I figured you were a newbie, anticipation is always good and will make you a better photographer but beginners usually are considered with actually getting the shot so sometimes that information is important.

sb-900 is huge for lil ol d40 but ideal

11/13/2008 10:45:01 PM

Well I am just starting out.

I dont know if I need a true sports photographer lens, but Ill just be taking most of my pictures at first while at sporting events. Thats the only reason I asked.

11/13/2008 10:47:24 PM

haha yeah, the SB-900 is probably bigger and heavier than a D40... lol

11/13/2008 10:47:52 PM

Quote :

"What kind of lens is best for sports shots from the stands..."

Get out of the stands If you want good practice shooting sports, start with little league sports. You'll get much closer access than with pro sports. Getting physically closer will help you, and get obstructions out of the way like fans and fences (see below). With most sports I can think of...football, soccer, basketball, wrestling...the pros mostly sit down to get that different, low perspective most fans way up high don't get to see.

That being said, I've only shot sports from the stands a couple times. These're my fav:




You can see the riot fence blurred in the foreground of the one photo...a drawback from shooting in the stands. shot with a 70-200.

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/13/2008 11:18:29 PM

I have a 55-200mm lens and was waaaaaaaaay up in the stands and this is the closest I got

11/13/2008 11:21:26 PM

Ok. here goes. Ive got an Olympus E-500 digital camera. Two lenses, one is wide angle, and the other is "normal" aperture. I also just came into ownership of a telephoto lense. its a big motherfucker. I have one problem though. the adapter ring on it is made for a Pentax digital. I have a whole bag full of adapters, but none of them fit. I tried google, but Im so used to point/click auto focus cameras that I don't even know what the fuck to search for.
Hell, if I took a class at state and the prof handed out a sylybus that looked like the instruction manual for this thing, i'd drop that bitch within the hour.

Can anyone help me? or what I should search for?

Camera is E-500 Olympus digital with flash/sd capability ect (i dunno if thats standard or not) the telephotolense is an opteka HD2 420-800mm Super Telephoto 1:8.-16 62mm'

if the web doesn't help me, what kind of store would have staff that knows what the hell i'm talking about as well as having the gear I need?

11/14/2008 4:20:27 AM

I'm not sure Pentax to Olympus adapters exist, but if they did, you probably wouldn't want one. Your lens would lose all communication with the camera and you'd have to do everything manually, from focusing to physically setting the aperture and you'd only be able to use it on manual (M) mode. If you like the lens, I'd sell it and buy a new one that's meant for Olympus. As far as lenses go, it's dirt cheap. http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-420-1600mm-Telephoto-Olympus-Digital/dp/B000YGF1FO

11/14/2008 7:36:58 AM

11/14/2008 2:53:34 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830113037
Newegg has the d40 for $439 and if you buy it soon, you can get a 2gb card and case for free.

Also, I read somewhere that the sb-400 was good for the d40.

[Edited on November 14, 2008 at 3:02 PM. Reason : sb]

11/14/2008 3:00:30 PM

Wolf Camera has the d40 for 449 with 50 dollar gift card, a free printer, free classes, free case, free prints, and free kit lens.

11/14/2008 3:01:56 PM

Quote :

"Wolf Camera has the d40 for 449 with 50 dollar gift card, a free printer, free classes, free case, free prints, and free kit lens."

I was looking on the website and couldn't find this info...

11/14/2008 3:08:05 PM

Maybe it's just the store in Knoxville. I got their new catalog and it says it right in there.

11/14/2008 3:20:45 PM

well, you have to pay for the printer up front but get rebated for it.

11/14/2008 3:23:15 PM

^7 PhotogRob

The lens itself is NOT a pentax lens. it just has an adapter on it ( i got it from a guy who forgot to take his adapter off of it) the barrel and lens diameter and looks fine and it doesn't have any electrical contacts on it , yet it says "digital" right on the bevel. So i'm lead to believe it acts like a run of the mill doubler, something that would screw onto the end of a stock lense l like UV filter, then i could just use the mass focus rings to adjust the fine focus on the camera base lens to tune it in. i'm imagining that once i get it in the ballpark, the telephoto wouldn't need to be fucked with that much anyway as I'm sure its DOF is going to be close to infinite. which is ok , i have photoshop just like everyone else >.<


does that explain anything any better? I

11/14/2008 11:14:28 PM

You're saying the lens isn't meant for any brand of camera, you just need the adapter for your brand and then you screw it onto the lens? If that's the case, it sounds like you need a t-mount adapter.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/261261-REG/Celestron_93414_T_Mount_SLR_Camera_Adapter.html

11/15/2008 6:53:39 AM

Are filters any good? adorama is selling some tiffen filters for like 220$ its a pack of 4.. is it really worth it?

