JamesFarabaugh

<p>Mark, excellent product photo. This may or may not have been an option (weather dependent), but what I've done before is take the subject outside in the cold, set up with a tripod and remote, stood beside the camera, and breathed into the light beam to make it visible.</p>

<p>p.s., thank you for the nice comment.</p>

<p>The accidental long exposure time here makes a really cool shot, in my opinion.</p><div></div>

<p>Dia de los Muertos (day of the dead) is a Mexican holiday that gets a lot of attention here in Tucson. Tens of thousands of people (of Mexican heritage or not) don skeletal costumes, and take part in a walk through the streets of downtown, called the all-souls procession. Here is my fiancee in her costume. Not wanting to get makeup all over my camera (that was my excuse, anyway), I chose not to follow suit.</p><div></div>

<p>Matt, best wishes to you and your doggie. I'm glad to hear he wasn't lost. We had a scare last week when two of ours got a hold of a bottle of Rimadyl. They had to spend a day in the hospital getting their stomachs pumped, and fed charcoal. Luckily they made it through just fine, but it's a very scary thing to know there's a chance your family member may not be coming home with you. Here's to good health for both of you from here out.</p>

<p>Keith, please explain. My understanding from what I've read about full-frame vs. crop sensors is that if you are shooting at the same aperture the shot taken with the larger sensor will have a shallower depth of field than the shot taken with the smaller sensor. According to you that is unfounded and false, so please explain it so that I understand. Thanks.</p>

Bebu, larger sensors are capable of a much larger range of DOF, from very shallow to infinitely deep. On the other hand smaller sensors only have deep DOF with no option for shallow when it is warranted. For that reason a larger sensor still holds the advantage, though in your case that advantage has little value to you (which is fine).

<p>helmar,<br>

JC is explaining that the size of the sensor in your SX110is measures 6.17mm wide by 4.55mm tall. And sensor size is what crop factor is all about. A traditional 35mm camera would have a sensor measuring 36mm x 24mm, which is the baseline for sensor measuring (1.0x crop factor). Your D5100 has a 23.6mm x 15.7mm (1.5x crop factor), and as mentioned your SX110is, at 6.17mm x 4.55mm, has a 5.8x crop factor. The <em>effective</em> focal length is equal to the actual focal length multiplied by the camera's crop factor. For example, suppose you have a 100mm lens. The effective focal length if you attach that 100mm lens to a full frame 35mm camera is 100mm (100 x 1 = 100). The effective focal length if you attach that 100mm lens to your D5100 is 150mm (100 x 1.5 = 150). If you could attach that lens to your SX110is it would have an effective focal length of 580mm (100mm x 5.8 = 580).</p>

<p>Now, before you start thinking that smaller sensors are better because you get much more effective zoom with a small lens, there are major disadvantages to small sensors. Those include generally fewer pixels (though this is rarely a detriment, unless you print enlargements), excess image noise, poor low-light performance (related to image noise), and less control over depth of field.</p>

<p>I agree with Sarah - Upgrade your body from the 10D to 20D or 30D. It looks like on Craigslist 20D's are in the $225-$275 range and 30D's are in the $300-$350 range.</p>

<p>Sally, what part of Mongolia interests you? I was there in August - didn't see anything really worth shooting. The countryside I saw was in the south, near the China border (from Dalanzadgad southeast to Oyu Tolgoi). Being from Arizona, the desertscape was unimpressive to me. The countryside around Ulaanbataar looked more interesting (from the plane). Unfortunately I didn't get to explore outside of the city in that region. It was a business trip, so I was on a set schedule.</p>

<p>I think I'm gonna go with close-up volcano during eruption. I've always been fascinated by bright orange lava spewing out of the earth and flowing like a river.</p>

<p>Jon, you are right that plenty of amatures have DSLR cameras (myself being one). But they are not as mainstream as you think. I agree with Frank and Eric - that if a photographer shows up with a mirrorless camera he/she will inevitably not be taken as seriously. I don't doubt that the OP can produce superior work with his mirrorless than I can with my DSLR. But the expectations of the people in attendance would be reversed. All of us here on photo.net understand that the photographer's ability, not the equipment, determines the quality of their work. But that's not the case with the general masses who aren't pro's or at least serious enthusiasts. I personally face the exact opposite problem all the time. Because I carry around a "fancy" camera (not to weddings, but other events, gatherings, sight-seeing trips, etc.) people often apoint me as the designated photographer. Little do they care that I prefer to shoot landscapes and stills, not people or action. I find myself often wishing I hadn't brought my camera so I could avoid people expecting professional-level results from me in settings I don't specialize/am not practiced in. Indeed, the camera we carry makes a statement to the general public - inaccurate as that statement may be.</p>

<p>All that said, to the OP I say this: Your work will speak for itself. When people are looking to hire a photographer they look at his portfolio, not his equipment list. But you may want to be extra transparent about the equipment you use, just so they don't get a shock when you show up without a "fancy" camera.</p>

