Camera Question so not to hijack hubweims post

Kory · Post by **Kory** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:54 pm

After getting a new pup I thought that one of next purchases should be a good camera so I'm curently looking into getting a Digital SLR camera. I have never had any thing other than a point and shoot, and in trying to do my research alot of the info is way over my head

I had a question as as to what lenses anyone would think were a must or would recomend for shoting pic's of dogs in the field and any other sugestions about SLR's would be great. I have been looking at the Nikon D40x and the D80 (not to sure the wife will be on bord for the extra money

) Thanks for any help

Kory

Don · Post by **Don** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:20 pm

I've heard a lot of good things about the D40. My brother has the D80 but I haven't used it. have heard your better off with the D70 or D200, don't really know. I have the D70 and really like it. Seems complicated but it's not when you get going.

My favorite walk around lense is a 28-200 Sigma but would try to afford a Nikon neet time in I think it's 28-200. If I only had one lense the 28-200 would probably be it or I'd check out the 28-300, I think Tamron makes it.

griffgirl · Post by **griffgirl** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:30 am

I just bought a Canon Rebel xti and love it.Many things you can do with the thing.It has the 28-80 lens which on some shots you can self adjust or adjust on auto.
Its alot of camera for the beginer but I just sat down a couple of nights,played with it and READ the instructions.Very nice action shots.

whitedogone · Post by **whitedogone** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:13 am

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

gar-dog · Post by **gar-dog** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:14 am

I am in the same boat. Check out the hunting pics on this thread taken with an Olympus E-Volt 500 camera and 50-150 lens by czshooter.

edit:
http://www.gundogforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9286

Sorry, forgot to post the thread...

whitedogone · Post by **whitedogone** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:22 am

This is a excellent retailer. They have real reviews from buyers.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... =1&bop=And

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:36 am

I thought I would drop in this morning and add my .02.......

The Nikon-Canon war is a never ending scenario to start with. I shoot Nikon and make a living with them and that is all that matters. I have friends who shoot Canon and do the same. I have never had a client ask me what type of camera I shoot.

The Rebel line in the Canon system is a very nice camera and can be purchased with a lens package that makes it very attractive. The same can be said for Nikons lineup in regards to the new non pro SLR packages they are offering.

I shoot around 125,000 to 175,000 images a year. That is where the diffrence in Pro equipment and consumer equipment starts. It is the actual build of the components to start. I shoot all Nikon D2X's and just purchased two D3's. These bodies are around five grand a piece and will go back to Nikon to be serviced every 12 to 15 months. Not the type of equipment some one who is looking to take nice pictures with needs for certain.

I am going to play the Nikon card here with you guys as that is what pays my bills. I have used the D70 camera's in a situation one time and went away from the shoot very impressed with the results that it produced. Mind you it is no where close to my "D" cameras but for the money they are a steal. I would suggest looking on the auction sites for a used D70s with a decent lens to start with. Glass is so so important in regards to not only what the camera will give you, but also the working enviroment you are placed in. Fast pro glass will always win. But for those on a budget some of the newer lenses are not that bad. They just have a sloppy build quality and limited speed.

The old saying you get what you pay for has never been more true than with photographic equipment. I have lenses I paid $5000 for 10 years ago that are still tack sharp and perfect. Yet I have gone through 5 generations of bodies.

Tim Schoenborn

www.timschoenborn.com

ohiogsp · Post by **ohiogsp** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:09 am

All mine are nikon also and I have a D70 and it is pretty nice. You should be able to get a D70 for a decient price now. I would get something like don has 28-200 or 70-300 lense. You need something with some zoom for most the dog pics you will take.

Don · Post by **Don** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:16 am

I have the 70-300 also but find I seldom use it. I've either got on my 28-200 (most the time) or my 170-500. I think a better choice would be a 28-300. I though Nikon made one but I'm looking in the new B&H catalog and don't see it. Sigma and Tamron both make it. If money is not a big issue, think I'd get the 18-200 Nikon and the 80-400 VR Nikon.

Now I would hawk Nikon also in digital and 35mm film, it's what I shoot. But there are a lot of good cameras out there. I think that more important than the camera is the lense.

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:04 pm

I'm looking to buy a Digital SLR as well, and I'm leaning towards the Canon EOS 40D over the Nikon.

I talked with a friend of my brother's who is a professional photographer, and he swears by Canon. So, I think the Canon/Nikon thing is probably more a matter of preference for different features than one actually being "better" than the other.

