what i suppose i mean by "more often than i should" is that i see myself using nothing BUT this lens, and at every opportunity, for the next few weeks/months/whatever

6/19/2010 9:09:36 PM

Cody and I went exploring at an old factory the other day.





























I brought my light stand and an umbrella and fired off a few shots with some flash. No ~

6/19/2010 9:46:07 PM

it has lights on, seems like it wasnt really too old

6/19/2010 9:50:44 PM

I haven't posted in a while but heres one from a recent trip to Fontana Lake.

6/19/2010 9:53:04 PM

It was a pretty big complex, lights were only on in very few rooms. For the most part it was fucking creepy and pitch black, especially interior hallways. Obviously we didn't take many pictures of those on account of them being pitch black and all.

6/19/2010 9:54:33 PM

Well people. I'm getting out of photography. Finishing up my commercial photography degree this summer and trading my camera for a rifle; joining the marines in a few months so I'll probably start figuring out what gear I'll dump.

6/19/2010 11:38:02 PM

why?

6/19/2010 11:49:19 PM

Just one of the biggest regrets I have for not joining sooner, just want to get in and have the experience under my belt before I get too old or become to involved with a normal job. I mean I'm coming in with no baggage, no debt and pretty physically fit before my life gets so chaotic that I won't be able to join. Plus its a good background to have.

6/19/2010 11:56:59 PM

Explains the gear whoreness lol. Good luck man, don't sell all your shit, when you're done they'll still need people to photograph the sexy club wimmens.

6/19/2010 11:59:53 PM

I'll probably dump 95% of it and grab a nice advanced p&s like the lumix with the leica lens, but other then that, I won't have a need with the rest and rather sell it off before they loose their value. Plus it would be nice to finally get paid to haul shit around for 12+ hours a day in shitty weather with a real canon and body armor; plus tax free and hazard pay.

But with my experience and credentials, I probably won't see any action.

[Edited on June 20, 2010 at 12:09 AM. Reason : ]

6/20/2010 12:08:29 AM

You could always be a combat photographer...

6/20/2010 11:30:56 AM

Thought about it and no, photography and I are taking a break. I'll start selling shit when I get all of my student projects done in late July.

I'll just list the shit that I have no use for right now:

30D
Canon 1.4x II TC
Canon 2.0x II TC

6/20/2010 4:56:16 PM

Went exploring with Ronny. I will be revisiting this location... probably with some breathing protection



I was checking the exposure and didn't bother focusing.














Sorry for the long post. Here's a link to the rest of the set on flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cody_clark/sets/72157624194708785/

6/20/2010 7:05:32 PM

JBaz: Good luck, and thanks.

6/20/2010 10:46:05 PM

ugg, the only thing I'm afraid of is pull-ups. Can't do shit, even if I had upper body strength. My asian genetics doesn't allow me master the bar.

6/20/2010 11:45:53 PM

anyone ever used extension tubes and if so, what was your experience?

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2010 1:38:24 PM

I hate how shitty my work monitor is I have to look at all these when Im at home. I finally got my Nikon D5000 late last week got to play around with it some this weekend, but its a lot of info to take in before I feel like I have any clue as to what Im really doing with it haha.

6/21/2010 1:51:15 PM

extension tubes is nothing more then adding space between the lens and the camera to allow closer focusing, it doesn't affect the image quality unless the ET's have a corrective lens in them (most don't). If you have nikon or canon, get the cheapy kenko kits and save some money. You'll have some light loss with the extension factor. also when you have them on, in most cases, you'll loose your focus to infinity when ET is equipped.

6/21/2010 5:15:38 PM

extension tubes are something I've never had a complete understanding for as well.

^so there's really nothing going on with magnification? it'll just allow you to get closer to the object you're photographing before it goes out of focus?

and you don't happen to have a 50D you'll be selling, do you?

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 9:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2010 9:09:02 PM

Quote :

"ugg, the only thing I'm afraid of is pull-ups. Can't do shit, even if I had upper body strength. My asian genetics doesn't allow me master the bar."

BS. Sounds like you need to talk to theDuke...

