just got a D40 yesterday, cant wait to start contributing to the thread

(since no one reads the last post)

6/15/2009 6:09:44 PM

more creepy crawlies, sure to make people push for the next page.

Rough green snakes



the latest Eastern Diamondback rattlesnake (a new one for my study, found today)


two Diamondback terrapins saved from imminent death on the road last week by a coworker. Diamondback terrapins get nailed throughout their range this time of year, every year, as females cross roads in search of good places to lay eggs.



Hopefully the turtles cool you snake-pussies off a little.

[Edited on June 15, 2009 at 11:00 PM. Reason : 2]

6/15/2009 10:58:55 PM

^ that first one is on point. nice job, man.

and amber1, i really like your 3rd picture.

[Edited on June 15, 2009 at 11:04 PM. Reason : a1]

6/15/2009 11:02:18 PM

^^ umop, you rock.

especially like those turtles, and of course the first green snake.

6/15/2009 11:06:35 PM

Thanks...the more I look at it, the more I like that shot. I knew when the snake dropped that pose that it was the one...I just had to get that little fucker in focus. The lighting was just right and all, I gotta say it's my favorite shot from today, and I've been trying to get a good shot of that species for a few years now.

6/15/2009 11:08:49 PM

I'd take the D40 over the D60 even for the same price. Lower pixel density ftw.

Infact i did make that choice, I just recommended the D40 as the camera for my Dad to get my Mom.

6/15/2009 11:29:08 PM

^Seriously? I mean, I've never looked close at a d60, and I know it doesn't do much different (one stop more high ISO? 5 point AF?) but I always thought the higher pixel count would make crops easier.

how does the pixel density matter and would you notice it anywhere except pixel peeping?

6/15/2009 11:50:39 PM

peep my pixels, y0.

6/15/2009 11:51:40 PM

http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/landing/photographyprize/vote.html

6/17/2009 12:11:13 AM

Amazon changed the status on my 35mm f/1.8 AF-S to "shipping soon - June 22" so I *should* have it on time for July 4th. Very psyched. Was just shooting at f/4, ISO1600, 1/30th and getting grumbly about it.

6/17/2009 11:26:37 PM

Was wondering if any of you guys could help me with a camera purchase. I'm looking to pick up a D-SLR camera to take with me when I go hunting this Fall. You get to see some pretty cool shit when you are in the wilderness being perfectly still for hours at a time. I was initially looking at the D60 due to the higher megapixel but after doing some research saw that the D40 was more highly regarded due to the pixel density and ISO. What I'm wondering is since a lot of my shots will be at distances of 100-400 yards and in low light situations, would the D60's higher megapixel be better suited for me? And what about lenses? I've looked at getting the 18-55 AF-S VR f/4, the 55-200 AF-S VR f/4 and the 50mm AF f/1.8 lenses. Would that be a pretty good setup for what I'm looking for? Thanks in advance

6/18/2009 3:24:14 PM

Does anyone have any experience with slide film. From what I can find I hear it can have better colors than color negative film. Problem is I don't think there is any place in Wilmington to get it developed. Can anyone here tell me a little more about it?

6/18/2009 6:03:34 PM

^ i had a friend that only shot slide film. i don't know where he got it developed, i'll ask him. the quality really was very good though.

we lived together in hawaii, but he's from eastern north carolina. i'm pretty sure he sent the film off to have it developed, so it probably won't be local.

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM. Reason : if that helps]

6/18/2009 6:08:54 PM

Much less room for error with slide film, but assuming you're competent the results are rad.

6/18/2009 6:44:43 PM

I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 a lot, and sometimes Fuji Velvia before digital camera quality surpassed them.

I liked Kodachrome because it had the finest grain and most natural colors of any film. Velvia had highly saturated colors which was good for vibrant lanscapes and foliage. Compared to digital camera resolution, they seem to have, at best, about 8 megapixels of resolution judging from scans of my slides, so they can provide a lot of detail.

A problem with slide film is that it has a narrower dynamic range than negative. In other words, the picture will have higher contrast and shadow detail can be lacking. It is also less forgiving in terms of exposure. So because of these properties, you have to be more aware of lighting when using it.

I used to take it to Wolf Camera, but sometimes I'd use some drug store. They both send it to a processesing facility. If they still sell slide film, I'm sure there are places that will process it. Try to find a Ritz or Wolf Camera.

6/18/2009 6:51:54 PM

^x5

If you think you see a lot sitting still, you should try getting up and walking around through the woods.

6/18/2009 6:59:00 PM

^wild animals don't usually want anything to do with humans. I might see a few snakes and turtles, but I'm not just gonna be able to walk up to mama bear and baby bear and take their picture like we're in some zoo.

