yes, polarized. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

3/12/2008 5:02:56 PM

did u take multiple shots and stitch them together?

3/12/2008 5:10:00 PM

Yes, that's 7 or 8 shots stitched with the canon software.

3/14/2008 5:31:48 PM

Bump

3/15/2008 11:44:11 PM

^^ it's a nice shot. Did you play with the levels any? looks like the contrast was bumped some.

3/15/2008 11:55:48 PM

And this is why I love my 1D mkIIn + 300 f/2.8 IS.

3/20/2008 12:25:40 PM

Stereotypical baseball shot:

Tall, fat umpire: check.
Short guy from the team: check.
Yelling over something retarded: check.

3/20/2008 1:04:50 PM

Quote :

"and this is why I love my 1D mkIIn + 300 f/2.8 IS."

You do know you don't need $6k in gear to get that shot, right? You can do the same with a 10D, a 70-200 f/4 and a cheap TC if you're a remotely competent photographer. Having nice gear is great and all, but having a huge wallet doesn't make you a good photographer.

One of the best photographers I know, PhotogRob shoots with a 10D and some bullshit lenses.


Congrats on the purchase though.

3/20/2008 5:22:53 PM

what OOF? And the pic is of the head coach, before he was ejected off the field.

[Edited on March 20, 2008 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2008 5:35:58 PM

ok - so i'm sure this has been asked and answered several times in this thread....but its 53 pages long....

so what do you guys suggest for someone who is just starting and not ready to buy an SLR? Like a starter camera. Willing to spend up to probably $300

Go!

3/20/2008 6:20:07 PM

I bought the Canon S3IS as my first digital camera. I STILL love it, and it use (I just got it back from my mom...her christmas present from a bunch of us was the S5)

Fujifilm makes good ones too (hopefully, miska and quagmire02 will post their experiences with theirs).

3/20/2008 6:24:46 PM

When I bought my first DSLR I was strongly considering a Canon S2IS. Since I was leaning toward SLR I instead went with a Pentax DS and loved it. Point of relevance: if you think you'll eventually want an SLR, you might as well get one and take your time learning it. Many of the beginner models across all the major brands are quite good and include "made for dummies" type features, in case you don't want to get overwhelmed with the technical aspects.

3/20/2008 8:32:29 PM

300 + 2x + 1.4x stacked.

3/21/2008 2:52:34 AM

thanks for your advise ambrosia1231 and PatTime

i definitely hear what your saying PatTime and it makes a lot of sense. also i was looking around and the Savannah College of Art and Design does 8-week classes for $300 at their Atlanta campus, which seems like a good deal....right?

3/21/2008 10:33:16 AM

Quote :

"so what do you guys suggest for someone who is just starting and not ready to buy an SLR? Like a starter camera. Willing to spend up to probably $300"

i think it depends where you want to go with it...there are differences between point-and-shoot cameras and prosumer cameras

do you want to be able to put it in your pocket (p&s), or are you looking for something SLR-like (prosumer)? do you want to just be able to quickly select a shooting mode and fire off a shot (p&s) or do you want to be able to do that AND have the option of choosing your settings - shutter speed, f-stop, manual focus, etc. (prosumer)

either way, there are two things that i think are absolutely necessary when choosing a camera if you're a photography enthusiast of any level (as opposed to a webshots whore kind of person ):

optical zoom - digital zoom means absolutely nothing, so completely ignore that when choosing a camera...3x optical is about standard, but i think it's pretty crappy...i'd STRONGLY suggest going with something that has 10-12x optical...if you're not going to have different lenses, this is, by far, the most important feature of a non-SLR camera



image stabilization - this may not seem like it's necessary, but it's one of those features that you'll be very happy you paid a bit extra for

good information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization#Optical_Image_Stabilization

a third thing that's very important are the optics...the only premium optics i've used are zeiss and leica, and would take one of those two, hands-down, over generic glass...also well worth the extra bit of money