6/21/2010 9:28:13 PM

^^ focusing closer changes the magnification. No 50d, I will have a 1dmkiin for sale soon though.

^ it was a joke... I can do pull-ups. Although I seriously need to get into a workout routine. Just sucks working out in Miami heat at the moment.

6/21/2010 10:23:17 PM

Quote :

"extension tubes is nothing more then adding space between the lens and the camera to allow closer focusing, it doesn't affect the image quality unless the ET's have a corrective lens in them (most don't). If you have nikon or canon, get the cheapy kenko kits and save some money. You'll have some light loss with the extension factor. also when you have them on, in most cases, you'll loose your focus to infinity when ET is equipped."

ah, cool, sounds like what i'm looking for...i want to be able to get closer with my 100-300mm, but it will almost always be outside in good light, so i'm not too worried about the light loss

i found kenko recommended on a number of forums, it's good to see a twwer recommend them, too

onecall has them for $170 with free shipping (http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=31096) and b&h has the same kit for $180 with free shipping (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/)

does this look like a good kit? i, too, only partly understand how extension tubes work...what does each of the three (12/20/36mm) do for your focal length?

6/22/2010 7:51:45 AM

merh

[Edited on June 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2010 11:11:35 AM

Yeah, the kit looks good if it fits your budget. ET's don't affect your focal lengths at all (unlike a tele-converter/TC), you will have the same perspective as before, just having the capability to focus closer. Not sure how much of a difference the 12/20/36mm will be, I don't shoot macro or had the need to use ET's, but the same principle applies for large format work that I have done.

It's called Bellows Extension Factor if you want to look the term up and start to understand a little of what the relationship with the lens and body is all about.

6/22/2010 11:50:00 AM

Weezer


Daryl Hall & Chromeo


Black Keys

6/23/2010 1:55:42 PM

heading for south africa tonight for the world cup and a safari - ended up renting a 17-55 f2.8 / 70-200 f2.8 is ii / 300 f4 - also taking my 50 1.4 and my small monopod and a ton of random accessories

very excited to get some shots off

6/23/2010 3:01:40 PM

Just a couple of baby pictures...

6/23/2010 3:01:41 PM

^^Are you pleased with the rentals so far? I'm considering renting a 300 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 for a backpacking trip to Alaska in September.

6/23/2010 3:51:09 PM

yeah i'm impressed with them - i've taken a ton of shots to get a feel for them

i was going to go with the 300 f2.8 but decided not to mainly due to the 7kg weight limit for carry-on baggage for the plane ride to the safari i'm going to

6/23/2010 3:53:34 PM

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ive got about 6 more but tww is shittin the bed, point and shoot by the way]

6/23/2010 11:08:37 PM

^ i learned the hard way - don't host your photos on tdub... fucks em up something fierce

6/23/2010 11:09:55 PM

^^ when I had my 300 2.8, I carried that everywhere, best lens I ever owned and kicking my self for the 400 2.8 trade. It's the most versatile lens in the supertele market when you mix in the 1.4 and 2.0tc. I've only used the 400 like 3 times since having it in December.

For a backpacking trip, a 70-200 with a 1.4x tc would treat you fine. Although if you are going to be shooting just outdoors, should have picked up the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6 lens. Sharp as fuck, cheap, low weight, and talk about distance! Shot a few NHL games with it and minus the slow aperture speed, it handled very well, although the push/pull zoom feature takes some getting used to.

Seriously, if anyone is serious about shooting outdoor sports or wildlife, 100-400 canon is the way to go. The 300 2.8 is nice, but costs a cool $3-4g more and weights 4-5kg more too.

6/23/2010 11:37:25 PM

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 12:01 AM. Reason : sdf]

6/24/2010 12:01:30 AM

^^I'm shooting with a D90. I am considering the 70-200 and a TC due to the weight of the 300 2.8, but I'm just afraid of missing some amazing wildlife/low light shots due to the slower speed (and I can still use a TC with the 300 for even more distance). I'll be with two other people though, so I think we can distribute enough weight between us that the extra 4 lbs won't be that big a deal. I'm open to any suggestions and recommendations. I currently have the 70-300 (which I would leave at home) and 18-105 lenses and will be purchasing the Tokina 11-17 2.8 before the trip.

