![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Kory
Yor 35mm Nikon lenses will probably work on a Nikon digital, mine all did.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.
I doubt it, they are pretty old cameras. They still work though! I just don't use them much these days.Don wrote:
Yor 35mm Nikon lenses will probably work on a Nikon digital, mine all did.
Trust me it's the indian not the arrow...................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.
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/
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.NJ GSP wrote:OK, I'll bite: Why?TimSchoenborn wrote: Ken Rockwell is the biggest laughing stock in the photo game.
Just ask any guy who makes a living with a camera.
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.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.
hubweims wrote:I shoot a canon so it's the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USMNJ GSP wrote:What lens did you get?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.
Go ahead and Google me "Slistoe"slistoe wrote:So.... did anyone else google Tim Schoenborn?TimSchoenborn wrote:Google the guy
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.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
NJ GSP wrote:hubweims wrote:I shoot a canon so it's the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USMNJ GSP wrote: What lens did you get?
Nice! I'd love to see what one of your indoor image-stabilized flash free photos looks like!
Hey Don here is your image with an eye correction shot at what the ISO should have been just as an example for you.........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.
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
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.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???