# photography discussion



## aspects

anybody here take pictures? lol.

discuss bodies, glass, shooting style, ect.

w00t!


----------



## COM

I take pictures, but very casually.

I currently have a Nikon D80 setup. I also have an F5 that is gathering dust along with an old full-manual Nikormat in a closet.

I like taking odd perspective shots, like lying down on my back and shooting up a tree or a building. Stuff like that.


----------



## aspects

i still have an old k1000 that i use once in a while. if you ever want to teach yourself how to shoot, the pentax k1000 is the choice of pros. and theyre only a few bucks on ebay


----------



## smark

I had an old Pentax but it broke and I through it away. Great camera. Fun to use.


----------



## aspects

yup. full manual. its really the only way to learn


----------



## COM

Any of those old school full manuals are good for learning old-fashioned photography. The Pentax is a common one, as is the Nikkormat I mentioned (mine is from 1971 I think), an old Leica, even some of the old Vivitars would work.

I wonder how much longer those skills will be relevant. Modern imaging is drifting very far away from the traditional stuff.


----------



## Plecostomus

I've got a pretty cool digital camera and I have lately been taking quite a few pictures through my telescope. If you want to see them, you can check out my album on my profile.


----------



## Againsthecurent

My first camera was a Nikon AM, but it didn't last. It was used and developed problems a couple years later. I then went to Pentax also and used a k1000 for many years. Loved that camera. Unfortunately I dropped it down a canyon hiking in the Bear Tooth Mtns. I then bought a Pentax PZ1p that also was a good camera. While living in Phoenix, AZ and doing a lot of scenic shots I decided I wanted a meduim format and bought a Contax 645 and later a Contax 35mm N1 with adapter to use the 645 lenses. I now own a Canon 40D and a few lenses. I would like to find an SLR rig that isn't so heavy for backpacking, but not sure what to get. I have been thinking of getting the new Canon Reble and a compact lens if I can talk my wife into it.  My 40D and 100-400 L is just a bit too heavy to lug around with all the fly fishing and camping gear. Now that I moved back to North Dakota most my photography is of wildlife while sitting in a blind somewhere. I usualy do a lot of scouting to find good places to put one of my blinds up for sunrise or sunset. Any suggestions on a light weight camera?


----------



## Againsthecurent

Here is a picture of one of my home made blinds I use for waterfowl.


----------



## aspects

COM said:


> Any of those old school full manuals are good for learning old-fashioned photography. The Pentax is a common one, as is the Nikkormat I mentioned (mine is from 1971 I think), an old Leica, even some of the old Vivitars would work.
> 
> I wonder how much longer those skills will be relevant. Modern imaging is drifting very far away from the traditional stuff.


it will always be relevant. while the digital darkroom is growing by leaps and bounds, nothing will ever compare to the knowledge you will gain learning on a full manual 35mm


----------



## Againsthecurent

I would love to get the 50D in place of my 40D, but I will have to wait a bit. I have a backpacking trip this spring for out annual fly fishing trip to the Bear Tooth Mtns. Need to find something light. I will have to pick up a couple to see what I like. Thanks for the info.


----------



## jones57742

Againsthecurent said:


> Here is a picture of one of my home made blinds I use for waterfowl.


Atc: that setup is absolutely awesome and you really did 1st class thinking on it's fabrication!

Would you mind publishing some of your photographs?

TR


----------



## Againsthecurent

Trial and error is so much cheaper with digital. I would spend way too much money trying to push a new film as far as it would go and spend a lot on developing. My favorite for scenic photos was Fuji Velvia. You couldn't push it much, but it already had the saturation anyway. The Kodak 100vs could be pushed a full stop and be fairly good. Most the old techniques still apply though.


----------



## Againsthecurent

jones57742 said:


> Atc: that setup is absolutely awesome and you really did 1st class thinking on it's fabrication!
> 
> Would you mind publishing some of your photographs?
> 
> TR


Send me a PM. I can email a few down sized ones for a screen saver if you want. I do not sell photos anymore. I did for a while when I lived in Phoenix, but those were all film. I shoot RAW with my digital now and they are quite large files, but do have some sized down. Most are wildlife with some scenics. Having grown up here in ND and lived in AZ back home I just don't see the scenery here to be worth a photo many times. I guess I was spoiled after living there. I'm still learning Photo Shop and digital photo software yet.