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 8:19 AM. Reason : m]

6/24/2010 8:18:44 AM

speaking of teleconverters, how do they work?

my understanding is that if you have a 2x converter, it doubles the focal length and halves the amount of light...right?

so if you're using, say, a 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 lens (what i have), it essentially becomes a 200-600mm f/9-13.4 lens? that doesn't seem right...maybe f/5.6-9.5?

i'm thinking about picking one up for my upcoming trip to switzerland, but i'm betting my only telephoto is simply too slow to make it worth it

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2010 8:38:30 AM

Any recommendations for a used DSLR in the $300-350 range?

6/24/2010 7:57:17 PM

^ D40

6/24/2010 9:54:33 PM

Man, after looking up some reviews, and stuff on ebay, it looks like you can find the D40, D40x, D60, D3000, and Canon 1000D (among others) for $350 or less. At first I was leaning towards Nikon, but I think I prefer the image quality of the Canon. I just hate the Canon's grip....

How big of an issue is dust on the lens when buying a used camera? Would I be better off getting a camera with builtin dust cleaning so I don't have to worry about it so much?

6/24/2010 11:23:14 PM

Dust on a lens is no problem. Dust IN a lens can be a big issue but is often no problem or only a small annoyance as it can be edited out. Dust on the mirror doesn't matter other than the fact that it's in the body (so it can move to the sensor) and you'll possibly see it when framing a shot. Dust on the sensor is a bigger issue but it can be cleaned (very very carefully or done by a pro). Dust behind the viewfinder is an annoyance but won't affect the shot.

The built-in dust cleaning is only for the sensor. It is nice to have but it's not perfect so if you find something with dust on the sensor already, chances are good that you'll need to get it cleaned.

6/25/2010 6:48:14 AM

Quote :

"I think I prefer the image quality of the Canon."

there is no "image quality" difference between comparable nikon and canon DSLRs

if you don't like the grip of the canon and you don't already have lenses for either, get the nikon...if you find a great deal on a canon and the grip and menu differences don't bother you much, go with a canon...i promise that if you're comparing equivalent nikon and canon models, there is no QUALITY difference that you will ever notice

in-camera PROCESSING (that which generates the jpg) can differ between older and newer models, with the newer ones usually having better processing...of course, the differences are likely not significant if you're on a budget and you can negate those differences by shooting raw...but even the in-camera processing of equivalent nikon and canon models SHOULD be practically identical

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 8:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2010 8:31:43 AM

Yea seriously if you are doing it on a budget, go for the D40. I shoot with a D40 and D80 and have had far fewer issues with the 40, even though I treat it like shit. The D80 just gave me an error message last week when firing. Had to send it off, and its out of warranty. Probably looking at $250 to get it fixed. But I baby that thing in comparison to the D40. And for many shots, its almost impossible to tell the difference in image quality between the two.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

6/25/2010 9:05:54 AM

^^ Agreed. Get whatever feels comfortable in your hand. You'll be surprised at how much a difference it makes. More enjoyable experience and it will get you out shooting more often.

6/25/2010 11:39:56 AM

Quote :

"in-camera PROCESSING (that which generates the jpg) can differ between older and newer models, with the newer ones usually having better processing"

Yeah, I finally realized that last night. I was originally comparing a JPG between a D40 and a Canon. The Nikon pic was over saturated and not as sharp. When I took at the RAW files there wasn't much difference at all.

I'm really tempted now to get a factory refurb D3000. They frequently go for less than $350 on ebay, and have a 1yr warranty. The VR lens would be nice....

It amuses me that all of the older DLSR models go for about the same price, regardless of age. They seem to bottom out at about $300 (w/ lens).

6/25/2010 11:50:06 AM

Quote :

"speaking of teleconverters, how do they work? my understanding is that if you have a 2x converter, it doubles the focal length and halves the amount of light...right?"

It's all based on the Inverse Square Law. You loose two stops (or 1/4 the light) worth of light loss with a 2x TC. 1 Stop with a 1.4 TC.

