steve_torelli

<p>"Also before anyone else criticises his English again, take a few seconds and look at his portfolio. Also notice the POW icon. Maybe English is not his stronger field but look what else he can do..... If you don't understand his English, just keep quiet and don't reply!"<br>

What do language skills have to do with one's portfolio ? Are you saying that Michael's post was somehow inappropriate because he couldn't understand Bela's post and he should therefore "keep quiet and not reply "?</p>

<p>I don't believe the Canon 60D is weather proof. It may have some weather sealing but generally only the top of the line professional camera bodies are anywhere near weather proof. Be careful when changing lenses, try to avoid doing so in a dirty or dusty environment, all the weather proofing in the world won't help when the lens is off the body. <br>

Either system will serve you well. Enjoy your trip and good luck.</p>

<p>"So we call sandwich negative prints "digital art"? Doesn't make much sense to me. But then I'm not into insulting other people's work with remarks about "clip art.""<br>

<br>

A photograph is a photograph whether it's a truly bad one or a breathtakingly good one, it's still a photograph. Clip art is clip art whether the result is a kids birthday card or a genuinely imaginative image posted on Photonet.<br>

<br>

It's not an insult, it just is what it is.</p>

<p>If you've developed an image that you saw through your view finder and recorded on your camera's sensor or film, no matter how much "manipulation" you apply, it's a photograph. If you're presenting pictures that are created by combining various images that as a whole make up a scene that no one has ever seen through a view finder, no matter how attractive to an individual they may be, it's "digital art".<br>

I see many highly praised pictures offered for critique here at Photonet that are simply assemblages of pictures and effects that have more to do with clip art than they do with photography.</p>

<p>Ah....the never ending search for an affordable UWA lens. I've had my share over the years, primes and zooms. I shoot Nikon now but shot Canon for many years and my conclusions for the UWA's I've used are as follows. <br>

The Canon 17-40 is far better than the "L" lens snobs let on.<br>

The Tokina 16-28 is a very nice lens but not so much at the the wide end until thoroughly stopped down. ( typical )<br>

The well regarded Zeiss 21mm Distagon is a beautifully made manual lens that simply failed to impress me on my 5DII. I guess for $1800 + I was expecting to be blown away, I wasn't. Comparing it to files from the 17-40/5D combination there just wasn't much difference.<br>

The Nikon 20 2.8D is one of those WA's that get mixed reviews depending on who you read. But, it will probably be my next lens purchase. It's fairly reasonably priced for used samples, around $450 in EX+ condition @ KEH.<br>

We're all looking for a reasonably priced UWA that's sharp across the frame. Good luck. I've come to believe that to a certain extent we just have to accept the design limitations at that focal length. Building a sharp across the frame under 24mm is tough. I do have a 28mm 1.8G that I'm pretty happy with, but like many I sometimes find it's just not wide enough. At this point I guess we just have to accept the fact that we'll have to pay an awfully lot of bucks to get a really good UWA and sometimes, note my experience with the Zeiss, even throwing a lot of cash at the problem isn't good enough. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.<br>

The above descriptions are my personal experiences and YMMV and usually does. I've had other lenses in this FL but these we're the most noteworthy. Good luck in your search.</p>

 

<p>Thanks to everyone for the responses. They all seem to be mostly in line with reviews I've read. I disappeared from this thread as I was in Louisiana for Mardi Gras where my 85 1.8G got a workout. Looking for something a little wider in a prime, 2.8 is fast enough. Thanks again.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>I'm looking for opinions on this lens. I know it's been around for a while. It would be used on a D600 primarily as a landscape lens from f/5.6 and smaller. Already have the 28 1.8G but often find myself looking to go wider and I prefer primes. Any insight would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks, Steve</p>

<p>I repeat my previous suggestion that you get a quality P&S that allows you to set your own shutter speed, aperture, ISO etc. so that you can experiment with the settings and see the results under varying conditions. Canon, Nikon, Sony make several of these. It may be all you ever need, at the very least you can sell it later and move on to something else or keep it as a backup to your DSLR without a very large initial investment.<br>

Good luck</p>

 

<p>Carly,<br>

Think you missed my point. There are a lot of cameras that will do want you want, but you're not going to get what you want out of them until you learn how to use them. There's a learning curve that goes beyond just buying capable hardware.</p>

<p>"Portraits are not about equipment. They are about what you see, how you see, how you realize what you see and feel as a photo. The equipment is something you control, not vice versa."<br>