6/18/2009 9:19:29 PM

umop-apisdn is, by far, the user i am most jealous of...not really because of the pictures (though they are really good and i really like them), but because i would LOVE to spend my time doing stuff like that

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

umop-apisdn is, by far, the user i am most jealous of...not really because of the pictures (though they are really good and i really like them), but because i would LOVE to spend my time doing stuff like that

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

umop-apisdn is, by far, the user i am most jealous of...not really because of the pictures (though they are really good and i really like them), but because i would LOVE to spend my time doing stuff like that

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

umop-apisdn is, by far, the user i am most jealous of...not really because of the pictures (though they are really good and i really like them), but because i would LOVE to spend my time doing stuff like that

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

umop-apisdn is, by far, the user i am most jealous of...not really because of the pictures (though they are really good and i really like them), but because i would LOVE to spend my time doing stuff like that

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

umop-apisdn is, by far, the user i am most jealous of...not really because of the pictures (though they are really good and i really like them), but because i would LOVE to spend my time doing stuff like that

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

WTF.

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2009 9:24:16 PM

Way to fuck up the flow.

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 9:39 PM. Reason : l]

6/18/2009 9:39:41 PM

i don't mind fucking around in chit chat now and then, but that was unintentional

to make matters worse, i haven't contributed anything in PAGES

6/18/2009 9:49:17 PM

My Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 arrived today. Initial impression is good. I played around with it at f/4-8 and it is quite sharp. About the same as my nifty fifty lens.

6/19/2009 12:43:19 AM

i have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and i absolutely love it. i've read the 28-75 is a bit soft around the edges wide open though. but you shouldn't really have to worry about that unless you're shooting full frame.

i haven't used it though, so i'll be curious to know what you think of it.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 12:52 AM. Reason : k]

6/19/2009 12:48:38 AM

Quote :

"wild animals don't usually want anything to do with humans. I might see a few snakes and turtles, but I'm not just gonna be able to walk up to mama bear and baby bear and take their picture like we're in some zoo."

First sentence true, second sentence not true. You're trying to say that mom and baby bear aren't gonna try to check out that thing that looks like a pile of leaves that's doused in deer piss?

You definitely see more when you walk around that when you sit around, and it's not just snakes and turtles.

And quagmire02, you've already mentioned your jealousy. I'm 100% glad to have chosen to pursue herpetology as my career. It was real tough to get started, but sticking it out has gotten me set on the path I wanted, and I get to see cool shit all the time. Once I get my doctorate, maybe I'll get the opportunity to do the same abroad.

6/19/2009 12:41:15 PM

Quote :

"You're trying to say that mom and baby bear aren't gonna try to check out that thing that looks like a pile of leaves that's doused in deer piss?"

Are you really that fucking retarded or is that just a really weak troll attempt? How about answering the original question instead of trying to debate over how I take pictures?

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 12:49:41 PM

I think he knows a thing or two about wildlife and wildlife photography.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : k]

6/19/2009 12:52:17 PM

No problem with that, which why I came on here asking opinions on cameras and lenses. All I'm saying is I can't get close enough to what I would like to take pictures of by walking through the woods. The key is to be out there where they don't even know you're there.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 12:57:19 PM

The deer piss comment was a a half-assed troll comment directed towards hunters in general, at least the ignorant ones (not implying that you're an ignorant hunter, only you know whether or not you fall in that category).

I admit, I missed answering the question the first time, and I wasn't referring back to that question in my second comment. Once again, a half-assed comment on how to get out and see more wildlife.

When it comes to wildlife photography, just like normal photography, it depends on your budget. Seeing as most wildlife is best seen at a distance, you're going to want to go with a telephoto lens. I don't know shit about Nikons, but it would help to know what type of wildlife you're trying to photograph. Due to the reluctance of most species to the approach of humans, and if you're just looking to buy a single lens, go with a decent telephoto (55-200mm, 70-300mm). The quality of your shots is going to depend on several things going back to basics of photography: lighting is the biggest thing. The f/1.8 is going to help you out in low light situations, if you indeed choose to shoot at that aperture (although that isn't even a telephoto/zoom lens). At a great distance, the narrow DOF is not going to be as effective on your animal subject. But you're going to get more camera shake the more you're zoomed in at those long distances. The megapixels, IMO, aren't an indicator of what will work best for you. If you use a tripod (which wouldn't be so bad since you'll be sitting stationary in the first place and not lugging it around everywhere), perhaps more megapixels will give you a little more to work with, but you're also want to get a cable shutter release so your camera isn't moved while you're taking the shot (telephoto lenses are also generally heftier, which complicates handheld shooting/camera shake further).

Overall, honestly, shooting a subject at 100-400 yards without big, expensive equipment isn't going to yield great shots, especially when you're sitting in the woods to start with (obstructions).