I have two Nikon 35mm SLR's, two Canon digital cameras, and I just bought an Olympus digital for outdoor pocket carry - it's waterproof to 33 feet (it takes underwater photos) and shockproof. However, I think the Canons I have take better photos.

I probably will end up with the Canon EOS 40D, and from what I've heard a lot of people get the most use and versatility from a 28-200mm zoom. I'd love to get the 28-300mm IS USM lens though.

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:55 pm

neither is "better" than the other. it's what you prefer and feel more comfortable with. i shoot a canon rebel xti and a canon point and shoot powershot elph. that's b/c i just like canon. it's a lot like guns. what you feel confident and comfortable with is what brand to go with. the point and shoot cameras are not good for field shots as i learned wednesday and commented about on the other thread.

Don · Post by **Don** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:07 pm

NJ GSP wrote:I'm looking to buy a Digital SLR as well, and I'm leaning towards the Canon EOS 40D over the Nikon.

I talked with a friend of my brother's who is a professional photographer, and he swears by Canon. So, I think the Canon/Nikon thing is probably more a matter of preference for different features than one actually being "better" than the other.

I have two Nikon 35mm SLR's, two Canon digital cameras, and I just bought an Olympus digital for outdoor pocket carry - it's waterproof to 33 feet (it takes underwater photos) and shockproof. However, I think the Canons I have take better photos.

I probably will end up with the Canon EOS 40D, and from what I've heard a lot of people get the most use and versatility from a 28-200mm zoom. I'd love to get the 28-300mm IS USM lens though.

Yor 35mm Nikon lenses will probably work on a Nikon digital, mine all did.

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:17 pm

Don wrote:
Yor 35mm Nikon lenses will probably work on a Nikon digital, mine all did.

I doubt it, they are pretty old cameras. They still work though! I just don't use them much these days.

I was talking to an acquaintance over Thanksgiving, and I was checking out his Nikon digital SLR (a very nice camera too). He said none of the lenses from his 35mm fit the digital SLR and he wished he'd done a little more research before buying the camera - because that was the main reason he went with the Nikon.

I didn't ask for the details, but that's what he said.

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:22 pm

NJ GSP wrote:I'm looking to buy a Digital SLR as well, and I'm leaning towards the Canon EOS 40D over the Nikon.

I talked with a friend of my brother's who is a professional photographer, and he swears by Canon. So, I think the Canon/Nikon thing is probably more a matter of preference for different features than one actually being "better" than the other.

I have two Nikon 35mm SLR's, two Canon digital cameras, and I just bought an Olympus digital for outdoor pocket carry - it's waterproof to 33 feet (it takes underwater photos) and shockproof. However, I think the Canons I have take better photos.

I probably will end up with the Canon EOS 40D, and from what I've heard a lot of people get the most use and versatility from a 28-200mm zoom. I'd love to get the 28-300mm IS USM lens though.

Trust me it's the indian not the arrow...................

I have some very high end clients with Horses that are in the 7 figure range and pay me very well to not only travel to them but also cover all my expenses to get to them. I have a very high daily rate. I have yet to have one ask me if I shoot a Canon or a Nikon...........

They just look at my pictures and pay me for what I have been able to provide them with. I can make a Canon ELPH make money.

It's all about who is pushing the button. If it wasn't then all my clients wouldn't need me.................

Tim

www.timschoenborn.com

Don · Post by **Don** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:12 pm

I'm not sure about the D40 but I don't believe Nikon have ever changed their mount. I have a manual 100mm Nikon lense from my old FG that works on my D70. Also all my old auto focus lenses work on it. 70-210 and 35-135. Except the 170-500 Sigma, All my other lenses were bought for Nikon film cameras and they also worked on my FG as did it's manual lenses on the auto cameras, just had to use manual focus.

I did hear something about the D40 that it's aperature settings were controlled by the camera. I can do the same thing with my F5 by setting the lense at the smallest aperature and controling it with the body, Probably explained that wrong. But if you have a number of older Nikon auto focus lenses, I'd take them with me and try them on a new digital.

If your close to NYC, I'd go into either B&H or Adarama and talk to them.

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:25 pm

Some of the best camera reviews I have found are on this site.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
If you are thinking about a DSLR I have heard a lot of great things about the Nikon D40 and D40x.
If you are looking at a higher end DLSR have a look at the D200.
Both the D80 and D70's are great camera's but for the small increase in price the 200 has many more features.