i'm a huge fan of the lumix line of panasonic's...i (personally) like leica optics over zeiss, but i doubt there's any big difference...canon has the best image stabilization of any point-and-shoot i've ever used, but panasonic's OIS comes in at a VERY close second...combine those two facts with some good optical zoom (panasonic has several models with 10x or better) and panasonic becomes a GREAT choice IMO

for a p&s, look at the panasonic DMC-TZ3 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/)
it's around $300, the top of your range, but WELL worth the money

now, if you want more options, like the ability to manually select everything (including focus), your only choice is a prosumer camera, which is larger and has an SLR size, style, and feel to it...i, personally, use the FZ30 (the too-large pictures above, that i stupidly thought were small enough, were taken the FZ30 and while not my best work, are a pretty good representation of what you'll get before any editing), though they have a newer version, which is my recommendation to you:

panasonic DMC-FZ50 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/)
this is probably out of your range at ~$500, but this is as feature-packed and quality as you're going to get without getting a DSLR

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

3/21/2008 11:31:10 AM

I really found a liking to my Canon Nifty Fifty 50mm 1,8 fixed lens. I think I like it because of the speed, clarity, and the biggest draw is the price.

I think I spent $50 for it and it was well worth the price. I like it more than my 3.5 IS 75-200mm. However I am thinking of upgrading to a faster zoom lens. Are there any other glass that anyone would recommend that would be equal in comparison and price?

3/24/2008 9:21:30 AM

what are you looking to do or shoot? The nifty 50 is probably the best low light valued lens in canon's line up. The 85 1.8 USM is a good value, but it's like 300 or so. The 35 f/2 is a decent glass for the price too, but I think that's 200.

3/24/2008 9:29:02 AM

In terms of point and shoot with a good length lens, I have heard great things about the Canon SX100IS, and am about to buy one myself.

Street price $299 but most places have cut it down to $250 now.

3/24/2008 9:35:35 AM

^ i've also heard really good things about that one...my only concern is the glass

i've not used that particular model (and it's not like canons have a reputation for poor picture quality - exactly the opposite, really), but in my experience, the quality of the glass (as i mentioned before, i prefer leica or zeiss) makes a noticeable difference at full optical zoom and in VERY close shots...so noticeable (IMO), that it's a deal-breaker for me

that said, i guess it depends on what sort of shots you're taking, and how large you like your pictures - i actually print mine out (8x10, mostly) on professional equipment, but at that size and larger (i can get about 11x14 if i'm REALLY lucky), the difference is there and simply not acceptable

3/24/2008 10:07:11 AM

I bought my parents the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 for Christmas and would recommend it to anyone. I got it at HH Gregg for $224 (most places are now charging around $279). I looked at many others like the Canon S5 and the features didn't compare to the TZ3.

The selling features for me:
-One of the best lenses on the market for a point and shoot - Leica glass
-Advertised as 10x optical zoom, but it doesn't make a huge sacrifice on the wide angle side like some others. The effective range is 28-280mm. The Canon SX100 is 36-360mm which might get a little closer but won't capture as wide of an angle scene.
-Image stabilization (good for old people with shaky hands). I tested the camera in the store by shaking it while I took pictures and they were clear.
-It is advertises as a 7.2 megapixel but the sensor is actually an 8.5. This is useful if you take pictures in different formats (16:9...).



[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2008 10:11:52 AM

Quote :

"what are you looking to do or shoot? The nifty 50 is probably the best low light valued lens in canon's line up. The 85 1.8 USM is a good value, but it's like 300 or so. The 35 f/2 is a decent glass for the price too, but I think that's 200."

I'm looking for most likely a farther zoom lens then the 50mm. Mostly for indoor pictures of my baby daughter but I also want to invest for the future for sporting events and other outdoor pictures.

I was mistaken earlier incorrectly stating my other lens that I have. It is actually a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and it takes nice pictures with good light but in low light or distance it's so/so. I am debating to upgrade to a farther range like Canon 70-200 or a 75-300 lens or generic lens like Sigma or others with a fast aperture for low light conditions.

