Retro_Link Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) Not with any special equipment that's for sure! For the one with the car in it I fixed the camera to a tripod, rested it on the window edge, lay it across my lap, set the camera at an angle, and extented the tripod legs into any part of the car I could to try and gain any extra stability!... in short... as best I could! The second two were taken with the camera outside the car in the gap between the windscreen wipers and windscreen, with the camera strap hooked under and around the windscreen wiper just in case!! Edited December 28, 2009 by Retro_Link
Grazza Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 I'm not sure I've got the right idea with this thread (these are photos of art, not necessarily artistic photos themselves), but I hope you like these sand sculptures, which visited Great Yarmouth in 2006:
Daft Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Wandered through the National Portrait Gallery yesterday and saw an amazing photo Reinier Gerritsen. Annoyingly I can't find a big version online at the moment. Anyways, here are a few post worthy photos.
Fresh Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 [/center][/color] That is beautiful. I recently got a Nikon D3000 but it only comes with the standard 18mm-55mm lens and I'm looking at getting a 55mm-200mm lens. Does anyone here know the difference between this (55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens) and this (Nikon 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX Black Lens)?
Daft Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) That is beautiful. I recently got a Nikon D3000 but it only comes with the standard 18mm-55mm lens and I'm looking at getting a 55mm-200mm lens. Does anyone here know the difference between this (55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens) and this (Nikon 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX Black Lens)? How is the D3000? I was thinking of picking one up. Been wanting to get an SLR for a while. Does the lack of Live View mean you can't use the LCD to take pictures? I'm confused. Edited January 2, 2010 by Daft
Goafer Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Both lenses are the same in terms of specs. The only difference would be the quality of the lenses, but judging by the price, they're probably very similar. Your best bet would be to check reviews. I would choose the "Black" one since it won an award, but that's the only reason. Both seem ok. Live view is the LCD, so yeah, no live view - no screen for pictures. I don't use my screen for pictures unless it's an awkward angle to look through the viewfinder. Saves batteries that way. Plus my camera is awkward. When using the screen to take photos, it sets the mirror up so that live view works, then when you press the button, the mirror comes down (possibly to focus) and then back up again to take the picture. When I use the normal viewfinder, the mirror is already down (so that the viewfinder works) so there is less movement of the mirror, meaning quicker pictures. General advice on DSLRs since Daft requested it: Don't be enticed by big mega pixels. You don't need them unless you're going to want massive prints. Sensor quality and lenses are more important. Megapixels only relate to the size of the picture you can take, not the quality. I think we only use 8MP at work (and we print bigish prints), although portraits don't really need massive detail compared to scenic pictures. The best thing to do is to check reviews online and check out the sample images or buy a photography magazine to check reviews. I can't fault my Olympus E-510, the newer E-520 is out. From what I gathered from the reviews, the E-520 isn't worth getting if you already have the E-510, but there are some improvements. Although I really don't think it matters too much which camera you get. You can get good results with pretty much any DSLR. As long as the sensor is decent, you can upgrade lenses as well to suit your needs.
Daft Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Thanks very much! I'm going to have to sleep on this... My minds gone a bit numb.
Goafer Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) All this talk of photography persuaded me to whip the camera out. Can't decide how I prefer this photo, with or without border, B+W or colour. The first one is pretty much how it left the camera, just had to crop it. Edit: another good way to pick a camera is to go on DeviantArt or somewhere similar, find good examples of pictures you like to take and ask the person what camera they use. That way you're getting a camera you know can do the type of photography you like. That's what I did. My old camera couldn't do night photos very well, so I found some really nice night photos. Edited January 3, 2010 by Goafer
Daft Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Good idea. What to I keep an eye on to minimise blur? I guess shutter speed...actually I have no idea. Something good for night shots would be ace... I'm really tempted by the D3000 just because all the reviews say it's great for beginners and it has a guide mode built in but apparently it's not that great for night shots...Bah!! Edit: Damn it! I think I'd get the D3000 in a second if it had Live View..... BAH!!! Edited January 3, 2010 by Daft
Goafer Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Daft: Yeah, to keep blur to a minimum you just need to use quick shutter speeds. A wide aperture (a lower F number to confuse things) and high ISO help keep shutter speed down, but both have their drawbacks. High ISO creates more noise (like noise on the TV) and a wide aperture means limited depth of field. Aperture is taken care of in the lens though, so camera wise, you just need one that can support higher ISO numbers. I imagine every DSLR will have the ISOs you need.