Mav.....

Kory · Post by **Kory** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:35 pm

Thanks for all of the input. As far as old lenses not working with the newer cameras what I have been told is that the D40x dose not have the gear on the mount that drives the auto focus of the older lenses and only a the auto focuss lenses that are designed for that series will auto focus with the D40x however on the D80 dose have the gear one of the selling points the the D80, but other than that the guy said that the mount was the same and most lenses will work but only manuely if I understood him correctly. not sure if that matters to me as I don't have any old lenses but he did make a good point that you have a much greater chance of picking up other brand and used lenses for the D80. So much to concider

whitedogone · Post by **whitedogone** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:53 pm

If you have been looking at the Nikon D40x and the D80 you should really rethink that and concider the D40. You can get the d40 with both the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX and 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX lens for less than $570. Heck you can even throw in a SB400 flash (a very good flash) and still be less than a D80 with only the 18-55 lens. WDO

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-3-5-5-6G-55 ... 836&sr=8-3

Kory · Post by **Kory** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:02 pm

Yes I have seen several packages like that and have came really close to pulling the trigger and buying one but I felt like I just didn't know enough about them to do it. It drives my wife crazy because I like to do alot of research on something before I buy and she will buy the first one she findes

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:07 pm

Have a look at the web site I posted above. There is a lot of great camera information there.
If you are looking at the D80 you may want to look at the D200 for the slight increase in price you get a much better camera.
I still think the Nikon D40 and D40x camera's are a great deal and awesome camera's especially for the money.

Mav.....

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:48 pm

Great information!

I'm not a professional photographer, I just like to take pictures.

One thing I've been trying to do for years is capture good wildlife action - leaping salmon, flying birds, galloping horses, and of course running dogs. This is a major reason for me buying a digital SLR, the others I have come close, but just don't quite get it done.

Oh, and I think my Canon Digital Elph is a pretty good camera for what it is, it's been my favorite "pocket" camera.

And, I wish I could put a polarized filter on it:

Salmo salar Sebago

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:01 am

Just as a little example here is a shot from this morning with my wifes S400 Elph.........

These little cameras are not that bad. They are just miserably slow. And the final product is so so at best. I guess it just depends on what you want in the end product. There are plenty of issues with this image but it was taken with a 5 year old digital pocket camera...........

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:23 am

And a photo taken with my daily stuff..............

Again just as an example............

Pretty easy to see the diffrence lenses and equipment make..........

Don · Post by **Don** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:25 am

Tim,

Does that camera let you control the exposure settings? Maybe have exposure comp? I ask because there is so much white and it came out white.

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:33 am

Good eye Don.........

There is no way around the "HOT" part of that dog photo. Nothing challenges any camera like snow. Then add a white dog and you have an uphill battle. I could have made the shot with one of my SLR bodies and I just would have done opposite of what the camera was telling me to do in regards to metering. Either that or meter off the back of my hand or better yet a 18% card or even a tree and then take the shot.

One of the things with these little point and shoot cameras is the fact they are way way slow and you are really limited in regards to having any control.

Its all give and take.............

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:38 am

Let me add another thought also..........

If I were in the market for a pocket camera that is very capable and can go full manual and deliver prints capable of at least 16 x 20 then the Leica D-LUX 3 wins hands down. Nothing to talk about. It is one bad little hombre and you can buy them for around $600.

Again though you need to know what you are doing with the camera, but that thing delivers. I have seen some images taken with that camera that are flat out spectacular. It has "N O" competetion in the point and shoot pocket camera arena.............

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:44 am

And one more thing here today just to add some input before I take off.

No dis respect intended to the poster either.

Ken Rockwell is the biggest laughing stock in the photo game.

Just ask any guy who makes a living with a camera.

You want good info go to Thom Hogans site or Dave Black when it comes to Nikon stuff.

Or call me as I would be more than willing to help anyone out on this forum in making any decision in regards to equipment or help through issues maybe. If I don't get to the phone leave a name or number and I will call you back.

Tim

248.863.6407

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/

http://www.bythom.com/

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:48 pm

The photographer, as an artist, composes the shot - and the brand of equipment used is certainly immaterial concerning the composition. Famous photographers are famous not for the equipment they use, but rather for the composition quality of their photos.

From a technical standpoint, it is interesting to know what sort of equipment professionals prefer to use, or may have used to capture a particular image.