Is it worth the investment to keep it in the Canon family and spend the money to get a Red Ring Lens or IS with a fast aperture or will a sub brand work? i am not a professional photographer but I want something to last and take nice, clear pictures. I am also trying to get the best for the buck as well. I am willing to spend the money if it's really worth it but it's sometimes difficult to convince the wife that dropping a $1000+ on a lens is worth it. Thanks.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

3/24/2008 10:24:36 AM

The canon L lens are nice, but expensive. The good thing about them is that they hold their value. You can buy a 70-200 f/4 non-IS lens today for about $500-550 used, use it for a few months and resell it for about the same price. You find this among most L lens, even if they are old as shit.

Sigma makes some nice lens too, but their value doesn't hold up as strong as Canon's, but their telephoto's are strong performers for a good bit less of money, specially if you buy an already used one. I've seen 70-200 versions of sigma f/2.8 for about the 600-700 range with little use. IS only helps with camera shake, so if you have enough light, you shouldn't need it. It helps with panning shots though, but it also adds $600 to any lens (the good IS with dual modes).

I would say a 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS would be a keeper lens, but if you never owned an L lens before, get the f/4 version. It's cheaper and light weight compared to other telephotos in it's class. It's also the best bang for the buck L lens on the market. The other one is the 17-40 wide angle zoom, but I disliked mine because of poor image quality.

3/24/2008 11:03:28 AM

Quote :

"having a huge wallet doesn't make you a good photographer."

Bingo. A few things to remember:

The camera doesn't matter:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

The megapixels don't matter:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

3/24/2008 11:35:00 AM

^ i rely on ken rockwell pages to explain certain things to certain people, too

he does a great job of explaining points that i get frustrated with, though i DO disagree with some of his blanket statements

for example,

Quote :

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."

is something i disagree with...i realize his point is that a bad photographer can't take "good" pictures on a great camera, and that a great photographer can take good shots on a POS...but if you're a decent photographer, and you're trying to stretch your budget P&S to create SLR-like images (which is entirely possible), your equipment DOES matter, at least some...i'll argue that my leica glass outperforms a $24.99 no-name special from wal-mart in taking the exact same shot

also, his assertion about MP not mattering is true...but only under certain circumstances...for example, the newest version of my camera (mine's an FZ30, the new one is an FZ50) is a good example of how it doesn't matter - cramming 2 more MP onto the same-sized sensor doesn't do jack...but if you're comparing MP with corresponding sensor sizes, it can matter

3/24/2008 12:33:38 PM

Ken Rockwell ftmfw.

3/24/2008 12:34:45 PM

having good equipment gives the photograph more creative control, but when you compre slr's to other slr's, you are dealing with minor details. Glass is important, but you can get away with a cheap lens than a premium lens.

I say this because that 17-40 I had, man those images were soft as hell even stopped down from f/4 to f/8 and images were just totally unusable. People kept saying to mount it on a tripod and it was "user error" for the blurred or soft images. Shit, I was taking landscape pictures in bright day light at ISO 100 f/8 and at 1/250 shutter speed at 17mm, camera shake should not be an issue. The kit lens gave sharper images.

Also, the 1.3x crop factor sensor I have now with the new camera, makes my 24-70 seem like a whole new lens and enjoying the wider viewing angle. Can't wait till I can afford a 16-35.


The one thing that nocks my socks off with photog's is the amount of people who claim to be a pro. Let me start of saying that I do not claim myself to be a pro. Even though I get paid for photo service and have my own business, I like to see myself as an aspiring photographer just because I'm learning the ropes in all generes. It's just a hobby and I have fun at it. Any money I make from it, goes back into the hobby.

3/24/2008 1:23:24 PM

I agree that sometime the blanket statements might be a bit much. There are a few times when yes, the camera matters.