11/17/2008 2:21:16 AM

11/17/2008 3:47:11 PM

God I've got so many pictures of my card I need to edit.

This working two jobs thing is for the birds.

On the flip side, I may be able to buy a new lens soon.

11/17/2008 4:08:46 PM

Kiwi, cool i'm about to grab a 55-200mm VR, too. Make sure you get the VR one.

I've been doing a lot of research on what to get for a little more reach and while a 18-200mm would be quite nice, its pricey. From what i gather, the 55-200mm VR is a fantastic bang for the buck and is optically superior to the 18-200 from 150mm+. Its not built nearly as nicely though. But then it is quite small and lightweight.

D40 + 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm VR = great lightweight, small, bang for the buck kit.



I'm also about to grab an old Nikon F3 35mm SLR. I want to play with film and i want to tinker with old timey technology. They just don't make/build stuff like they used to... Its cool to be able to pick a professional level camera that will last another 25 years for under $200. Also, being a Nikon, i can use its lenses w/ newer stuff and some of my newer lenses with it. (with a few catches here and there). I'm also going to get a couple sweet really fast prime MF lenses (50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4 or F1.8. or maybe a 28mm or something wide). I can use them on the D40 as well.



Question about flash. How often do you play w flash compensation? I find that for example, i'm taking a pic indoors and need a flash, i need to take a pic, look at it, adjust the flash compensation, look, adjust again, etc. Since the camera doesnt' meter anticipating a flash, i need to add and play w/ it myself. Is this normal? Do you get good at guessing compensation values w/ experience or is there a smarter way?

11/17/2008 8:46:29 PM

So my gf loves taking photos of things and was always interested in photography but never had more than a regular kodak digital camera. She's mentioned a few times in the past year she's always wanted a dslr. My sister has the nikon d40x and loves it to death, so I've been thinking about one of the lower end models such as the d40 to d60. Any other suggestions?

11/17/2008 9:10:24 PM

the d40x is now the d60

11/17/2008 9:25:32 PM

^^^What newer lenses do you have that will work with the F3?

As for flash compensation, cameras should meter just fine with the flash attached, but this is one area where it doesn't pay to be cheap. Are you using the manufacturer's brand flash or a 3rd party? I used to use a Sunpak flash and it was absolute crap when it came to TTL metering.

11/17/2008 10:14:35 PM

^as long as it isn't a g lense it should work on the F3 fine. DX lenses would be a problem but all of those are g lenses anyway.

11/17/2008 10:27:26 PM

Well, that depends on what you mean by "work"

My shitty 18-55mm kit lense will mount and manual focus. It will meter properly. It doesnt have an aperture ring though so itd be stuck full stopped down unless i propped the aperture lever up. New higher end lenses w/ aperture rings will work on the F3 perfectly (using manual focus since the F3 is manual focus only)

Slightly newer old cameras from the F3AF (autofocus, mid '80s) will fully work with a new AF lense w/ an aperture ring.

edit: ^true the DX lenses will cause vignetting. Hrmm i wonder how bad it'd be.

Conversely, any new Nikon body with inbody AF drive (anything but the D40/D60) can use the old '80s lenses no problem. They can even read EXIF data from them.

My D40 will use the old MF lenses to their fullest. Old lenses on new bodies seems to be the intention. New lenses on old bodies, not so great.



I don't fully understand how the flash metering works. I'm using the built in flash. Seems like if i take the pic with no flash (say in P mode) it will be dark as expected. If i then enable the flash, it will be way too bright. So i always have to turn the flash compensation down to like -2EV to get a nice looking exposure. I'm probably doing somethign wrong... ? From what i understand the flash should sort of flash twice. A mini first flash which is metered and then a second with the shutter to take the pic. is that right?

[Edited on November 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM. Reason : asas]

11/17/2008 10:34:33 PM

does the d40 let you use it in aperture mode as well?.. like you switch the aperture and it gives you the shutter speed it thinks is best?i think only the higher end ones do that.

i guess it doesn't matter eitherway. I have a nikon FA. broke it kinda though. it works but i have to turn something on the bottom when i wind it for the next shot to cock the shutter. blast it. currently still trying to get rid of my N65

direct on camera flash always looks a bit harsh. also make sure you focus is spot on. i know a lot of people who just don't realize they are focusing on something behind the subject and so the flash compensates for the distance and washes out the subject

[Edited on November 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/17/2008 10:42:07 PM

^^^That's what I was getting at

^^The vignetting of the DX lenses on 35mm film would be substantial. http://lh3.ggpht.com/_aGLbdAXBlsg/R4rx4gzCQaI/AAAAAAAAJ_E/SrjwXMja58c/D3C_0849.jpg

I'm no Nikon expert, but I think there's only about 6 nikon lenses that'll fully work with the D40 and F3, and those would be the ones that are D lenses (with the aperture ring) and have the AF-S motor; and they're all pro len$e$.

