** A Picture I Took - 2009 **

Yosemite National Park:

IMG_8722.jpg


Atlanta:

IMG_5280.jpg


Idaho sunset:

p198823264-4.jpg
 
Never did a light graffit before, so here's my first go.

4241615699_96cb80c303_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've been following this thread and I can't get enough of it.

It is some of the best photography I've ever seen. Amazing stuff.

I am heavily interested in buying my own camera, but don't know where to start. I am used to taking pics with a point-and-shoot but would like to upgrade to the SLR world where I know the possibilities are endless.

Can anyone recommend me a camera to start off with or point me somewhere to learn more?

I read a guide somewhere one time about ISO and aperture which both deal with light I believe, and contrast.

I just love all of these pics.

I guess one of my first, million dollar questions is: What is the difference in say a Nikon D3 and a Nikon D90/D50 ? I haven't noticed a lot of difference in PQ between the three or even the first and second. I think it all depends on how good of an editor you are? But the camera, I understand, has a lot to do with it as well.
 
Light-rail station in downtown Dallas, and shot with an off-camera flash behind the glass. That's what blows the white up behind their heads. The rest is pretty spot on to the scene.
 
So no post-processing? Love that pic. Looks like they are in an unreal area.
 
FMX said:
I've been following this thread and I can't get enough of it.

It is some of the best photography I've ever seen. Amazing stuff.

I am heavily interested in buying my own camera, but don't know where to start. I am used to taking pics with a point-and-shoot but would like to upgrade to the SLR world where I know the possibilities are endless.

Can anyone recommend me a camera to start off with or point me somewhere to learn more?

I read a guide somewhere one time about ISO and aperture which both deal with light I believe, and contrast.

I just love all of these pics.

I guess one of my first, million dollar questions is: What is the difference in say a Nikon D3 and a Nikon D90/D50 ? I haven't noticed a lot of difference in PQ between the three or even the first and second. I think it all depends on how good of an editor you are? But the camera, I understand, has a lot to do with it as well.
Click to expand...

What would your budget be for a new camera?

The D3 has a full frame sensor (Google full frame vs crop sensor)

I just got a D40 and I am loving it so far, I plan on sticking with photography for a long time and my next upgrade will most likely be a D90 but not for a long time. The D40 is a great camera to learn the basics with and it really doesn't cost that much.
 
Up to a grand, darkhunter139, but it all depends on what is recommended. I don't want to start off with something that is cheap but won't last. I want something that will last a good number of years.

I'm basically looking for differences between the best (~5 grand cameras, and less than a grand cameras). I'm sure the cameras priced up to a grand are good, but lack something, and I'm not sure what that is? (edit: just read your comment about the sensor, I overlooked that).

I've read about the Canon Rebel XSi's a little bit. Are these comparable to Nikon D50's or D90's?
 
I think they are more comparable to the D90 but I am pretty sure the D90 is a better camera. For a grand budget I think that would be your best bet.
 
Thanks for your info! Hopefully someone else can chime in with a few details maybe.

I see people here using Nikon mostly. Some people hate Canon and some hate Nikon. I'm really not sure of the reason for the hate? They are both the major manufacturers and I don't see how either could be much better than the other.
 
I had both, stayed with Canon though. I like the glass better. Dont get me wrong, Nikon glass is sweet, but I like what Canon offered.....Plus I really enjoy the video on my 5D Mark II... taking a video at f/1.4 in almost no light is too awesome...
 
Oh, there was definitely post processing, FMX...things like exposure compensations in areas like the shirts, some spot sharpening, curve adjustments...but when you get to a certain level, these are things you do on EVERY photo and your workflow becomes part of your process as an artist. Straight OOC is good enough for soccer moms, but that's where it ends, in my opinion. With tools like Lightroom so inexpensively available, there's no excuse NOT to post process.

In regards to a camera for you, I started with a Canon XTi and ended up selling it 2 years later at a steep loss in value. It was great for learning on, but definitely something I wouldn't trust in certain situations, so that's why I went to full-frame with the 5D. Most people will tell you to invest in glass, and those people are 110% correct. You will get awesome pictures with the most basic Canon DSLR and "L" class lens (and even a few non-L lenses!). On the flipside, the worst kit lens paired up with something like a 5DMkII will give you crap. Just the way it is.

If you have any questions, ask them. I learned everything I know from forums and experimenting.
 
As I understand it, Lightroom is better for working with lots of usable images, where Photoshop will work for editing few images? I suspect the reason for the latter is because there is no way to quickly view all of your photos in Photoshop like there is in Lightroom, correct?

I'm going to have to do some reading about the glass and what not. I'm assuming some lenses are glass and some are plastic now.

Is pairing a $700 "L Class" lens with a $500 (xti) body a waste of time?
 
By glass, I mean the quality of the lens (and glass elements therein). Lens bodies vary from plastic (cheap) to metal (expensive).

Lightroom is ideal for editing RAW files (an uncompressed format you can take your pictures in), and is great for batch processing. Photoshop is generally a one photo at a time type of editor, and supports much more advanced stuff, like layering.

An XTi with an L lens was my first setup...I wouldn't call it a waste of time. One of my favorite shots (not processed well at all and shot as a JPEG) was with my xti and the 70-200 f/4L.

2916023213_29177b952f_b.jpg
 
I agree, I had the 24-105 glued to my XT and the pictures was outstanding... A lot better than my 28-105, sigma 18-200, and kit lens.... I should of started with the L before wasting all my money on other lens. Mileage will vary from person to person, but that's my opinion. But then again if I did not use those crap lens I wouldn't know what bad was.... The only lens I enjoyed before jumping on the L's is the Tamron 17-35....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top