Point and counterpoint:

My parents, several years ago, bought me an HP733 digital camera as a last minute Christmas Eve "holy crap we don't know what he wants so we'll get him a random digicam" present. It was, in a word...crap. It takes FOREVER to focus and there's essentially no manual controls. I can occasionally coax out a good macro image, but that's it. Taking multiple seconds to focus means the shot could be lost, and since the image quality from that thing was grainy anyway...


Another example:
Underwater photography -- you can take some fantastic shots with a dSLR if you know what you're doing (plus plenty of crap shots, too). You can also take some great shots with a point and shoot. But...
I've used a "SeaLife DC500" underwater camera before. It's a point and shoot in a housing, and it's terrible -- image quality is way below average, no manual controls -- just a bunch of built-in settings. Battery life is god-awful (especially with the flash). Like the HP camera I mentioned, this camera also takes forever to focus and half the time it isn't correct, so the shot is usually gone. The flash is usually too powerful and overexposes everything if the object is close.



Hmm....there's a main idea in there somewhere. I can get halfway decent shots out of both those cameras, but I get a higher percentage of good shots from higher-quality cameras. I suppose Ken Rockwell does have a good point, in that the camera's job is to get out of your way and let you take the images you want. Both those cameras I mentioned are annoying and frustrating to use.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2008 5:30:48 PM

all these SLR-like point-n-shoots are just that....point-n-shoots, they don't belong in an SLR thread.

If you've got a $300 budget, grow your budget by another $100 and get a used DSLR on ebay. I picked up my 2nd Canon 10D body for $300 last fall. Then just get yourself a lens and enjoy some real photography.

3/24/2008 5:43:00 PM

Quote :

"all these SLR-like point-n-shoots are just that....point-n-shoots, they don't belong in an SLR thread."

i understand you haven't been in this thread since the beginning (or maybe you have, but i don't recall it), so i'll let it slide because this turned into a (slightly more educated) digital photography thread MANY pages ago...you're probably just going to have to get over that, as (i think) we've all really enjoyed the thread for what it's turned into (because of that, it probably belongs in the lounge more than chit chat, but meh)

Quote :

"If you've got a $300 budget, grow your budget by another $100 and get a used DSLR on ebay. I picked up my 2nd Canon 10D body for $300 last fall. Then just get yourself a lens and enjoy some real photography."

you are a perfect example of why ken rockwell's pages are necessary...i understand your point of view, but for the rest of us (there have been A LOT of "real" photographers in this thread that have been nothing but helpful and not even remotely condescending) who can understand that it's the photographer that makes the pictures, not the camera (the point rockwell makes over and over again), you don't need to drop a grand on camera equipment to generate quality (and i say a grand because to get the range of my camera, it would cost a grand)

i'd love to hear a "real" photographer (you excluded, because the tone of your last post pegs you as an elitist) say that a prosumer (you know, a p&s with all the options) is an unacceptable route to go for those of us who want to practice photography with nice equipment (not professional) that will allow us to learn how advanced photography works, without dropping ridiculous amounts of money

my 8x10 prints are just as good as anything you can churn out (i'm talking about the actual quality of the image)...you are a better photographer, but that's something i'm working on, and there is absolutely NOTHING your equipment can teach me about becoming a better photographer (in terms of composition, layout, etc.) that mine can't do just as well...and mine cost less than 50% of your equivalent, i'll bet

3/24/2008 9:18:24 PM

http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651

Photos made with a Canon A620 p&s.

3/24/2008 9:59:48 PM

that's damn impressive

3/24/2008 11:22:35 PM

^^ Someone beat that guy with an HDR stick.