If you have a flash 10 ft away from the subject and its at f/11, then the subject moves to 20ft, you loose not 1/2 the light, but 3/4 of the light. Each 1/2 of light dropped is 1 full stop so you effectively loose 2 stops by doubling the distance. So instead of f/11, you go down by two; f/11..f/8..f/5.6.

Quote :

"there is no "image quality" difference between comparable nikon and canon DSLRs"

Yeah, no, totally false. There is a difference in image quality between comparable nikon and canon camera's, it's just most people will never notice or care so it is a moot point in consumer or entry level DSLR's, but there is a difference.

As you mentioned, the in-camera processing is completely different between Canon, Nikon, etc. since they update with newer processors, new algorithms and even customizable functions when processing in-camera JPEG's. Sometimes the sensor technology between the two can be noticeable when you capture high contrast scenes with tons of highlights and shadow. How ever good the camera can retain both the highlight and shadow detail can be a pretty noticeable difference.

The most common image quality difference is basically in two area's; shadow detail and high ISO. Nikon, the last few iterations (although D3/D700 generation is omitted), tended to loose detail when they pumped their noise reduction filter on higher ISO. Sometimes the colors out of the camera can be a few shades off, but again, only noticeable if you were testing the same scene, settings, lens' side to side. For people who just want to shoot in green box mode, you will never know.

Also to note, all this info is only really relative to assholes like me to flame on the internet or with other photographers.


Rush, have you looked at Sigma super zooms? like the 100-400 range? They've got so many new lenses in the past year to checkout that are very compact, light, good performance for little money. Are you planning on hiking/backpacking a lot because having a 6lbs lens in the pack tends to get heavy really quick, specially in rough terrain or climbing up hills. I took my 300 2.8, two bodies and a few other lenses with me to yellowstone and was a burden on long hikes; although pretty worth it for some shots (specially when I ran two miles to a remote waterfall to catch the sunset.)

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : Inverse Square Law]

6/25/2010 9:22:27 PM

Quote :

"Also to note, all this info is only really relative to assholes like me to flame on the internet or with other photographers."

sounds like there's as much opinion as fact in what you posted...it also sounds like most pro shooters have decided that the supposed inferiority of nikon is irrelevant...otherwise, wouldn't they all have switched to canon if the difference was so obvious?

i realize that i'm very far beneath you in terms of experience, equipment, and knowledge, but i would assume that even pros have some biases

6/26/2010 4:50:29 PM

Quote :

"sounds like most pro shooters have decided that the supposed inferiority of nikon is irrelevant"

armchair statistics up in here

6/26/2010 5:31:39 PM

the opinion of one pro carries far more weight than the opinion of someone less than an amateur, but neither carries as much weight as actual evidence...wouldn't you agree?

not saying that it isn't technically true, but i'd be interested to see something unbiased, something relatively factual

*shrug*

6/26/2010 5:55:47 PM

I would say personal preference is of higher relevance than actual data, since the data is so close

Similar to a rifle. If there is only one "best" rifle in the world, wouldnt everyone be using it? Maybe one marksman feels one model rifle fits him better than another, or one's merits outweigh another's. It all comes down to how the specific user feels about the equipment

6/26/2010 6:55:07 PM

^ i didn't say preference was irrelevant or less relevant...my point is exactly the opposite

lacking any scientifically accurate evidence (again, not saying there isn't any, but i'd really like to see it), the ONLY relevant thing is preference, which is why, for all intents and purposes, "there is no image quality difference between comparable nikon and canon DSLRs" is a valid statement...i suppose i should avoid making absolute statements and should have qualified it somehow

i hold to the belief that canon and nikon are absolutely equal and that the ONLY differences between comparable models are those relating to personal preference..."totally false" stems from bias, not fact (especially in regards to the cameras as a whole, since one might TECHNICALLY perform better in one area, and the other in another)

*shrug*

[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2010 8:30:03 PM

I'd say that for 90% of shooters 99% of the time the time the differences between nikon and canon are irrelevant. Yes there are differences in the extremes but an amateur shooting their cats there is no difference.

[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 8:50 PM. Reason : their vs. there]

6/26/2010 8:50:13 PM