<br>

+1</p>

<p>None of these are "professional" cameras but I know what you mean. Just buy an entry level camera with the kit lens that comes with it from Nikon or Canon and stay with it until you're ready to branch out a little and can decide what's best for you.<br>

Amazing pictures won't come from any camera until you learn how to make them yourself.<br>

Good luck</p>

 

<p>Carly,<br>

Slow down !<br>

No camera you can buy is going to do everything you mention until you learn how to make it do what you want. Get a quality point and shoot that allows for some manual control ( the Canon "G" series come to mind ) while you learn about some basic photography. Your gear will never make you a good photographer unless you know how to use it. <br>

Good luck</p>

<p>I suspect that most of the folks who use a cell phone exclusively as their "camera" do so primarily so they can post the resultant pictures on Facebook or some other social media site where there's little discussion about the IQ of that little JPEG.</p>

<p>Recently bought a D600 from a local Nikon dealer here in Memphis, Memphis Photo Supply. Haven't purchased from a B&M store since my Pentax film days. Coming from Canon I had no Nikon glass until the 85 1.8G he ordered for me came in. He offered to sell me a 50mm 1.8D and take it back in trade when my lens arrived. He gave me what I paid for it despite my protest, it is after all, now a used lens.<br>

That kind of service and the good conversation with knowledgeable people will keep me coming back.</p>

<p>I've sold dozens of items on the Buy & Sell forum at fredmiranda.com over the years. It'll cost you $9.00 for a month to list your item. It will sell if you list it at a descent price. Check other listings in the forum to see what your camera has been selling for.<br>

Good luck</p>

<p>If you have no intention of ever moving to a full frame SLR then the 17-55 2.8 is a great choice. If you think, however, that you may eventually go full frame one day, the 17-40 4L would fill the bill nicely in either format.<br>

Good luck</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

Thank you for your thoughtful response (Ariel, you may want to take note),in my first post I probably gave the impression that I thought diffraction was the OP's only problem as I didn't mention any other factor and that certainly isn't the case. If you down size a picture small enough, you won't be able to tell if it was taken with a Nikon or a cellphone. The OP is looking at his own pictures at full rez at which point any number of factors from poor technique to the aforementioned "D" word will have lead him to ask his questions.<br>

Good luck to all.</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

All of these pictures were taken with a small sensor, high pixel density camera at f11 to as small as f13. You don't think that diffraction would soften these shots? Unless I missed it, I saw no mention in his posts of a tripod. Poor hand held technique by a beginner along with diffraction effects would certainly soften the images.</p>

<p>Why are you using such tiny apertures ? Portrait work is normally done at much larger f- stops. Diffraction is affecting the shot as those apertures.</p>

<p>Depends on how dedicated you are to macro work. Extenders work fine for me, I've owned various macro lenses but always end up selling them for lack of use and going back to tubes.<br>

If you're serious about it though you're going to want a good macro lens. Richard mentions three excellent choices, don't rule out the offerings by Sigma and Tamron. Less money but at least as good as the offerings from Canon.</p>

<p>Robin,<br>

Yes, Pzone made mention of that but my primary focus would be landscape so it probably wouldn't be as great an issue.<br>

Thanks<br>

John,<br>

I also read a review that wasn't as enthusiastic. It was on a British site but I can't remember which one. Thanks for the link. A review from Bryan Carnathan at The Digital Picture would be nice.</p>

 

<p>This is probably a long shot at this point as this lens hasn't been available for very long, but does anyone have any experience with it ? After reading the reviews, particularly from Photozone, for the price especially, it seems as though it would be worth a look. I'm a little surprised that it hasn't seemed to have occasioned much comment at Pnet unless I just missed it. Even without considering the price it seems to stack up well against the competition. </p>

<p>Fredmiranda.com Buy & Sell forum. Costs $9 to join for a month.</p>

<p>I'm with Jamie and Larry. With a little pancake style lens, the result is basically a higher quality P&S, which is fine if you're looking for small and light. With anything else the body is engulfed by the lens and the total package looses any size and weight advantage, if one sees small and light as an advantage. Other than doing it simply because it can be done, I can't think of anything in the world of photographic tools more pointless. </p>

<p>Good advice from Wouter. People often think that upgrading their camera means better pictures, the potential for better pictures comes with the DSLR but one must learn to master it rather than expecting the camera to do the work. I can heartily second Wouter's recommendation of Peterson's "Understanding Exposure". Read, learn and enjoy !<br>

Good luck</p>