----------



## aspects

Baby_Baby said:


> Eventually they will be irrelevant. Film is dying off at a rapid rate. Two years ago, just two, our lab used to take in about 30-50 rolls of film in one single day. We're lucky to get that in a week.
> 
> While it's wonderful to learn with film, there are many comparable experiences that can be gained with digital. It's nice to have learned "the old fashioned way" so to speak, but to say that nothing will ever compare is a bit far fetched. Information is information, no matter how you gain it. How it makes you feel and what you did to obtain it, however, is what makes the experience richer or poorer. So I suppose in the aspect of "trial and error" with film, you do lose that with digital and learn not to just "point and shoot" with film, if that makes any sense.


film will eventually be for purists only, no doubt, but im referring to the focusing/ iso/ fstop settings. film or digital, you will always need these skills.


----------



## aspects

Againsthecurent said:


> Send me a PM. I can email a few down sized ones for a screen saver if you want. I do not sell photos anymore. I did for a while when I lived in Phoenix, but those were all film. I shoot RAW with my digital now and they are quite large files, but do have some sized down. Most are wildlife with some scenics. Having grown up here in ND and lived in AZ back home I just don't see the scenery here to be worth a photo many times. I guess I was spoiled after living there. I'm still learning Photo Shop and digital photo software yet.


i did stock photography a while back. its fun to hunt down the shot the client wants sometimes, but these days i just dont have the time. i still get emails now and again from people i have worked with in the past looking for work.


----------



## Againsthecurent

I don't get near the time I would like to for photography. I hope things slow down at work by this spring.


----------



## COM

No, the traditional photography skills will definitely fade to black soon. No need for f-Stop and exposure settings and the like when you can capture an image and then reinterpret it via software 1000x over. And automatic focus has evolved way beyond I ever thought that it could.


----------



## jones57742

Baby_Baby said:


> If by "traditional photography skills" you mean f stop, shutter speed, ISO and things of that nature, that is most certainly not true.


BB:

I am glad that you responded to COM's post as I did not understand where he was coming from.




Baby_Baby said:


> They'll start out not knowing anything as they begin with a point and shoot, but eventually they'll move up to a dSLR and want to learn all that they can


Not to mention MCS (Multiple Camera Syndrome) which I will probably into as soon as
*I figure out how to make this D200 function!* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

TR


----------



## Againsthecurent

jones57742 said:


> Not to mention MCS (Multiple Camera Syndrome) which I will probably into as soon as
> *I figure out how to make this D200 function!* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> TR



You're not kidding there. I think I now have 4 Pentax 35mm film bodies with 8 lenses, 1 Contax 35mm with 1 lens, 1 Contax Rangefinder 35mm with 3 lenses, I Contax 645 with 3 lenses, and 1 Canon digital body with 4 lenses. At least with digital you can switch your ISO between shots. I alway had different films in each body. A couple print films with different ISO's and at least one with slides. Yes I have spent a few nights in the dog house.


----------



## COM

I wasn't very clear in what I was trying to express.

What I mean is that the traditional skills like aperture adjustment, shutter control, etc. work with cameras TODAY because modern digital cameras are really an adaptation of older film cameras. The CCD replaces the film but otherwise they work more or less the same way. What if future cameras don't?


----------



## aspects

jones57742 said:


> Not to mention MCS (Multiple Camera Syndrome) which I will probably into as soon as
> *I figure out how to make this D200 function!* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


lol. i know how you feel. right now i have 6 main bodies that i use and a couple more stashed away. maybe its time to let go. lol. i dont even use my good camera that much. hardly ever id say.


----------



## gil_ong

i learned on an FM in the early 90s.

bought a used D70 almost a year ago, and still haven't really done much with it.


----------



## Cacatuoides

what would be a good camera to buy if i was going to just take pics of my fish, animals, vehicles, and scenery to use in my design class? Something that has a memory card so i can get it on the computer easy, but can adjust a lot of the things like shutter speed etc. I would want a good quality picture, but not an overly expensive camera.