But I think the point concerning equipment here in this particular thread is one relating to the quality, features, capabilities, and the image quality generated by the equipment itself. The ability to create a quality composition is something no camera can do by itself.

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:27 pm

bought some new glass today.........let me just WOW!!!!! it has built in image stabilization and boy does it work. i don't need flash to shoot indoors anymore.

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:40 am

No disrespect taken, it was photographer that sent me to the sight for the reviews. It would seem every one has their own opinions of photographers and their work.
I am however always open to new opinions about cameras and will have a look at those web sites as well.

Mav.....

TimSchoenborn wrote:And one more thing here today just to add some input before I take off.

No dis respect intended to the poster either.

Ken Rockwell is the biggest laughing stock in the photo game.

Just ask any guy who makes a living with a camera.

You want good info go to Thom Hogans site or Dave Black when it comes to Nikon stuff.

Or call me as I would be more than willing to help anyone out on this forum in making any decision in regards to equipment or help through issues maybe. If I don't get to the phone leave a name or number and I will call you back.

Tim

248.863.6407

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/

http://www.bythom.com/

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:40 am

hubweims wrote:bought some new glass today.........let me just WOW!!!!! it has built in image stabilization and boy does it work. i don't need flash to shoot indoors anymore.

What lens did you get?

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:42 am

TimSchoenborn wrote: Ken Rockwell is the biggest laughing stock in the photo game.

Just ask any guy who makes a living with a camera.

OK, I'll bite: Why?

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:37 am

NJ GSP wrote:
TimSchoenborn wrote: Ken Rockwell is the biggest laughing stock in the photo game.

Just ask any guy who makes a living with a camera.
OK, I'll bite: Why?

Because he is an idiot to be blunt. He has little background in regards to the profession and rambles on and on about issues that don't matter. Google the guy and hang out on some real pro forums and see what people who make a living taking images have to say about him. And when I say make a living I mean pros like myself who do this fulltime. Not the average guy who spends a few grand and then does a few weddings or seniors and claims to be a pro. When I say pro I mean guys who are published and make a 6 figure income based on image taking. Just to clarify I don't mean to come off as as a snob or elitist. The digital generation has created a plethora of Ken Rockwells.

Here is a quote from his site that pretty much sums it up.......

"I don't get anything from Nikon. They don't even give me the time of day! No loaners (except for the left handed F100 I got before this site went on-air), no special help, no advance information, no hats or even pens. Nothing. Nada. Squat. They don't even send me press releases on time. I always hear about new things from you folks first!"

I am a Pro with Nikon and the reason for the above statement he made is because he does not qualify for anything from Nikon. Why you ask? Because he is flat out not good enough.

Enough about Ken Rockwell.................

Bottom line as a Pro is the "Show Me" approach. Let your pictures do the talking.

I should also add that most Pro forums require a level of work and experience to be allowed to gain access also. That is the way the forums are controlled and you have to provide evidence based on experience and workflow that you are qualified to participate.

Again I don't mean to come off the wrong way but you asked and I answered.

I will again reiterate I would be more than willing to help anyone out on this forum in regards to technical help or buying decisions.

Tim

Don · Post by **Don** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:07 am

I just found out about Ken Rockwell a few nights ago from Mav. Spent a little time there and my impression is it's a really nice site and the most important thing is, he talks so the people can understand him. And he has some very nice photo's. I think he also mentions at the beginning that his site is there to share what he's learned with his friends and anyone else that wants to look. For a guy that's not a pro, it's a great place to start.

The thing I think some pros forget is that amateurs aren't really into the technicalities of a print, they just want a picture that looks good. From there, at some point they start crossing lines without even realizing it and become better skilled and more demanding of themselves. Some of them get so consumed by chasing perfection they never seem to catch, they forget the idea in the first place was to have fun taking pictures.

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:43 am

NJ GSP wrote:
hubweims wrote:bought some new glass today.........let me just WOW!!!!! it has built in image stabilization and boy does it work. i don't need flash to shoot indoors anymore.
What lens did you get?

I shoot a canon so it's the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:56 am

NJ GSP wrote:From a technical standpoint, it is interesting to know what sort of equipment professionals prefer to use, or may have used to capture a particular image.

But I think the point concerning equipment here in this particular thread is one relating to the quality, features, capabilities, and the image quality generated by the equipment itself. The ability to create a quality composition is something no camera can do by itself.