3/24/2008 11:32:30 PM

this is Rajiv...one of the fish in our tank at work


me playing around with my R2 filter


that homeless lady on hboro that always ask for change


whats up dog


water on my windshield


junk bin at the flea market...notice the kids eating watermelon


more flea market junk


took this the other day leaving the office

3/25/2008 11:13:57 AM

I've been doing a lot of reading and research when deciding what telephoto lens to get before my trip to AK this fall. I don't have an unlimited budget and I want something that will be comfortable to carry around. So with that I think I have landed on the 70-200L F/4. The price seems right and I've read nothing but good things about them. Even from people that went with the 2.8 said that the 4 was still a great deal and easier to carry. I'm also thinking of getting a teleconverter to gain a little bit more reach. I have had a tougher time deciding on the 50, while the 1.8 is waaaay affordable the 1.4 seems like a better lens due to construction and the autofocus motor being USM. But the price seems a little more prohibitive.

comments?

3/25/2008 12:33:58 PM

Quag- Yep. That last post was meant to sound elitist... but only to the extent that DSLRs are superior to P&S cameras. You can get great images with both types if you know what you're doing, and you can also get crap with both if you don't. DSLRs just can't be touched when it comes to speed, versatility, and responsiveness, which IMO makes them much better to learn on. You can grow your camera system as you grow as a photographer. I don't shoot still-life photos, I shoot people...portraits, sports, weddings, events, etc. For me, the delay in focus and shutter response is so bad even on the most versatile macro-18x-manual-options-bells-and-whistles-DSLR-like P&S camera that I couldn't imagine using one to capture life as it happens. I could probably use one for still-lifes, landscapes, travel...but not for the type of photography i do. Go back and read my last post again, I wasn't suggesting that someone drop, as you suggest, "a grand", or 10+ grand in the case of JBaz, I was suggesting spending around $400 for a basic DSLR and lens to learn on. Im right there with ya on the point about, "it's not the camera, it's the photographer." Some of the photographers I admire and look up to use entry-level DSLRs, ala Digi Rebels and Sony Alphas.

3/25/2008 12:41:00 PM

^^The 70-200 f/4L is definitely a great lens. I'd recommend either that lens or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I used to shoot with the latter and it was an amazing lens, but you'd have to consider that it is a lot heavier than the f/4L.

I've owned both the 50 1.8 and 1.4. Go with the 1.8 since it fits your budget right now. It's a Canon lens so you can always sell it later on for a little less than what you paid for it and upgrade to the 1.4 like I eventually did. Either lens is a good option.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/25/2008 12:48:41 PM

Quote :

"I was suggesting spending around $400 for a basic DSLR and lens to learn on."

i debated getting a DSLR (even visited Ronny at CC a few years back when i was considering it, and he was very helpful)...but i really disagree with you...for $400, you're going to get a VERY limited camera (i agree 100% that what you get will be of higher quality, both in manufacture and in operation), but can that $400 give you a wide range of experience? of course not - no way will anyone find a decent DSLR and lenses that will offer an impressive range of macro to telephoto for that amount of money...for that price, i just can't see how it would be useful to limit oneself so much

to me, it seems far more worthwhile to teach yourself how to judge things like focus, f-stop, depth of field, or any number of other photographic nuances that have to be taken into consideration when producing quality photographs, while in addition being able to have the versatility of a quick point-and-shoot, AS WELL AS the ability to do macro/tele-type stuff (granted, they're not true macro and not truly telephoto, either), all in one neat package...to get that same range (and yes, i think that's very necessary, because some people have a great passion for things like macro photography, and how would you know if you didn't have the ability to do it?), you'd have to spend a lot more than $400

when someone first picks up a camera, do they know they're going to love it? when they start framing their first shots, when they start playing with depth of field, do they know what to do and what the results will be? i just can't see spending $400 on a setup that only half-way exposes the new photographer to photography, when they aren't even sure they'll develop a passion for it...much better to spend the same amount on an all-in-one that gives them a taste of the full experience so that if they don't care for it, they don't have a lot of equipment sitting around that they'll never use