----------



## gil_ong

single most important thing; BUDGET


----------



## fishboy23

I'm envious of you folks with DSLRs...I played with a Canon at Target the other day, just made me want one more.
I've used both my nikon point-and-shoot and my kodak p-a-s (yes, a, not o, I actually like the camera) for fish pics. I'll admit, though the nikon is older (5.1 mp, 3x zoom), the nikon lenses have awesome macro modes. The kodak leaves something to be desired on real close-up pics. However, if taken at a little more distance (cropping may be necessary) you can get some nice fish shots. I am a killifish keeper, primarily, and have built up a photo library of about 110 species with these cameras (taking pics at shows). They're not professional quality, but enough to ID a fish. 
The one point-and-shoot I really like would be a canon G9 or G10. G7 isn't too bad either. Several of my relatives have them, very nice cameras, easy to use, good lenses, nice pictures. (itwuz, these may be a good cameras for you, if you're not looking to spend the $$$ on a DSLR).


----------



## aspects

gil_ong said:


> single most important thing; BUDGET


Indeed.
If you're cheap, buy nikon
If you can afford to go with a quality product, buy canon

Keep in mind, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Againsthecurent

*"The Land of Canon shall give refuge to those seeking knowledge and truth in superior photographic equipment"*


----------



## aspects

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.


that is all...


----------



## guppyart

personally in my experience working with DSLR's there are 2 groups of people canon lovers and canon haters.
base line canons are garbage and cheaply built imo light and flimsy plastic. nikons baselines are a ton better from when I have compared them.

also some complain about a certain softness that canon has in its photos vs nikon having an amazingly crisp and vibrant picture.

I currently am using my ancient and dieing pentax *ist DL its hitting 5 years old 7500 pictures taken and still going strong although while in japan I fried my AF lense or the cameras driver for the one so I only use my manual oldies hehe.
pentax is also decent not quite there with nikon and canon but some love it and the reverse compatibility of lenses is the best in the industry, canon is garbage for that, with nikon coming second only to pentax for such.

my issue with light DSLRs they feel like I am going to crush them I have very big hands and like a heavy camera that feels solid and fills my grip.

those are my 2 cents and what I have found


----------



## emc7

> you can buy any old Minolta lenses off the internet, pawn shop, etc, and they'll all fit on your Sony Alpha


 Really? Are they the same lenses for the ancient manual 35mm minolta SLR cameras I have collecting dust in my hall closet (both cameras and lenses)?


----------



## emc7

The thing I found I had to look at was the time between the button is pressed and the picture is taken. This ought to be an easy to find stat, but it isn't easy to find. It was easier to go to the store and play with the display models and reject the slowest. Some cheap cameras take so long that the fish is out of frame.


----------



## aspects

with only the exception of carl zeiss glass used for hazzelblads, nothing comes close to the quality of canons L glass. period. and in the end, its the glass that makes the big difference. (next to the user of course)


----------



## Againsthecurent

aspects said:


> with only the exception of carl zeiss glass used for hazzelblads, nothing comes close to the quality of canons L glass. period. and in the end, its the glass that makes the big difference. (next to the user of course)


I agree and is the reason I shot Contax for years. The Contax cameras also used Zeiss lenses and were the best I have used. In my opinion the Canon L lenses are far beyond the Nikon or Pentax lenses, there is no comparison. I liked my Pentax cameras, it was what I could afford at the time along with a few Sigma lenses. Later I went with the Contax because it was no longer an issue. Unfortunately Contax has fallen off the grid and looks to be lost in the digital world. I have never had any good luck with Nikon. I have used their cameras, scopes, binoculars, and survey instruments. All have been poor quality. Others have good luck with them and like their product, I just refuse to make that mistake again.


----------



## aspects

even the new Japanese version of the carl zeiss glass used in modern sony cameras, isnt even close to the quality of the real stuff. so ad far as the world of the current DSLR market, canon glass is ahead by leaps and bounds. the studies show it time and time again. for this reason alone, the choice should be pretty clear, but there are lots of nikon cult members out there who refuse to see the truth. 

but as stated before. budget is a major factor. if youre just a hobbiest looking for something beyond a p$s, im sure a nikon will be perfect for you. however if you intend to get serious in the hobby, or even take it to a professional leve, i would not suggest wasting your money on a nikon.