^Good suggestion regarding the focusing. I have no help to offer about the on-camera flash except for the snide remark that on-camera flash is evil and should be eliminated.

11/17/2008 11:13:46 PM

Well, barring the D40/D60, ALL old Nikkor lenses will work with new bodies. MF will of course work, AF lenses will still AF. All old lenses being full frame will work with DX and FX bodies. D40/D60 will MF only.

But yeh, new lenses aren't as nicely backwards compatible. new AFS won't AF, DX lenses are too small, G types don't have aperture rings. see? new stuff is crap

But thats fine, old lenses are built very well, are optically really nice, and are reasonably priced. I bet its fun to buy old glass and see how it works with new stuff. I look forward to it.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm#dslr

11/18/2008 1:09:18 AM

alright, so i'm wondering...given i use my 75-300mm telephoto lens to do most of my closeups on snakes, should i save up next for the IS lens i was planning on getting, or should i save for a 2x teleconverter? im worried my shots will turn out blurry as hell if i just go with a teleconverter since i shoot handheld 99% of the time. am i right to think i would be better off saving up for the IS telephoto first?

11/18/2008 11:42:50 PM

Don't save for the 2x.

Quote :

"This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses. "

If you like doing the close-up photos of snakes, maybe this lens would interest you:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/389299-USA/Sigma_105101_Telephoto_180mm_f_3_5_EX.html

11/19/2008 12:06:48 AM

5D Mk II pre-order

11/19/2008 12:57:00 AM

^^can you even put a 2x on a 75-300 lens? But yeah, that sigma macro lens is pretty sweet and a good value. I don't see a lot of used ones floating around so I guess that's a good sign, means ppl are keeping them.

^^^what exactly do you mean "closeups"? Like macro or are you really far from the subject? What about a life-size extension tube or whatever they call it.

11/19/2008 1:50:19 AM

Nope, you can't even put the 2x on a 75-300mm lens. That quote I pulled was from Canon's website listing the lenses that are compatible with the teleconverters.

11/19/2008 7:12:30 AM

ah fuck....missed that part. im still a noob when it comes to all the DSLR gear. looks like my fixed focal length lenses are too small for that serious of a teleconverter, so that's out of the picture.

Rob, the lens you linked to looks great, though it's a little out of my price range. ok, not just a little. it's like twice what i can afford. not only that, but it's fixed focal length (from all i can tell), which doesn't really suit me well when i try to get closeups of bigass rattlesnakes. the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 works well because the closest i can get for focus is just outside of strike range with the bigger fellas i work with. so i do macro shots on non-venomous species, no problem, but i usually save the macro for only the tiniest snakes (and of course, salamanders and small frogs too). doing a lot of wildlife photography in general, i think im just better off sticking with the telephoto lens. i just wish i could get more reach out of it when i need it without upping the price to $1k+.

so i guess that answers that for me.

now next question...buying used lenses. of course, there are some great deals listed on ebay, but there are the obvious drawbacks with those. price too good to be true (scam), scratches, dust, and otherwise crappy condition of lenses. craigslist, on the other hand, gives you the opportunity to meet up with the person and give it a good look over at least before you fork over the cash. my problem is im in a remote area. it's about an hour to savannah, hilton head, beaufort, and 1.5 hours to charleston, 2 hours to columbia. not too many craiglist photo equipment listings in these areas. i found one listing for the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens in savannah and talked to the guy. seemed like a nice guy. so i need to know if the $375 price tag the guy put on it is worth it. consider that this is the next-to-last generation of the lens, not the latest (70-300mm). the latest generation sells for about $500 new on the lower end. so essentially, is $375 a good price for that used lens? or should i be able to find one in good condition cheaper than that (i know they're cheaper on ebay, but need to know if that's just too good to be true).

11/19/2008 10:55:15 AM

My sister who is a photographer is talking about going to brooks institute in Cali. and maybe doing still photography-for like movies I think. Is this school good? Is this a good field? does it pay well? I know nothing about photography.

11/19/2008 4:24:35 PM

^^That's a fair price he's offering it to you for. It could be a little lower, but it's fair. Your photos, at least the ones you post, seem pretty sharp. Why not just start saving instead?

