Perpetual Photography Thread

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:51 pm

Something like this would keep you busy for a long time.

https://www.adorama.com/inkd5300b2.html

D5300 (There is a D5500, but the jump between the two isn't that big from what I have seen...)
18-55mm kit lens. I have one it works quite well... Never use it since I have my siggy.

70-300mm lens. I'm not familiar with this particular model, but I'm sure it will be decent for outdoor use.

You could also go with a d3400 bundle which might come out a little cheaper. If the price is close I would go with the 5300... Lovely camera with some neat features.

Xmann · Post by **Xmann** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:07 pm

EvilHomer3k wrote:Think about what kind of photography you want to do. Landscapes take a much different setup than sports. Portraits take a different setup than both of those. For street photography, a mirrorless setup might be best.

In general, get something from Canon/Nikon. There are more third party lenses and accessories and more used lenses for those formats. Reserve $100 for a 1.8 50mm prime lens. They are cheap, very useful, and take excellent photos in a variety of situations. Yes, you have to move around to frame but for the price, there's no better lens.

If you know someone who already has a camera and lenses, consider buying what they have so you can borrow.

In general, find a kit with an 18-55 and 75-300 lens from Canon/Nikon that runs $100 under your budget. Get it. Then get the 50mm prime. That will cover all the needed bases well enough to get you started.

Now, if you want to do indoor sports, be prepared to spend your entire budget on one single lens.

Specifically, we are going to start camping here in Colorado and I'll be looking to capture those moments.

I've always had interest in photography, but never had enough interest in anything to encourage me to start.

With us making plans to camp and hike regularly this summer, the wife has encouraged me to get a nice camera and pursue.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:44 pm

For camping I would venture you would be using something like the 17-55 most of the time. Great for landscapes and just random walking around. You could just get a kit that comes with the 1 lens if you want to save some money.

Me personally I felt a bit lost without at least 1 zoom. YMMV. That kit I linked would certainly cover most of anything you would want to take on a trip like that.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:10 pm

I'd also think about mirrorless cameras. They are quite good now and are a bit smaller than a DSLR so they'll fit into a backpack better.

My first serious lens was a 70-200 F2.8 VC that I got used off FredMiranda.com for $500. I did a lot of sports photography (martial arts, soccer, wrestling). That 2.8 aperture was really great.

Xmann · Post by **Xmann** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:24 pm

Any specific brand and models you could recommend?

wire · Post by **wire** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:28 pm

Went out with my Lensbaby a few weeks back.

Xmann · Post by **Xmann** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:37 pm

Sorry Octavious, didn't see your previous link up above

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:44 pm

wire wrote:Went out with my Lensbaby a few weeks back.

Lovely - I adore my lensbaby - it doesn't get a ton of use, but I'm often *really* happy with the results.

xmann - There are a lot of good suggestions here, but I'm going to disagree slightly and suggest you look at a "bridge" camera with an integrated lens and a nice, long zoom equivalent. These little things can do absolutely everything, with the possible exception of seriously thin depth-of-field, or extremely high speed action work. On the other hand, they're great for landscape, family shots, and the newest ones have great video capability as well. If you're determined to get an SLR, I'd agree that mirrorless can be a great form factor, but they tend to collect dust on the sensor more easily than do SLR bodies, plus I think you'd be spending more than you may want.

I'll defer to others for the Nikon suggestions, but a Canon Rebel or SL1 and a Canon 18-55 would get you going. (But the Nikon guys will be along to tell you that their cameras are better in low light, and I can't disagree)

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:38 pm

Xmann wrote:Sorry Octavious, didn't see your previous link up above

No problem. I can't comment on Canon, but I do know you can't go wrong with pretty much any of the dx brand Nikons.

Newest in DX are:
D500 $2,000

you don't need that lol
D7200 You don't need that either. It's something you upgrade to when you realize you aren't getting bored after 2 years.

I LOVE it, but it's heavier than the next two and has a lot of features you wouldn't care about yet.

D5500 - I personally would look at this line. Consider the 5300 to save some cash and I don't think you lose much or anything really that you would care about.

D3400 - Just came out and is a very good entry level camera. 3300 can be considered to save cash.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:22 pm

Octavious wrote:
Big learning curve on shooting 2.8 at 200mm (The dof is so tiny you twitch and you are off focus) but man it takes some stellar pictures.

Try using an 85mm f/1.2!

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:35 pm

geezer wrote:
I'll defer to others for the Nikon suggestions, but a Canon Rebel or SL1 and a Canon 18-55 would get you going. (But the Nikon guys will be along to tell you that their cameras are better in low light, and I can't disagree)

I really don't think you can go wrong with either Nikon or Canon for an SLR. The technology seesaws back and forth as to which has the edge this year.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:33 pm

geezer wrote:
wire wrote:Went out with my Lensbaby a few weeks back.