My wife and I use several different photographers for a personal use. Our "go to photographer" who has work of a famous rodeo clown hanging in the PBR hall of fame shoots canon. Our photographer for certain types of outside on site shoots uses canon. The photographer we use when we go to the gulf coast where we are from (he did our wedding and engagement pics) uses both film and digital shoots canon for both. When you are watching football today or the playoffs here in the future watch the camera guys on the sidelines when they run out of bounds. when you see the big white lenses, those are canons pro-grade L series lenses.

Not to take anything away from Nikon though. The guy who sold me my rebel xti in the store was a photography major at the college here. He shot Nikon. I considered Nikon when I was buying the canon. they are fine cameras. i think to that if a photographer has a degree and formal training in college they must choose a platform to complete their work. after all the experience gained in college with a platform why switch platforms later. both camera brands are equal with all respects to quality.

btw - one last thing, i did hear that canon has the best per pixel light sensitivity on the market.

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:47 pm

hubweims wrote:
NJ GSP wrote:
hubweims wrote:bought some new glass today.........let me just WOW!!!!! it has built in image stabilization and boy does it work. i don't need flash to shoot indoors anymore.
What lens did you get?
I shoot a canon so it's the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Nice! I'd love to see what one of your indoor image-stabilized flash free photos looks like!

nj gsp · Post by **nj gsp** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:00 pm

hubweims wrote: When you are watching football today or the playoffs here in the future watch the camera guys on the sidelines when they run out of bounds. when you see the big white lenses, those are canons pro-grade L series lenses.

Like this?

Post by **slistoe** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:30 pm

TimSchoenborn wrote:Google the guy

So.... did anyone else google Tim Schoenborn?

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:58 am

slistoe wrote:
TimSchoenborn wrote:Google the guy
So.... did anyone else google Tim Schoenborn?

Go ahead and Google me "Slistoe"

I will return on the first 2 hits. Plus you won't find any bad info on me. Care to have a list of my clients or Publication covers. Just give me the user pass for your server and I will begin to FTP content up to you today.

I could try to Google you but you hide behind a forum name.......

So very very typical of the internet. Lots of people who think they know it all. I even went as far as to put my REAL phone number in here to help some of the guys out.

Let me know and we can share some conversation over our images and go over techniques.

I will be waiting.........................

whitedogone · Post by **whitedogone** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:24 am

Tim, I am wondering what your take is on the IS lens. Or in the case of Pentax the IS bodies. I realize that we all should be useing a tripod anyway. But that rarely is the case with us amatures. I'm strugling trying to justify spending 2x-3x on glass just to get that feature. WDO

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:54 am

whitedogone wrote:Tim, I am wondering what your take is on the IS lens. Or in the case of Pentax the IS bodies. I realize that we all should be useing a tripod anyway. But that rarely is the case with us amatures. I'm strugling trying to justify spending 2x-3x on glass just to get that feature. WDO

I can't really comment on the Pentax as I am not familiar with them at all. I will say that Image Stabilization is here to stay. In the Canon camp it is "IS" in the Nikon camp it is "VR". This stuff really works well. And it is going to do nothing but get better. So in short it is worth the extra money to buy a lens with it if it fits in to your budget.

It will help with those little extra jitters or hand movement you might get while trying to get the shot. The thing with a tripod is that at least with Nikon and I am sure with Canon also they clearly indicate to take the Stabilization off when using a tripod. Does that mean you never need a tripod again? No, it just means that in a situation when you might be on the fence in regards to needing a tripod or not you can slide by without one. I can't imagine using a tripod anyway shooting dogs out working.

I do use a mono pod quite a bit especially when I am in an arena shooting flat classes and the "VR" works fine in the on position on that mono pod. It basically works out to allow a couple stops for low light or a lower shutter speed that you might not be able to hand hold and get.

So not to drag out the answer for you I would say a very resounding yes if it fits into your budget. They are worth the extra money in my book.

Canon and Nikon both are staying with this stuff and it works awesome.

Always buy the best glass you can possibly afford to get.

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:20 am

NJ GSP wrote:
hubweims wrote:
NJ GSP wrote: What lens did you get?
I shoot a canon so it's the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Nice! I'd love to see what one of your indoor image-stabilized flash free photos looks like!