----------



## COM

Nikon vs. Canon is definitely another entrenched camp issue. BMW vs. Mercedes-Benz, Mac vs. PC, Emperor vs. Aquaclear...

I have had both brands and mixed results with both brands. I currently have a Nikon but when it is time for replacement I will certainly explore all possibilities.

Most of the real pros that I encounter (New York fashion photogs and the like) don't use Canon cameras. I see a lot of Hasselblad and Mamiya cameras and the occassional Nikon. A lot of the schlock professionals (wedding and portrait photogs) that I encounter use Nikon or Canon equipment.

I think it is really just a matter of preference for most casual hobbyists.


----------



## Againsthecurent

*Also, gup, keep an eye on Pentax and don't give up just yet. There should be a few surprises in store this year for that name. *

This is the only reason I have kept my Pentax lenses. 

25 years of using them all and Canon seems to always be the front runner when it comes to new technoloty. The Canon IS was the first and in every rating I have seen it's still the best one. Nikon copied with the VR and comes in second every time, but still second. Feel of a camera is one thing, but image quality to me is number one. I was never very dissapointed when I dropped my Nikon camera down that canyon and every Nikon survey instrument, with it's poor optics, I would love to do the same thing with. Many companies have Nikon survey instruments and microscopes and it comes down to price most times. They get the job done, but I will use the Ziess or Canon first anyday. Now with GPS at least I rarely have to use one.


----------



## jones57742

aspects said:


> with only the exception of carl zeiss glass used for hazzelblads,


Am sure that most of us have seen photographs of astronauts taking photographs taken by astronauts with these cameras are just unbelievable but the cost of these cameras is also unbelievable also.



aspects said:


> nothing comes close to the quality of canons L glass. period. and in the end, its the glass that makes the big difference. (next to the user of course)


As I indicated in chat we purchased the D200 as the optics in our Nikon terrestrial surveying equipment was superior to that of other manufacturers.

What I did not mention was that this superiority included Zeiss instruments which we had previously used.

TR


----------



## Againsthecurent

Hey jones, my chat is not working at home. I miss my old Zeiss instruments, that is for sure. I still will use a T2 whenever I can.  These days I shoot mostly wildlife. If you every whatch the photographers from National Geographic you will almost always see a Canon camera with a large, white, L lens. Now if I can only save up for the 500mm f4 or maybe better the 400 f2.8.


----------



## aspects

Next time you watch the superbowl or any other major sporting event for that matter, take a peek at the sideline. That beautiful sea of red ringed white lenses = canon. Nuf said.


----------



## justintrask

aspects... this is again one of your "my-way or no-way" arguments. I want to see some honest statistical proof of what you are saying before i believe a single word of it.


----------



## aspects

then google is your one stop shop for that information. be my guest


----------



## COM

Aspects, your argument is like saying that a Toyota Corolla is better than a Honda Civic because Toyota also makes the Lexus LS460h. Sure, some of the basics may be the same and some of the same engineers and designers probably worked on both products, but it's apples and elbows.

I would be curious to see some actual stats on what professionals in various different practices use. I can't seem to find any information on Shutterbug.


----------



## aspects

ultimately your glass makes a much bigger difference then the body, so its nothing like your attempt at an analogy above, and if youre going to be serious about photography, why would you limit yourself to substandard glass?
this is a hobby that people upgrade as they grow in it, but you can only upgrade as far as the product allows, and on the mid to high end, canons L glass wins head to head studies regularly. (only because i hesitate to say everytime, as i dont have the proof on that one). the ONLY downfall, is the price. but if youre serious about it, price shouldnt matter that much.

as i have already said, it comes down to your budget and how serious you are about it.


----------



## COM

The glass and the CCD (in digital) will definitely make a big difference.

Can you show me any studies or reviews or any specific information as to why Canon's glass is so far superior? You mention that the Canon glass wins every time. It isn't that I don't believe you, I'm googling this and can't find any reviews and I would like to know why. I will probably be shopping for a new setup in a few months so I like to know about these things.