If you're looking to get all 3 of those lenses you listed, you'll be in decent shape and be able to get different subjects of different sizes at different distances from yourself. You know the type of wildlife you're seeing and at what distances. I would honestly go for a longer focal length than the 200mm if you're really thinking of shooting subjects at far distances.

I know a lot of that is redundant, but hopefully it gives you some idea of what to look for.

6/19/2009 1:36:24 PM

Much appreciated, sorry for the earlier comment. I was looking at the 70-300 earlier, but at $300 more than the 55-200 I wasn't really sure if it was worth the extra $$. It would be really nice to be able to see for myself if it is worth it, do any stores have these available to demo? I still think I'm leaning toward the 55-200 due to the things you mentioned with the heavier lenses, I'll just have to forget some of the far away shots. Is there a general idea of what type of range that lens would give me?

Just so we're on the same page, I despise ignorant/illegal hunters as well. They give those of us that are responsible a bad name (and subject us to ridicule). Last year I saw some guys out spotlighting deer and informed the WRC about it. Well, they set up a sting and had them caught within a week. Had their rifles confiscated along with some pretty hefty charges.

And for the record, I am pretty much in the woods year round. I see plenty of wildlife but the scenes I want to capture on film are the ones that I see up in a stand. Last year I had a doe come out with her 2 fawns and got to watch her groom them while they grazed and ate for a good half hour. Had three black bear come out and play and tussle with each other for awhile. I haven't witnessed anything of that nature while I'm out moving around. I've also had deer get within 5' of me without even knowing I was there, so it is possible to get within close range of them at times.

6/19/2009 2:10:33 PM

^ any camera store will let you handle a lens in the store, and some will rent lenses out. I'll bet some stores will work a deal where you can apply a credit from renting towards the purchase price if you decide to buy.

I get the best results with my 55-200 in sunlight or sunny shade. you might find out that you need a faster ($$$) telephoto than f/4.5 in the woods. I think the 55-200VR will hold it's value well enough for you to buy it, use it for a while, and decide to sell it later and pick up something like the 70-300 f/4.5 or 80-200 f/2.8.

definitely look into a tripod. if you're up in a stand, maybe a clamp mount and a ballhead.

Also note that the 35mm f/1.8 af-s is a good alternative to the 50mm, at about half the price. (but a 5-6 week wait)

6/19/2009 9:26:10 PM

What is the Nikon equivalent to the 5D?

6/19/2009 9:53:01 PM

I'd imagine something like the D3

6/20/2009 8:56:56 AM

umop, I absolutely love the rattler picture. and of course the first snake one, but I think eastern diamondback's are beautiful.. good job

6/20/2009 9:03:48 AM

thank ya much.

6/20/2009 9:11:54 AM

Quote :

"I'd take the D40 over the D60 even for the same price. Lower pixel density ftw. "

I'd also favor the D40 over the D60. D40 is still a very capable body even though its like soooo old and slow, but there's this one trick it does have that most other bodies don't, insanely fast flash sync speed in non-high speed dedicated mode because the 2nd curtain is electronic based off the CCD chip itself so no need for 2nd sync curtain to get your flash through the slit. I've tested it with my friends D40 of 1/2500th using regular studio strobes and works like a charm.

Quote :

"Does anyone have any experience with slide film. From what I can find I hear it can have better colors than color negative film. Problem is I don't think there is any place in Wilmington to get it developed. Can anyone here tell me a little more about it?"

Just started to shoot slide film and it's pretty interesting to see. It's like magic because it's a clear positive and it does produce some vivid colors, specially when you see a large format 4x5 chrome. Stunning and expensive as shit. I just bought a box of 50 sheets, only 50 pictures for 100 bucks. I also just bagged a bunch of kodak elite chrome from b&h with student discount for 35mm, 36exp for 4.60ish each, which is cheap if you don't look on ebay first.

The sad fact is that it's harder and harder to find places to develop e-6 as most places don't even have machines for it anymore, c-41 is still the norm for color negs for your 1-hour processors. We are kinda lucky at school because we have two e-6 processors and yes, we have to develop it ourselfs... I had a roll fuck up because I forgot to regulate the damn nitrogen flow. 7 bucks down the drain.

I think there's a place in Greensboro that still develops it and I know a few large pro photo labs that'll still develop e-6, but at a high cost; more than the initial cost of the roll! Call up some pro camera shops in Wilmington to see if they know.

And yes Ronny, much much much less room for error on exposure latitude on slide film than any other medium. You can't be off by 1/3 fstop or else you end up losing info or blowing out shit. It's only an 8 stop coverage, which doesn't sound bad, but when you compare that to today's digital it doesn't hold up mustard. The original 1d only had like a 6 stop coverage, 1dmkII is 9, and I think the 40d line is like 12? The human eye can see 2000.