Ok, here are a couple. Keep in mind these were taken with me sitting on the sofa. I wasn't trying to get a good shot of anything. I was just playing with the camera and my new lense (which I love). every lense that i buy from here on out will have IS built in. this is a telephoto zoom lense so my next will be an general purpose lense or a macro with is. good glass really is the key. of course, i would love some of the great glasses like in your other post with the picture of the canon guys. they just cost a little more coin than the wife will approve of.

Don · Post by **Don** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:33 am

I got a tip off Ken Rockwell's site and tried it yesterday evening. It was to shoot in auto ISO. It was overcast and I didn't have much light so I stumbled into auto ISO and turned it on. Worked great! Not sure I would use it all the time yet tho.

Got this photo of Bodie, cropped it and made a note card with it.

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:55 am

that is something the nikon has that the canon doesn't. the only way to have auto iso is to use one of the preset functions. if you use program, aperture priority, or manual you must choose your iso speed.

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:00 am

Don wrote:I got a tip off Ken Rockwell's site and tried it yesterday evening. It was to shoot in auto ISO. It was overcast and I didn't have much light so I stumbled into auto ISO and turned it on. Worked great! Not sure I would use it all the time yet tho.

Got this photo of Bodie, cropped it and made a note card with it.

Hey Don here is your image with an eye correction shot at what the ISO should have been just as an example for you.........

[/img]

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:10 am

Hubweims your images look good........

The only thing I see is a very heavy orange cast which should be able to be corrected by adjusting your white balance.................

Try it out and see.......

Tim

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:14 am

Tim,

seeing how i fairly new to this. i have read where filters are important in shooting outdoors. seeing how we normally shoot our dogs in the field with changing weather throughout the year, is there a filter that you recommend or use. I have seen circular poloarization filters, UV filter, etc. I just don't know what each does and the effects that they have on the photos. also, what is your thoughts on a hood or shade. how important are they in getting great shots and does it have to be clear, sunny skies to use them? i have noticed that working my dogs and taking pics the lighting changes (not only throughout the day) but as i move around them to get a shot. i kept in mind about what you said with regards to trying to keep the sun at my back, and i like the results. however, will a hood provide more consistency with outdoors lighting???

hubweims · Post by **hubweims** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:19 am

TimSchoenborn wrote:Hubweims your images look good........

The only thing I see is a very heavy orange cast which should be able to be corrected by adjusting your white balance.................

Try it out and see.......

Tim

hehehehe.........i don't know how! i took it off of AWB and put it on Shade, and i even tried Cloudy. I don't know how to calibrate or set it like you and don were talking about in either this thread or one of the others. you mentioned using the back of your hand to set exposure......well, i have no idea what that means.

TimSchoenborn · Post by **TimSchoenborn** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:27 am

hubweims wrote:Tim,

seeing how i fairly new to this. i have read where filters are important in shooting outdoors. seeing how we normally shoot our dogs in the field with changing weather throughout the year, is there a filter that you recommend or use. I have seen circular poloarization filters, UV filter, etc. I just don't know what each does and the effects that they have on the photos. also, what is your thoughts on a hood or shade. how important are they in getting great shots and does it have to be clear, sunny skies to use them? i have noticed that working my dogs and taking pics the lighting changes (not only throughout the day) but as i move around them to get a shot. i kept in mind about what you said with regards to trying to keep the sun at my back, and i like the results. however, will a hood provide more consistency with outdoors lighting???

Most lenses that require a hood will come with one. You will see some unusual shapes to some hoods also based on the focal length. I have several lenses that I shoot a lot with in walk around scenarios. The Nikon 28-70 2.8 is a mainstay for me. It is a very heavy lens and when it is placed on a D2X it makes for a large camera lens combo. I always use the hood on this lens and always just use a UV filter more for protection than anything else.

Shooting outdoors will always provide challenges. I realize that there is a lot to cover in regards to this stuff but using the available light to your advantage will be more help than anything. Keeping that sun to your back is very important for general shots unless you are looking for a diffrent lighting effect.

I also use flash more on sunny days than on overcast ones. The headshot I posted on here of that stallion was bombed with light. I use a 400 watt second pack and literally blast the horse with a ton of light at a very quick setting. 1/1500th of a second on the light end with 1/250th on the shutter end with a f stop of somewhere around f8?

Don't be afraid to play around with flash and shooting your camera in manual mode. I think once you get the feel of it you will be pleased with the end result. Keep your ISO down and make sure your White Balance setting is right also.

Tim