----------



## aspects

i dont bother to look up reviews anymore and i dont recall the sites off hand that do the side by sides, but theyre definitely out there, you just have to keep looking. probably have to search 2 specific lenses to compare, then youll come across the others. all the information is out there for people who want it.


----------



## COM

In other words you don't have any facts as usual.


----------



## aspects

in otherwords, im not going to do your homework for you. i have the facts, you need them. go get them.


----------



## aspects

i dont keep any photo review sites on bookmark, nor do i have any need to. i have me arsenal of glass, and i know what my next buy is always going to be. ive done the research in the past, reviewed both first hand with hands on comparisons, saw the facts for myself, and that was that. i dont need to justify anything, as im not trying to sell you a product. being too lazy to search out the information you want is only further proof that you are not serious about it at all. and thats fine. regardless ov which one you think is better, the information is there for you to research, but if you expect me to do the search for you simply because you disagree with the information provided, youve got another thing coming. 
honestly, i could care less wht someone else shoots on. or what kind of fish you buy. or what car you drive. how you waste your money is your business. however, as my photography pays my mortgage, i would not trust that to anything but the best. you get what you pay for, and im willing to spring for the quality product.


----------



## Againsthecurent

Canon doesn't sponsor National Geographic, so why 90% Canon? Canon cost more at times, but they are the ones developing anything. They wait for Canon to do it and then copy. I do agree that I think Canon is being a little slow about releasing the replacement model for the 5D. It kicked but for so long, but now is being beat in some areas. Why is it that all brands compare themselves to the 5D. I'll wait for the new one, can't wait to see what it is. Nikon for too long has relied on their name and fallen behind. They are finaly trying to do something about it. I have read more than enough reviews and no I don't see Nikon/Nikkor to be anything great. Every piece of Nikon glass I have had was nice to begin with, but never held up. Our of 6 ($24,000 each at that time) Nikon Top Guns only one didn't have to be sent back because the optics clouded. 3 out of 6 Nikon lenses I have owned were the same way. The Nikon scope I owned had very good clarity, but the optical elements couldn't hold up to recoil. Is it just my luck with Nikon or is it Nikon? I have had no problems with Pentax, Canon, or Contax. Experience means more than reviews.


----------



## aspects

i gave him the information. if you want further details as to reviews and head to head comparisons, you will have to consult the people who actually do them. there is tons of information available online, you just have to look for it. and i think i have said this 3 or 4 times now. i dont know what further information youre looking for.

because im contracted to shoot a variety of different things i use quite a bit more then 4 lenses. and quite frankly, every pro photographer i know personally and have worked with personally has more then 4 pieces of glass in their case. and while the glass wont make the photographer better, a good photographer will produce a much better image with good quality glass. but again, that would all be in the information you have yet to look up.


----------



## Againsthecurent

I must clarify on Nikon lenses and instruments I have to send back. All of the returned glass was due to the edges of the glass going bad. To me they never held up, and the edges became cloudy. They may have good glass, but the internals must be the week point. I do put my cameras through a lot of abuse and times being it crawling into holes to wait for wildlife, backpacking, white water, and a list of others. I may not be the best photographer, but I sure know how to have fun doing it. Canon may FEEL cheap to some, but they have held up through it all. Reviews are a good starting point, but also look to others that have run them through the mill for some time, not just for a week or so to write a review. Nikon does offer a few more lenses with lower f stops, but they have never come close in the longer telephoto market. I have always told myself I will never buy Nikon again. For some reason I end up doing it anyway. They have a look and feel that is enticing and I end up wrong in the long run. Maybe I can get aspect to slap me upside the head next time I think about a Nikon.

Also the lens image stabilization is better than those with it in the camera body.


----------



## aspects

Lol. Probably not. Hahahah. 
Like I said. Wha you spend your money on is your business


----------



## COM

All that I was seeking was information on why one manufacturer's glass would be better than another. Budget is really not a concern. Good equipment costs money. Anyone working in the creative fields will tell you that, especially if they don't have to pay directly for the goods.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that Nikon, Canon, Zeiss or anyone else develops their own glass. Wouldn't that stuff simply be supplied by one of the optics manufacturers like Asahi or Baush & Lomb? That is their business after all.

