| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: Photography |
 |
|
| Im wondering if anyone here is into photography. Its sort of a passion for me but from all the time I spent browsing here photography hasnt really come up too often. Well, if you are an avid photographer, perhaps this thread would be a useful one to discuss ideas and share opinions about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm getting more and more into it- but you're right there only seem to be a couple of people on here who reply to photography threads.
What sort of stuff do you like to shoot? Equipment do you have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indytrucks
Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Location: The Shelf
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still shoot film. I haven't made the transition to dig because the dig body that would compare to my film body is waaaay too expensive. I've been so busy lately I haven't had time to get out and shoot, but hopefully that will change at the end of the month. I think a photo thread is a good idea.
PS All my gear is Canon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swiss James wrote: |
I'm getting more and more into it- but you're right there only seem to be a couple of people on here who reply to photography threads.
What sort of stuff do you like to shoot? Equipment do you have? |
Im on TrekEarth under the same nickname. I know you posted there once. I shoot with Canon 20D. I have a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 lens and buying the 50mm Canon f/1.8 this weekend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indytrucks
Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Location: The Shelf
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jinju,
Did you get your 20D here or in your home country? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indytrucks wrote: |
Jinju,
Did you get your 20D here or in your home country? |
here. cost me about 2.3 with everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indytrucks
Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Location: The Shelf
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Everything means what? What was the kit lens? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indytrucks wrote: |
| Everything means what? What was the kit lens? |
Stay away from the kit lens. I got tamron's 17-35 instead of the 18-55 kit lens from canon. The kit lens is terrible. The Tamron tested better than Cnon's 900-1000 dollar 17-40 f/4 L lens. Cost me about 500. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indytrucks
Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Location: The Shelf
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| indytrucks wrote: |
| Everything means what? What was the kit lens? |
Stay away from the kit lens. I got tamron's 17-35 instead of the 18-55 kit lens from canon. The kit lens is terrible. The Tamron tested better than Cnon's 900-1000 dollar 17-40 f/4 L lens. Cost me about 500. |
I've got the 17-40 f/4L, and I think it's great. Light and solid, good contrast and sharp. Keep in mind this is still with film, I've read differing things about the lens on dig bodies.
BTW, do you read fredmiranda.com? A great site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="jinju"]
| Swiss James wrote: |
Im on TrekEarth under the same nickname. I know you posted there once. I |
Yeah I found the quality there to be really high, just checked out your stuff and I'd definitely include you in that!
Flickr.com is much better for me, it resizes photos automatically, you can submit photos to "group pools" to get feedback, and the keyword/tag systems are good for chancing across stuff you might not have seen otherwise.
I'm still on film as well- Minolta Manual Focus bodies and lenses, which are incredibly cheap these days. Over Christmas I picked up a fast 28mm prime lens for 1 pound!
Oh and I've got a Yashica GSN rangefinder- which is a bit quirky compared to modern SLRs but has a great fixed 45mm f1.7 lens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indytrucks wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| indytrucks wrote: |
| Everything means what? What was the kit lens? |
Stay away from the kit lens. I got tamron's 17-35 instead of the 18-55 kit lens from canon. The kit lens is terrible. The Tamron tested better than Cnon's 900-1000 dollar 17-40 f/4 L lens. Cost me about 500. |
I've got the 17-40 f/4L, and I think it's great. Light and solid, good contrast and sharp. Keep in mind this is still with film, I've read differing things about the lens on dig bodies.
BTW, do you read fredmiranda.com? A great site. |
Yeah I do read that site as well as dpreview.com.
The 17-40 f/4L is a great lens. But two things about it turned me off. First the price. over 900 bucks would be justiffied if it was not just an f/4. f/2.8 AT LEAST, though f/1.8 would be even better. Thats why I went for the Tamron 17-35. Opens much wider. At 17mm I can shoot at f/2.8 which is still not really enough. And it was about half the price of the 17-40 L. Plus the Tamron tested better than the Canon between f/4 and f/11 I think. I shoot at large aperatures anyway so that was the clincher for me. But thank god that Canon makes a very very good and very very cheap 50mm which is an f/1.8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
The 17-40 f/4L is a great lens. But two things about it turned me off. First the price. over 900 bucks would be justiffied if it was not just an f/4. f/2.8 AT LEAST, though f/1.8 would be even better. Thats why I went for the Tamron 17-35. Opens much wider. At 17mm I can shoot at f/2.8 which is still not really enough. And it was about half the price of the 17-40 L. Plus the Tamron tested better than the Canon between f/4 and f/11 I think. I shoot at large aperatures anyway so that was the clincher for me. But thank god that Canon makes a very very good and very very cheap 50mm which is an f/1.8. |
When and what would you shoot at 17mm?!
I've heard a lot of good things about the Canon 50 / 1.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Swiss James"]
| jinju wrote: |
| Swiss James wrote: |
Im on TrekEarth under the same nickname. I know you posted there once. I |
Yeah I found the quality there to be really high, just checked out your stuff and I'd definitely include you in that!
Flickr.com is much better for me, it resizes photos automatically, you can submit photos to "group pools" to get feedback, and the keyword/tag systems are good for chancing across stuff you might not have seen otherwise.
I'm still on film as well- Minolta Manual Focus bodies and lenses, which are incredibly cheap these days. Over Christmas I picked up a fast 28mm prime lens for 1 pound!
Oh and I've got a Yashica GSN rangefinder- which is a bit quirky compared to modern SLRs but has a great fixed 45mm f1.7 lens |
Ive never used flickr. I put down 30 bucks a year for a PBase account. 300mb limit which for web sized photos is HUGE. Im at this address It allows me to organize my photos in galleries as I see fit.[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swiss James wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
The 17-40 f/4L is a great lens. But two things about it turned me off. First the price. over 900 bucks would be justiffied if it was not just an f/4. f/2.8 AT LEAST, though f/1.8 would be even better. Thats why I went for the Tamron 17-35. Opens much wider. At 17mm I can shoot at f/2.8 which is still not really enough. And it was about half the price of the 17-40 L. Plus the Tamron tested better than the Canon between f/4 and f/11 I think. I shoot at large aperatures anyway so that was the clincher for me. But thank god that Canon makes a very very good and very very cheap 50mm which is an f/1.8. |
When and what would you shoot at 17mm?!
I've heard a lot of good things about the Canon 50 / 1.8 |
17mm? I love shooting wide. GREAT for street shots, great for getting drama in your photos. Mostly I end up shooting below 35mm anyway. What I really want is a 10-22 mm lens but they all (Canon as well as Sigma, Tamron, Canon, etc) run over 500 bucks. So its not cheap. I do prefer wide lenses by a mile. Though realistically you cant see the power of a wide on a 20D. Its not full format meaning the sensor size isnt the same size as 35mm film. So you have to factor this in. On a 20D 10mm is really like 16mm, 20mm is really 32mm. Canon just came out with the 5D, costs over 3000 dollars for the body but its a full format DSLR. I wish I could afford that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ah of course, the full-format thing is one of the main reasons I'm waiting for a while before I get a d-SLR.
The number of megapixels in the latest cameras probably already outstrips the resolution of 35mm, and will soon hit the limits of the lenses, but I think the noise levels at higher ISOs, and the colours will just keep on getting better.
PBase looks more professional, but flickr is 25 bucks a month and the 'limit' is that you can upload 2Gb per month- no storage restrictions.
You can basically archive all of your full sized JPGs and it'll give you some resized ones to use on the web. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