^It's a very good photography school. I'm uncertain about the future of photography, though. Major changes could be happening very soon with the proliferation of HD video and whatever HD video's successor will be.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 6:22:02 PM

^^ Brooks is a very good school. A lot of our graduates go there to continue with higher level photography education. It's a very intense school and pretty expensive. If your sister is really devoted to photography, then it's a great choice. Cali opens up a lot of doors and Brooks has a lot of good connections.

^It's true, photography is in a pickle right now. The Super HD camera's, like the Red One, is another revolutionary jump. Our professors says the change is drastic, like mainstream still photography going from film to digital back in 2000. It's videography's version of that. While I think that HD may start to kill some photojournalism, I don't think it's gonna have much more impact in other areas, especially commercial.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 6:40:36 PM

Quote :

"That's a fair price he's offering it to you for. It could be a little lower, but it's fair. Your photos, at least the ones you post, seem pretty sharp. Why not just start saving instead?"

well thanks, but i really only post my favorite photos. my total shots taken : keeper ratio is skewed waaaaaay for total shots. im talking about i keep about 5-10 out of every 100 photos. i have taken shots of waaaay too many animals that show up as shit once i load them on the comp. i'd like to maximize my efforts and have less of those occasions where i shoot an awesome animal, let it go, and then find out later that the shots were all crap, and that animal is gone (really sucks with rare animals).

so yea, i'm stuck on the idea of an IS lens.

11/19/2008 6:41:34 PM

How about a monopod? IS only helps camera shake and if you are shooting at high shutter speeds, it won't have much effect to the quality of the picture. Are the pictures really blurry from image shake or from out of focus? The sharpness of the glass can play a roll as well.

11/19/2008 7:00:37 PM

Just got my EOS 40D with the 28-135 IS USM lens!!! Its simply superb!!

11/19/2008 7:06:22 PM

85

11/19/2008 7:06:32 PM

Quote :

"How about a monopod? IS only helps camera shake and if you are shooting at high shutter speeds, it won't have much effect to the quality of the picture. Are the pictures really blurry from image shake or from out of focus? The sharpness of the glass can play a roll as well."

you've got a point there, but if im gonna carry a monopod, why not go ahead and carry a tripod? i've tried cheap monopods (read: a sturdy stick) before with no significant improvement. i have days where my hand is steady, and some where it seems like im in withdrawal. but yea, it's shake thats causing my problems. i also like to shoot close to the ground, so im actually laying belly down on the ground with a lot of my shots, and as much as i try to steady my hands, it just doesnt work.
anyway, im not using L series lenses, so it's not like im expecting real crisp shots. and what qualifies as a "high shutter speed"? 1/100 sec? because i rarely try to shoot any slower than that.

11/19/2008 8:07:05 PM

general rule of thumb is 1/focal length. So if you were shooting at 300mm, you wouldn't want to shoot slower than 1/320th of a second. The more magnification, the more camera shake is noticeable. There's a few techniques you can do to reduce camera shake which includes proper bracing and support with your arms, a stable foot stance or posture, controlled breathing and not shacking the camera when pressing the shutter release.

Out of those, the pressing of the shutter release is probably 70% of the problem with most people. If you follow the same techniques at shooting a firearm for accuracy, it's about the same thing for photography. A good tip to counter it is to shoot in motor drive mode and hold the shutter down for 2-3 clicks.

11/19/2008 8:21:09 PM

Quote :

"IS only helps camera shake and if you are shooting at high shutter speeds"

The whole purpose of IS is to enable you to shoot at a slower shutter speed while still getting acceptably blur-free photographs. IS won't make a bit of difference if you're shooting at 1/2000th of a second. It probably won't make much of a difference if your shutter speed is 3 seconds either.

The basic concept:

11/19/2008 8:35:27 PM

I donno, I've been able to capture some sharp pictures at 24mm at a second, hand held with no flash and no IS. Probably luck than anything else.

11/19/2008 8:40:09 PM

yeah, that whole chart is approximate. Focal length plays a huge part....it's a whole lot easier to get sharp pictures handheld and flash-free at 1 second with a 24mm than it is a 300mm

11/19/2008 8:43:07 PM

ready for saturday? It's gonna be a long shoot. What strobes do you have again?

11/19/2008 8:48:00 PM

Bring it on. AB800s

11/19/2008 9:13:54 PM

interesting + informative: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

Have any other good photo related blogs?

11/19/2008 9:41:34 PM

latest:



^I'm looking for some good photography blogs, too

11/21/2008 1:35:27 PM

It's not a great picture, but I like it enough to frame it and give it to his mom as a christmas present.



Also, I should probably put at least one lens on my xmas/birthday wishlist.
I have
70-300
24-85
macro

I just don't know what to ask for. I can only justify a general purpose lens, if that. I don't shoot as much as I need to.

11/21/2008 1:45:38 PM