Carzak, I really want to try out some kodachrome but its god damn expensive and hard to find.

Rush, you should check out the sigma lines of super long range zooms they have for most DSLR line ups. The bigma (50-500) is a pretty decent wildlife lens that'll get the job done and is actually not too expensive (I see it go for about 500 used), but it is a slow lens. I think it does have image stabilization. Sigma just released some newer zoom ranges last year so check out sigma's website. I've heard only good things about it.

Kiwi, I'd say the D700 is more in the same class as the 5D. The D3 is still a flagship pro body, while the 5D, 5DmkII are both in between a pro and semi pro body line up. Since the D3 came out, it was thought to go head to head against the classic 5D, which seems stupid since its a 3yr difference in technology. I honestly don't think Nikon offers a product that literally goes against the 5DmkII yet. It'll be interesting to see if make like a D800 with video, full frame, high ISO and large MP count (we all know that doesn't matter now these days right... kiwi...).


I'll have to throw up some of my latest pics, I've been slacking on getting my personal products edited since school has taken most of my time. I got a really cool nightlife pic from last weekend that got high remarks at school.

We should plan a walk about TWW photo trip or something this summer. Would be cool.

6/21/2009 9:15:01 AM

I'd be down for a photo trip.

as for the d40 v d60... i don't know about the flash sync but the pixel density these days don't make a huge difference in my opinion. that normally is something that controls dynamic range and noise. but now less pixel density is compensated by better technology. i mean... there were 2 and 4mp dslrs. and as far as quality goes we have gotten better, not worse due to HIGHLY increased pixel density.

d60 has a different processor in it that is way more up to date. i've played with it. handles noise better than the d40 i'm pretty sure. hell handles noise better than my d200 . damn old technology.

6/21/2009 10:43:27 AM

Thanks JBaz I was trying to decide when I finally go big (camera-wise) if I should switch to the Canon or stick with Nikon. The pictures I've seen taken with the 5D are incredible! I don't know what camera JSnail has but I know it's a Nikon and those pictures are pretty hot too.

On a side note, I FINALLY ordered a 50mm. So. freaking. excited.

To the person asking about d40 vs. d60, I have the d40 and love it but I am sooooooooo ready for an upgrade. I want a better ISO range, bigger sensor, want to be able to put my sb-900 on and not feel like it's taking over the camera (:beatup, etc. But the d40 has served me well.

6/21/2009 2:28:20 PM

Buying good glass should be a priority before upgrading the body. Your camera setup is only going to be as good as it's weakest link. If you're shooting on a kit lens or some variable aperture garbage, I promise you the body is not the weak link. If you're concerned with the size of your D40 (this is a legit concern, I have relatively big hands and felt the same way) then get a battery grip. It will do wonders to make your camera feel more substantial in your hands.

But yeah sure, drop 2500 bucks on a 5D and hope for the best.

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2009 5:00:54 PM

Sell me the D40 and get a better body and some lenses. (Like you could get a better body or any lens for selling a used D40 body)

6/21/2009 7:39:12 PM

^^

6/21/2009 8:08:39 PM

I would like to leap to the D90, I wasn't talking about plunging right into a $2500 body plus having to replace all the lens so soon! Silly!

I'm getting the 50mm so hopefully that renew some faith in the good ol d40 for a bit. A battery grip would be fantastic actually. I shot a late night concert the other day and wasn't very pleased, maybe it was user error but will the 50mm help in these situations, the pics were grainy at best but there was no way to open the aperture wide enough to keep a lower ISO without major blur. I'm thinking it will..........

like so




[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ya]

6/21/2009 9:07:28 PM

I need to figure out what kind of new lens to get. I can't spent too much money though. I've got a Sony a200 with the 3.5-5.6/18-70 kit lens. I'd like a telephoto of some sort. I should probably learn a bit more about photography before I go spending money on a new lens however.

6/21/2009 9:30:04 PM

^^ of course the wider aperture will help in lower light. i hope you do your research and know these things before you buy.

^ i'm pretty sure my next lens will be the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.
i'll probably go with the 70-200 because i can't decide which ultra wide to go with.
i won't be able to get anything until i have a job though.

anyway. i finally got a circular polarizer for my Tamron. the lens is 67mm, but i went ahead and got a used 77mm B+W filter and a step-up ring from Peace since the 70-200, 10-22, and 11-16 mentioned above are all 77mm; not to mention i couldn't pass up paying less for the B+W than a Hoya. the filter is... awesome.

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason : (see pic below)]

6/21/2009 10:24:00 PM

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ^for cody]

6/21/2009 10:25:11 PM

Recent camping trip



[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM. Reason : out of frame, blah]

6/21/2009 10:44:19 PM