ALSO, i think that prosumer products offer an ease-of-use that DSLRs don't - you don't have to worry about dust or making sure you have all your lenses with you or any number of other things that come with having multiple higher-quality pieces of equipment...you just pick up your camera and decide what you want to practice with each day

i realize this is just a difference of opinion (and we're both entitled to it...also, the fact that you've worked extensively with DSLRs while i have not lends weight to your opinion), but i just can't think of a single compelling reason for a new photographer enthusiast to buy professional equipment from day one...it's simply not practical

3/25/2008 12:57:24 PM

I think you greatly understate the value of what can be shot with a standard range zoom lens. But I do see what your sayin, so let me revise my recommendation a little bit. If someone doesn't know jack about photography but might want to get into it and dabble in nature photography, macro photography, and all-around-picture taking, they can get a top-of-the-line P&S. But if someone wants to shoot people at all...their kids playing soccer, people portraits, anything in the journalistic style, there is no substitute for an SLR. I'm not recommending professional equipment, just basic SLR equipment to learn on. Used is fine, that's how I got my start. Lets just agree to disagree.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2008 1:31:00 PM

A guy I know out in California takes some pretty amazing shots underwater with his D200.
You can see a gallery here...
http://www.divematrix.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/3/sl/m

A few examples: (I hope he doesn't mind me linking)
Wide angle shot on ascent near a kelp forest...


Macro shot of a nudibranch (sea slug)...


I love these macro shots of nudibranches...

3/25/2008 1:38:08 PM

54

3/25/2008 1:38:30 PM

the underwater shots are awesome

Quote :

"A guy I know out in California takes some pretty amazing shots underwater with his D200. You can see a gallery here... http://www.divematrix.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/3/sl/m A few examples: (I hope he doesn't mind me linking) Wide angle shot on ascent near a kelp forest... Macro shot of a nudibranch (sea slug)... I love these macro shots of nudibranches... "

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : quote]

3/25/2008 1:40:00 PM

Yeah, they're pretty incredible.

3/25/2008 1:59:47 PM

im jealous

3/25/2008 2:01:08 PM

The camera rig for those shots is huge. The arms for the strobes stretch out to ~6ft wide if i remember correctly. Thankfully they're retractable for easy handling when you're not shooting.

Shooting underwater on scuba takes a lot more skill than above water, especially if you're doing macro work on something the size of a grain of rice. If nothing else, the simple fact that natural light is absorbed by the water makes it difficult to get shots with any red in them unless you're shallow, or you have a good set of strobes. The deeper you go, the more colors are absorbed in the order of the rainbow -- ROYGBIV. Thus, strobes are necessary to create photos like the ones above.


This is the housing + arms and strobes. Note that the D200 is not inside in these photos.






[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2008 2:10:35 PM

It has probably been mentioned before in this thread but since I am lazy perhaps someone could give me a quick answer. I am buying my first DSLR, a Canon 400D, and I have heard from somewhere that the kit lens is a piece of shit. Can anyone suggest a better starter, general purpose lens?

3/25/2008 4:06:42 PM

Tamron Di 18-250mm is a fantastic all purpose lens.

3/25/2008 4:09:21 PM

The Canon EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM I currently have it on mine. Also the Canon's EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good multipurpose lens. From what I have been reading the 50 F/1.8 II is a great lens for a fantastic price, sub $100.

3/25/2008 5:06:48 PM

I was able to upgrade to SLR with a XTI from Dell for $305 on a price mistake. I'll be joining the thread now.

3/25/2008 9:07:17 PM

How did you manage that?

3/25/2008 9:25:19 PM

That was on Slickdeals. I almost bought an extra XTi body but will likely get the new XSi instead when the price drops a little.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=349975&t=775401

I have seen a few places selling the XTi kit for under $500 the the body for under $350. I'm guessing they're getting rid of XTI's because the new XSi is out with improved features. The XSi has:
-12.2 MP
-uses SD/SDHC instead of CF
-live view 3" LCD

The XSi kit also comes with the new 18-55 IS, which is an improvement over the old XTi 18-55.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 8:05 AM. Reason : of]

3/26/2008 7:51:52 AM