your audience, capture them. Submerge them in the waters of your website's music. That's rule #1.

So we're going to boycott on April 2, 2010? I'll mark the date on my calendar.

I'm not surprised. Knowing that his expertise is in product photography, it makes sense that he would have photographed the parts. Another person with expertise in 3D modeling might have done this in a CAD program. I believe you could get similar results either way. The photograph doesn't particularly look "realistic". It looks like alot of 3D CAD exploded views that I've seen myself. Even as digital photography, this must have taken some considerable time and care to produce. I would also disagree with John Godwin that the distinction is easy to see. I have seen many 3D rendered objects that are just as realistic. I've also seen photography that's been made to look more plastic, like the models were actually toys instead of people. The end result is a product of the artist's imagination and intent, not just the methods used in the production.

You need to get them both. No photographer is prepared unless you can cover the entire range from at least 35mm at the wide end up to at least 135mm at the long end. Once you've got the basics covered, the next consideration is quality of glass. The two lenses you mention are top quality, so you're good there. But if the question is ONE vs the OTHER, the answer is that NEITHER will cover the entire useful range. Maybe to compromise you should get the 70-200 f/2.8 and a kit lens to cover 28-70 in the f/3.5-5.6 apertures. Later, you will still want to be looking for a f/2.8 zoom in the 24-70 range. Primes, of course, are much faster and of top-quality, but they are also expensive and tend to be more specialized, due to the lack of zoom. For example, a 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens, but it can't do everything. You wouldn't want to be taking headshots with a 50, for instance. Maybe a 105 or a 135. You might use an 85 for whenever you are taking head & shoulders or half body-length portraits. If you don't already know which primes you would use, starting with a zoom is a good way to find out.

It's certainly a computer composite. He could have individually photographed each part, after dissecting the product. On the other hand, you could creat such an image in about the same amount of time by 3D modeling each part. Neither method appeals to me. This diverges greatly from photography and imaging, and becomes more of a magic show.

 

If you were to photograph each part separately, you would import them all and tediously mask-select each part and place them on different layers in a single document. If you had a 3D software program, the process is nearly identical, except that you first have to create each part before importing it.

Well, they're going to have to revamp the 50D to include video. They might try to make the sensor a little less noisy, too, as the 50D has alot of bad press due to higher noise levels than the previous 40D. They could stand to back down on the number of pixels, too. Maybe in the neighborhood of 14MP. I would expect to see a 60D this year for around $1200. Pure speculation, however. Whatever they come out with, it has to be better than the D90, and that's a high mark to beat.

Point 1: That's not a dandelion blossom. That is a dandelion stem with seeds. The blossom is yellow.

 

Point 2: Dandelion seeds are fuzzy, so a sharp photograph of dandelion seeds is, by its very nature, fuzzy looking. It looks sharp enough to me.

 

Those points aside, you makes good points about the relative importance of the flower and the grass. However, I disagree that the photograph is not interesting. I also think that creating the best possible presentation for a photograph, by appropriately cropping and straightening, gives it the best chance of being perceived in the correct light by the audience. i.e. it gives it the best shot of being interesting. It's not just a mere matter of making things different.

Yeah, it should be easy to find a "low mileage, mint condition M8". The world abounds with them right now. The M9 has made it the least desireable Leica in memory. It's the only Leica ever that can't simply use a 50mm as a 50mm, one of the great joys of the rangefinder experience.

I assume the OP is inquiring about multiple cores, which is completely different from the processing side of things vs. multiple processors. To the program, a multi-core processor is still just a single processor. As nobody had even conceived of multi-cores as a concept until more recent years, this support wasn't added until the last generation.

Yes, that will work. But why didn't you just try it first? You can also daisy-chain the flashes with a sync cord from flash to flash.

Nobody's going to keep making film cameras for the simple love of it...except apparently Leica and Lomo. Canon and Nikon (Olympus, Pentax, etc) simply won't do it. They are huge corporations, of the type that will lay off your Father at age 60 because he makes too much money for his position, or your Mother at age 55 because she makes too many suggestions. They are no more inclined to attempt a reintroduction of 35mm film cameras than Ford is to reintroduce the Model T. You'll never see another new 35mm SLR, so buy them now while you can and make sure you have spares. All the same, I wish Nikon would roll out an F200.

Sometimes a photo benefits from being artificially rotated, even if the photo was taken on a gentle slope. This photo "looks" off-kilter, regardless of whether or not it "is" off-kilter. For this reason, it should be corrected; not for the sake of 100% realism. This isn't a geographical survey. This is an artistic photograph. If it's meant to look aesthetically pleasing, than any aesthetic suggestions are valid. Rotating it to be pleasing is just as valid as cropping it down to be pleasing. Also, to me, this photograph doesn't indicate that it was taken on a slope. It looks merely as if the photographer's hands were about 3° rotated counter-clockwise at the time of exposure. And I have to make a correction: in PS, it's the "ruler" tool, not the measure tool. Usually, you can get to it by right-clicking the eyedropper.

At least it's not a 300 f/2.8. Then you'd have people coming up to ask if you're getting any good bird shots. The 100-400 is still proportioned well enough that it's evident you might be shooting people in the same county, possible at the same event. Seriously, though, It sounds like you already know what you're doing. Just try not to point at anything the hired pro is shooting. Apart from being rude and intrusive to the professional and the work he's trying to do, you would also just be replicating shots that the B&G are going to receive anyway.