<p>I use a laptop (Toshiba Satellite with Core i3 processor) for all of my photo work - even working with RAW files - and have no complaints about speed or performance. When color is critical or I want a larger workspace for detail work I carry it into the computer room and hook it up to a Dell U2410 monitor. Mind you I'm just a hobbyist, but I'm happy with my setup.</p>

<p>Phil, that may be my favorite pelican shot I've ever seen on PN. Good job.<br>

Lupo, good humor, and very nice composition.<br>

Mark, I would love to hang your laughing gas in my garage!<br>

Rick, very nice Basilica shots. I am not religious, but I love the architecture!<br>

David, the lighting on your coyote is excellent.</p>

<p>I've got almost 100 shots of my dad's Halloween decorations. Haven't had time to go through them really, so here's just a quickie before I head to work.</p><div></div>

<p>A (long) route through northern AZ that I would like to take is:</p>

<p>From Phoenix, take US-60 northwest through Wickenburg, then 89 northeast to Prescott, and 89A east to Sedona, via Jerome. Then 179 south, hop on I-17 south to Camp Verde (check out Montezuma Castle), and 260 southeast to Payson. Sidestep to Strawberry and explore Fossil Creek. Continue east on 260 along the Mogollon Rim to Show Low. From there take 77 north to Holbrook then I-40 east through the petrified forest and 191 north to Canyon de Chelly. Continue north on 191, then west on 160, skirting Monument Valley (not sure if you can see the monuments well from the 160 or if you would have to drive farther north), then 89 south toward Flagstaff. You could head for Flagstaff at that point, stopping in at Sunset Crater on the way, or make a short detour to the south rim of the Grand Canyon by heading west on 64.</p>

<p>Another beautiful and popular geological formation is Antelope Canyon, just south of Page, AZ.</p>

<p>As for dunes, there's also the Emperial Dunes in California just across the state line from Yuma. I-8 passes right through them, and night access is no problem (it's a very popular 3-day-weekend destination).</p>

<p>Not hoodoo, but an interesting geological formation nonetheless is Texas Canyon, east of Tucson. I-10 passes right through it so it's very convenient. Check it out.</p>

<p>I'm in the "take your best shot" camp too. And if you are conflicted over which shot out of two or three is your best shot this week, that's not a bad problem to have. That said, sometimes a story can't be told in one shot. In that sense, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a 2 to 3 shot series as long as they are closely related in order to tell a more complete story. Then again, that could also be accomplished in one image containing 2-3 tiles.</p>

<p>We've kind of got two different threads going here... 1) about FD vs. EOS lenses. 2) about getting better landscape photos. I'll stick to the latter subject.</p>

<p>I recommend a circular polarizer filter, and possibly a graduated neutral density filter for daytime landscapes. Both of these filters are used to essentially choose where most of the light is coming from. The CP can be used to richen the color of the sky or take the glare off the surface of water. The GND can be used to reduce the amount of light coming from brighter sections (usually the sky), so that it's not over exposed (blown out).</p>

<p>How do you feel the 18-55 lens is limiting when it comes to landscape photos? Typically, landscape photography is done with a wide angle, and small apertures, which suits the kit lens. For instance, setting your lens to 20mm @ f/11 should yield superb landscapes. It will be difficult to find a better landscape lens (such as the 17-55 f/2.8 or 10-22 f/3.5-4.5) for anything less than several hundred dollars. Can you be specific about what your landscape shots are lacking?</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'm currently in Greensboro, NC and will be driving to Beckley, WV. I thought this might be a good opportunity to see some of the Blue Ridge Parkway and get some nice landscape, architecture (old bridges, railroads, churches?), and possibly wildlife photos. Looking at the map it seems I have two choices. 1) drive west and grab the parkway in NC (near Boone) and take it up to the 77 in Virginia before continuing north to Beckley. or 2) head north and grab the parkway in Virginia at the 77 and follow it up to the 64 (near Buena Vista, VA) before heading west to Beckley.</p>

<p>Which of these two is more scenic? It's too early for color change down here in NC, but is that the case up in VA? Is there a huge time of travel difference between these two courses? Any other options I haven't considered? Thanks for all your advice!</p>

<p>Massimo, with all that exhaust behind them perhaps they would have been better camouflaged if painted white, eh? :)</p>

<p>I'm not a bird photographer (at this point in my hobby), but this would be a lovely spot to shoot a variety of species, for sure. For now I'll stick to the landscape.</p><div></div>

<p>You could do it two ways - 1) set the shutter on a long exposure and repeatedly uncover & cover the lens during that time, or 2) set the camera to burst and then use editing software to stack the multiple exposures. I think the 2nd method would yield much higher success.</p>

<p>I traveled up to northern AZ for the long weekend. Despite the beautiful red rock of Sedona, I liked this shot in B&W better.</p><div></div>