Lovely - I adore my lensbaby - it doesn't get a ton of use, but I'm often *really* happy with the results.

xmann - There are a lot of good suggestions here, but I'm going to disagree slightly and suggest you look at a "bridge" camera with an integrated lens and a nice, long zoom equivalent. These little things can do absolutely everything, with the possible exception of seriously thin depth-of-field, or extremely high speed action work. On the other hand, they're great for landscape, family shots, and the newest ones have great video capability as well. If you're determined to get an SLR, I'd agree that mirrorless can be a great form factor, but they tend to collect dust on the sensor more easily than do SLR bodies, plus I think you'd be spending more than you may want.

I'll defer to others for the Nikon suggestions, but a Canon Rebel or SL1 and a Canon 18-55 would get you going. (But the Nikon guys will be along to tell you that their cameras are better in low light, and I can't disagree)

Bridge cameras are very nice and can do pretty shallow depth of field. Some of my best photos were with a Sony H9. That was 5+ years ago and I know they are significantly better today than they were years ago. I don't disagree that they might be a good choice or that they can do everything you said. They are inexpensive, very portable, and a great bang for the buck. A few negatives with them are that they will never do more than they did the day you got them, usually aren't very good in low light, and don't have the versatility of a mirrorless or dslr. For landscapes they're doing to be somewhat restricted at wide angle (though panorama mode will help with that). Panasonic and Sony tend to make excellent zoom cameras (though most are good). If I could only have one camera (including one camera/lens) I'd probably take a superzoom. They're a lot of fun and very portable.

Another category to explore are the "enthusiast compact zoom" cameras. They generally lack the zoom capabilities but often have better overall image quality and more settings to play with.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:21 am

gbasden wrote:
Octavious wrote:
Big learning curve on shooting 2.8 at 200mm (The dof is so tiny you twitch and you are off focus) but man it takes some stellar pictures.
Try using an 85mm f/1.2!

DOF at 10 feet is 0.2 feet.

Love this DOF site.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

200 MM at 2.8 is 0.8 and that was dicey. Doesn't help that the 80-200 has no VR. As long as I don't break it I *should* be able to turn around and sell it next year for what I bought it for. My goal is the Tamron 70-200 2.8 which is around 1,400.00. Not this year unless I win the lottery or something.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:27 am

Lens and the DSLR will have a much better resale value than a bridge camera. Especially the lens if it's a good one. I'm sure a bridge camera wouldn't be worth much resale in a few years. (I'm totally just assuming this, but I can't see it not being true.)

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:58 pm

World Press Photo’s Best Nature Shots of 2016

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:01 pm

That one with the elephant is awesome

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:18 pm

The rhino pictures.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:24 pm

Octavious wrote:The rhino pictures.

Yup. That's why I didn't post it. Too sad.

Xmann · Post by **Xmann** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:19 pm

Damnit man, how can anyone do that?

wire · Post by **wire** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:53 pm

I collect old 8mm, 16mm and 35mm films and reels for my experimental film projects. Thought a black and white shot of one of my metal 35mm film reels would look nice framed on my office wall. Had it printed on metallic paper and it turn out nicely.

_MG_2777-Edit.jpg by Rob, on Flickr

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:56 pm

Xmann wrote:Damnit man, how can anyone do that?

Srsly. Did you end up buying a camera? If the discussion's still open, I love my Fuji X-T10 they I got last summer. The new version is out now, too, so you can probably find the 10 pretty cheap. Fuji lenses are fantastic.

Xmann · Post by **Xmann** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:07 pm

Zaxxon wrote:
Xmann wrote:Damnit man, how can anyone do that?
Srsly. Did you end up buying a camera? If the discussion's still open, I love my Fuji X-T10 they I got last summer. The new version is out now, too, so you can probably find the 10 pretty cheap. Fuji lenses are fantastic.

Not yet.

I'm piecing together our spring camping supplies and a camera is on the list.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:29 am

wire wrote:I collect old 8mm, 16mm and 35mm films and reels for my experimental film projects. Thought a black and white shot of one of my metal 35mm film reels would look nice framed on my office wall. Had it printed on metallic paper and it turn out nicely.

I really like that! Very nicely composed.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:34 pm

Was really warm this weekend so I hit the beach. I really like this one except that it's slightly off center. In my defense it was 6 am and I was f'n tired.

For whatever reason my favorite pictures always end up looking like paintings.