Daft Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Daft: Yeah, to keep blur to a minimum you just need to use quick shutter speeds. A wide aperture (a lower F number to confuse things) and high ISO help keep shutter speed down, but both have their drawbacks. High ISO creates more noise (like noise on the TV) and a wide aperture means limited depth of field. Aperture is taken care of in the lens though, so camera wise, you just need one that can support higher ISO numbers. I imagine every DSLR will have the ISOs you need. Cool, thanks! I think everything is pointing towards the D3000 for me if I can find it for a good price on the high street (Tottenham Court Road is a good place to haggle), the only thing that is putting me off, and it's putting me off quite a lot, is that lack of LiveView. I like this btw. Edited January 3, 2010 by Daft
Goafer Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 the only thing that is putting me off, and it's putting me off quite a lot, is that lack of LiveView. I assume from the fact that you want blur free pictures that you want to do "action shots"? Focusing through the viewfinder is quicker than using live view (if the camera can even focus whilst in live view, some have to display a blank screen whilst focusing). The lack of live view might be limiting for weird angle shots. For example, if you wanted an extremely low viewpoint, you would have to find a way to get your head low too to look through the viewfinder. Even with live view though, without one that swivels, it would still be a problem. In normal shooting, where the user uses the optical viewfinder, focusing is done with phase detection. However, with the use of Live View, the mirror needs to be lifted for the image to be displayed on the LCD via the sensor. With the mirror lifted, focusing with phase detection will not be possible without disrupting Live View with mirror dropping back down for the focusing. (The only exception to this is Sony DSLRs because they include a second sensor near the viewfinder for dedicated Live View display. This allows them to continue with Phase Detection AF.) In Live View settings, you would find that you can actually choose this method but the drawback is that you will get a black screen during focusing. However, this is only one of two options. Manufacturers have introduced Contrast Detection focusing for Live View so that you can achieve focusing without interrupting Live View. Contrast detection focusing: A disadvantage to this is that it can only determine that it's out of focus and not whether it's front or back focused. Therefore, it needs to take at least two measurements from different focus positions to determine the correct focus. In real life, it will take more than two measurements and probably more if you can't hold the camera still or if the action in the frame is rather busy. The worst case scenario is when you fail to attain correct focus but end up with see-sawing measurements while focus hunting. It also tends to take longer under dim lighting. I'm not sure how much you know about the internals of a DSLR, but I'll simplify it just in case. Imagine the mirror is like a junction on a railway. It determines whether the image goes to the sensor (which takes the picture and is used for live view) or the viewfinder (which takes care of focusing). When you are using live view and you take a picture, the mirror will start on the sensor, have to switch to the viewfinder to focus, then back to the sensor to take the picture. That's 2 switches. If you are using the viewfinder, it can focus straight away, then only have to do 1 switch to take the photo. So in theory, from viewing the subject to having a photo takes twice as long with live view. I personally don't use liveview. I just take photos blind if I can't use the viewfinder. Plus you look like you know what you're doing if you lie down to take a photo
Daft Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Ah, okay. That's put me more ate ease. Thanks for explaining that! I think it's just because I've become so used to using an LCD screen the idea of going back to a viewfinder is weird.
Retro_Link Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 (edited) Was a frosty cold day today, went for a walk up the hill taking photo's... Edited January 4, 2010 by Retro_Link
Fresh Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 The D3000 is a quality camera Daft, recommend! The only thing I would say is that the equivalent Canon is compatible with more lenses and can can have a better weight distribution. What I noticed about the lenses I asked about earlier is that one is significantly heavier, while I know VR can help me I think this is going to require more thought. Or maybe not a 55-200mm lenses at all. I do fancy a good panoramic. Ahhh choices.
Daft Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 I had a quick hands on with it today and I liked the feel. My reservations about not having Live View have gone. How much more limiting in regards to lenses is the Nikon? I'm pretty taken with then Guide mode.
Goafer Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 Some pictures I took today on my bike ride: Prefer the tighter crop on this one, but it loses the colour of the sky:
nightwolf Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 New camera, heh, just taking stuff round the house..
Twozzok Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Pretty much set on buying a Canon 450d when I get my loan, can't wait
Kirkatronics Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) Took a few today, only had enough room for 8 on the internal memory. ^I don't like this one, too much snow to get the picture right. (Album Link) Edited January 5, 2010 by Kirkatronics
Recommended Posts