Mugen910 10:55 AM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by Calexan:
I guess to me it just seems like the photographer matters more than the camera.... I would much rather see a photo from a POS Nikon/Canon taken by a pro photographer, than from a Pro Level Canon/Nikon in the hands of a beginner.
Ive seen some pretty amazing pictures from the low end D40s and Rebels......
If I can find it..there was one photo I took this year while in San Fran of that curvy street...It was off of a side view mirror...I've gotten some nice compliments on it..it was with a Nikon.
I do tend to agree with Joey though..even a low end DSLR makes some diff over say a Nikon power shot...But then again my love for photos is avg.
[Reply]
kenstogie 11:06 AM 12-17-2009
I think you can get great photos from some basic equipment, if you follow the "parameters" and limitations of that equipment.
[Reply]
DBall 11:28 AM 12-17-2009
I just went and bought a couple lenses to play around with:
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX
and just for fun a cheap fisheye from Amazon:
.42x HD Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens
:-)
[Reply]
Mugen910 11:29 AM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by DBall:
I just went and bought a couple lenses to play around with:
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX
and just for fun a cheap fisheye from Amazon:
.42x HD Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens
:-)
Whoa...no cigars for you for a few months
:-)
[Reply]
DBall 11:46 AM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by Mugen910:
Whoa...no cigars for you for a few months :-)
Dude... they were cheap... about $200 for both.
The telephoto was $161 refurbished and the "fisheye" was $27
[Reply]
MarkinAZ 11:48 AM 12-17-2009
My daughters cat Skitten kickin' back on the sofa (she's a Manx):
Image
[Reply]
Mugen910 11:49 AM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by DBall:
Dude... they were cheap... about $200 for both.
The telephoto was $161 refurbished and the "fisheye" was $27
what? Linky please!
Nice pic mark...haha
[Reply]
Originally Posted by Calexan:
I guess to me it just seems like the photographer matters more than the camera.... I would much rather see a photo from a POS Nikon/Canon taken by a pro photographer, than from a Pro Level Canon/Nikon in the hands of a beginner.
Ive seen some pretty amazing pictures from the low end D40s and Rebels......
I completely agree with you, but in capeable hands there will be a drastic difference in quality from a d40 to a 1ds MIII
[Reply]
DBall 12:45 PM 12-17-2009
Darrell 01:25 PM 12-17-2009
I have the 55-200 VRII. Is your VRII? I hope so.
:-)
[Reply]
DBall 01:53 PM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by Darrell:
I have the 55-200 VRII. Is your VRII? I hope so. :-)
It's the one listed above... all I know is that the VR is in red. I just took a few shots on my lunch break off the balcony... holy hell... what a zoom!
I'm gonna do a bit of skateboarding this weekend and we'll see if it takes good action pictures.
[Reply]
Darrell 02:02 PM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by DBall:
It's the one listed above... all I know is that the VR is in red. I just took a few shots on my lunch break off the balcony... holy hell... what a zoom!
I'm gonna do a bit of skateboarding this weekend and we'll see if it takes good action pictures.
Cool.
I have my eye on an 18-200 after Christmas.
:-)
[Reply]
Originally Posted by Darrell:
Cool.
I have my eye on an 18-200 after Christmas. :-)
Dont waste your money on that. Get a nice used 70-210 f/4 and a wide angle. The optics in the 18-200 arent that good IMO.
[Reply]
Originally Posted by DBall:
I just went and bought a couple lenses to play around with:
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX
and just for fun a cheap fisheye from Amazon:
.42x HD Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens
:-)
I have the 55-200 VR / Really wonderful Lens
:-)
[Reply]
DBall 03:47 PM 12-17-2009
I was looking at Tamron's 18-270 that boasts 15x zoom... sounds like a great all around lens if it functions as advertised.
[Reply]
JE3146 07:29 PM 12-17-2009
Originally Posted by ir13:
Dont waste your money on that. Get a nice used 70-210 f/4 and a wide angle. The optics in the 18-200 arent that good IMO.
I mentioned that to him already...
~70 - ~200 is the sweet spot for lens makers of all brands.
Why anyone would want an 18-200 is beyond me. I've yet to see an optic in that range that impressed me.
:-)
[Reply]
Mugen910 09:04 PM 12-17-2009
Image
I took soo many pics and out of about 20 only 4 were decent.
:-)
[Reply]
Mugen910 02:34 PM 12-20-2009
Everything was on auto...still have to learn how to use it manually
:-)
Image
[Reply]
Wolfgang 06:20 PM 12-20-2009
Originally Posted by JE3146:
I mentioned that to him already...
~70 - ~200 is the sweet spot for lens makers of all brands.
Why anyone would want an 18-200 is beyond me. I've yet to see an optic in that range that impressed me.
:-)
Being a photographer means getting the shot and if you miss it by changing lenses you aren't doing your job.
with 10+ megapixels like in most DSLR's these days so what if the corners are a little soft or there is some vignetting.
Your shoulders will thank you for not carrying around a heavy bag full of lenses. Anyone can be a lens snob or a brand junkie. It comes down to the skill of the person.
:-)
[Reply]
Roland of Gilead 11:47 PM 12-20-2009
Originally Posted by Wolfgang:
Being a photographer means getting the shot and if you miss it by changing lenses you aren't doing your job.
with 10+ megapixels like in most DSLR's these days so what if the corners are a little soft or there is some vignetting.
Your shoulders will thank you for not carrying around a heavy bag full of lenses. Anyone can be a lens snob or a brand junkie. It comes down to the skill of the person. :-)
While I agree that "getting the shot" is important if you're a photo jounalist, I do believe that you won't get published as a sports photog if the shot isn't tack sharp with a great Bokeh. This is where glass is everything.
-Mark.
[Reply]