20170220-DSC_6762 by Jeff Garnett, on Flickr

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:10 pm

AS A PROFESSIONAL pilot, Santiago Borja flies through all kinds of hair-raising weather. Most of it makes for great photos, too. But nothing tops the lightning bolt he photographed while cruising at 40,000 feet over the Amazon rainforest last month. “It was a very impressive display of light and power,” he says.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:13 am

That's shockingly good!

Another sample from my new D500 and 200-500 combo:

Thorny Gem by Michael Menefee, on Flickr

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:49 am

Very nice! I have a hold on buying anything new as I went f'n buck wild the last year.

Longest lens I have is the Tamron 70-300. At some point I'd like to get a really long lens, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Is the D500 as magical as everyone thought it would be? I love my D7200, so have no plans on getting a new body for a few years.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:59 pm

Octavious wrote:Very nice! I have a hold on buying anything new as I went f'n buck wild the last year. Longest lens I have is the Tamron 70-300. At some point I'd like to get a really long lens, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Is the D500 as magical as everyone thought it would be? I love my D7200, so have no plans on getting a new body for a few years.

I actually bought all that last year, but it's still new to me heh. I am in total love with the D500. Between the AF, deep cache and great dynamic range it's a true joy to use. And the Nikon 200-500 is a revelation of focus speed after years using my ancient screw-driven 300 F4 with a 1.4x converter on it. I am actually glad to have had that lens first so I was forced to learn good long lens technique. Now I want swap out my 17-55 f/2.8 for the Nikon 16-80 kit lens for my DX walk around solution (a perfect match to the 24-120 I use for FF). I am starting to see new ones broken out of a kit on ebay for $500-700, so I may be tempted to buy this year if I can sell something. The D7200 is still plenty good for DX anything, so enjoy!

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:41 pm

Sigma 17-50 is mostly my walk around lens. It is sometimes a bit short so I could see the bump up to 80 being nice. What I have my eye on is the new Tamron 70-200 and the two Sigmas 50-150 (They don't make it anymore, but that's perfect for DX), 50-100 1.8. The 50-100 doesn't have VR and that's kind of a weird/short zoom range. And it is gigantic. But it would be a killer portrait lens, and short enough for good indoor use. The 80-200 on a DX is f'n long inside.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:59 pm

Enough wrote:That's shockingly good!

Another sample from my new D500 and 200-500 combo:

Thorny Gem by Michael Menefee, on Flickr

That is a *fantastic* capture.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:36 pm

That's a really beautiful shot, Enough. I had to take a good long look at it because at first, I thought you had captured him mid-flight but now I see it's actually perched. The darkened part of the leaf gives the illusion of a wing.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:12 pm

Looks like he is perched on the thorn of a cactus.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:17 pm

Daehawk wrote:Looks like he is perched on the thorn of a cactus.

Agave I think

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:05 pm

geezer wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Looks like he is perched on the thorn of a cactus.
Agave I think

Indeed, but sadly no tequila from it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:48 pm

Enough wrote:
geezer wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Looks like he is perched on the thorn of a cactus.
Agave I think
Indeed, but sadly no tequila from it.

Are you blue about it?

wire · Post by **wire** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:43 pm

Hummingbirds are fun to photography. I don't have the lens to get up that close but it's still fun. If you ever make your way to the Monterey Bay area you should check out the Santa Cruz Arboretum. The climate is such that hummingbirds are pretty much out year round because something is always in bloom for them.

Daisy.jpg by Rob, on Flickr

Was in Las Vegas a few weeks ago for a conference and pretty much only took out of focus abstract photos when out walking at night.

Light Study #5.jpg by Rob, on Flickr

Light Study #6.jpg by Rob, on Flickr

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:14 pm

My most popular bird photo. Took this last month on President's Day weekend. Love the shallow DOF you can get with a 2.8 tele.

20170220-DSC_6881 by Jeff Garnett, on Flickr

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:54 am

It looks like you mostly avoided frying the highlights, not an easy thing to do with a sunlit white bird. Very nice. I tend to under-expose said subjects to protect highlights and use the inherent dynamic range of the sensor to bring up the rest in post. Did you do that here?

And I am still working through my Bosque backlog. Really liking this morning mood:

Sunrise Snow Geese Flyout by Michael Menefee, on Flickr

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:11 pm

No, but the picture ending up underexposing by accident so win/win. It seems that happens a lot when I use a tele. That was with my 80-200. The beast of a lens from the 80's.

It was golden hour in the morning, so the light was shifting very quickly. It's funny how I never noticed anything about light all that much, until I started taking pictures.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:14 pm

Love the bird picture btw. It's kind of terrifying when you get gigantic flocks of birds that all launch up.

I got this one a few months back. I wish I was closer to the flock. They were all the way on the other side of a gigantic lake.

20161119-DSC_1870 by Jeff Garnett, on Flickr