Funny how google doesn't pull up a single credible source on the differences between Nikon and Canon glass. Just blogs and anecdotes.


----------



## emc7

My dad picked his little pocket digital Casio because it had a Leica lens. Where are the good reviews and specs on cameras? Do you have to buy magazines to get info?


----------



## Againsthecurent

Com, there are others that are out there. Asian Optics is on that supplies Leupold, Tasco  , and some glass for Sigma and Tamron I believe. Others are European for those like the older and some current Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica. Silica from the US is very good but very expensive to obtain and we all know the quality of the glass from Europe. Zeiss has always been a favorite for me as well as a few Leica binos and spotting scopes. Zeiss and Leica now have glass made for others such as Sony and Casio and I'm sure others that I am forgetting. Unfortunately they are not the old fashioned quality that we all loved. Contax was actually the first camera to have auto focus. It was displayed at a photography show, but then never developed or sold. Zeiss also had a very early zoom lens that was never sold. Zeiss never developed it for sale because they did not believe that it was of good optical quality. Their name meant something and they refused to give in to the zoom era. It is true that a prime lens is best, there is no arguing this. With most people wanting a zoom and other interests and change in management Zeiss produced their first zoom lens and Contax with their first production auto focus. Spend your money on what you want and what you feel is the best quality. Look at what type of photography you like to do the best and then choose. It's hard to beat a full frame sensor. I chose the non full frame because I also like the 1.6 conversion. Many who are looking to get the most telephoto on a budget like this feature. If scenics and portraits are your thing go for the full sensor. I like looking at the lens test charts from Popular Photography and others. Look to see which ones get the best rating throughout the f stops and such. Make your own decision, buy a camera and start running it through the paces. Find out its sweet spots and limits and have fun.

A quote in a book by Scott Kelby that I thought was funny; "...you'll notice lots of photos of Nikons and Canon cameras, and it might make you think that I'm partial to these two brands. It's not just me. Apparently most of the world is partial to these two brands...."

Edited to add: Check out BH Photo and look at the reviews from users of equipment that you are looking into. You will find the pros and cons of those who have been using them.


----------



## jones57742

Folks: *Please play nice!* 

There is more heat flaming in this thread than in the "Proof God Exists" thread (where none has been evident);
I am very much enjoying the benefit of yall's experience; and
the heat flaming just decreases my enjoyment without the benefit of learning from yall's experience.




Againsthecurent said:


> I still will use a T2 whenever I can.


Atc:

You reckon how many folks are left out there who can still accurately level the instrument with the fine vertical level?

Even funnier would be turn an angle with a T2; ask one of the young RPS's to read the vernier; and very much enjoy the "deer in the headlights" look.




Againsthecurent said:


> Our of 6 (*$24,000 each at that time*) Nikon Top Guns only one didn't have to be sent back because the optics clouded. 3 out of 6 Nikon lenses I have owned were the same way.
> *Is it just my luck with Nikon or is it Nikon?*


:lol: :lol: :lol: *Does this not remind you of the entry price for current Trimble GPS technology?*

I do not remember these specific guns but I believe that the ones to which you are referring are like the first generation electronic data collections guns.

I refused to get into electronic data collection until the technology was stable and our first EDC guns were the Nikon one second guns with on_board DOS emulation.

We do a ton of First-order, class II leveling (associated with our engineering projects); had not been able to achieve this accuracy with any levels other than Nikons due to the optics; and hence the Nikon total stations.

*I have never had to have a Nikon instrument in the shop due to the optics!*




Againsthecurent said:


> Com, there are others that are out there. Asian Optics is on that supplies Leupold, ...


Never knew this one! and thanks.

Every rifle which I own for nailing a mule deer at 700 yards (really bragging here of course) or a coyote at 200 yards* has the top end Leupold scope mounted (top end at the time the rifle was purchased).

*:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: One of these is a 375 H&H Magnum but for serious thinning out I use a custom built which chambers a 22-250 cartridge.

TR


----------

