General Photography

Yeah life is constrained, have to have your priorities straight. I'm a self-confessed gear junkie, my skills probably don't match up to my gear and a punk with a phone could probably out-shoot me. I really don't care. I love doing what I do and it gets me all excited (in a non perverse way). Cellphones cameras just don't turn me on at all. And for all it is... expensive, bulky, noisy, competitive its hell of a lot more fun for me than a cellphone cam.
 
A punk with a cellphone may think that he can out-shoot everyone else, but he never will. I had a k850i, but never used the camera because it was terrible when compared to my DSLR, and I take my DSLR everywhere I go.
 
Rouxenator said:
Don't be so serious bru ;)
Taking pics are mean to be fun. There is little joy left if you make it too competitive and expensive and bulky and noisy and heavy and still get beaten by a punk with a phone :p
Click to expand...
The only competition should be with yourself and becoming the best photographer you can be. If that's with a P&S or a cellphone then that's your choice but not everyone is going to be satisfied with mediocrity or stagnation.

These bigger, bulkier - though not necessarily more expensive - cameras offer features that you'll never be able to take advantage of and require skills that you'll never acquire. There's a good chance that photography will become less fun for you than someone who continues to learn.

And when I come across this "punk with a phone" I'll happily tell him the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:
If you're meeting up with koffie, why don't you "hire" his 10-20 and leave the 16-35?
 
BigAl-sa said:
If you're meeting up with koffie, why don't you "hire" his 10-20 and leave the 16-35?
Click to expand...
Nice idea but I'm only going to be in London for a few days (thankfully!) - the rest of the time I'll be up in the midlands or down at the coast.
 
ldmelsa said:
Horses for courses. Sometimes you want a P&S in your pocket. Sometimes you need your SLR. What's so hard to understand? :)


Half frame DSLR @ ISO 6400

​
Click to expand...
wow - I've really got to get something that goes over 1600 :o
 
nothing beats a fast lens though
canon 24mm f1.4 II anyone? drooooool

PS even the old 5d is clearly better at lowlight than any new 1/2frame
 
ldmelsa said:
nothing beats a fast lens though
canon 24mm f1.4 II anyone? drooooool

PS even the old 5d is clearly better at lowlight than any new 1/2frame
Click to expand...
I know I'm a big - ok huge - advocate of fast glass (especially in lieu of OS/IS) but one thing my 50mm f/1.8 has taught me is the importance of a high ISO camera. I love shooting wide open but the shallow DOF doesnt suit all types of photography. Granted its much more severe on the 50mm than it would be on the 24mm.
 
bwana said:
I know I'm a big - ok huge - advocate of fast glass (especially in lieu of OS/IS) but one thing my 50mm f/1.8 has taught me is the importance of a high ISO camera. I love shooting wide open but the shallow DOF doesnt suit all types of photography. Granted its much more severe on the 50mm than it would be on the 24mm.
Click to expand...
Found that out to my cost at a function I did recently. For some reason I was working around F4 and lower, and some of the group pictures are awful. In situations like that I normally use F8, but the beer must have befuddled my thinking :o
 
BigAl-sa said:
Found that out to my cost at a function I did recently. For some reason I was working around F4 and lower, and some of the group pictures are awful. In situations like that I normally use F8, but the beer must have befuddled my thinking :o
Click to expand...
It's not so much of a problem when I'm shooting with the 16-35 even wide open (f/2.8).
 
bwana said:
wow - I've really got to get something that goes over 1600 :o
Click to expand...

Yes. 50D at 3200:

No sharpening applied, obviously. Click for the full series.

It looks kinda grainy up close, but at 15MP, if you export it at even half size, you hardly see the difference.

ldmelsa said:
nothing beats a fast lens though
canon 24mm f1.4 II anyone?
Click to expand...

I'd love one. But did you see the price? :eek:
 
bwana said:
It's not so much of a problem when I'm shooting with the 16-35 even wide open (f/2.8).
Click to expand...
Yip, found that too. UWA have an amazing depth of field. Look at the railing on the left edge of this pic taken with the Sig 10-20:



Ok, it was taken at f6.3 (min F4), but just about everything is in focus from my feet to the horizon (focus point the tree in the middle ground).
 
That's why I love the 10-20mm. At 10mm and f/4, hyperfocal distance is 1.33m. Focus at 1.33m gives you focus from 68cm away to infinity. Stop down to f8 and it becomes 45cm to infinity.
 
bwana said:
Granted its much more severe on the 50mm than it would be on the 24mm.
Click to expand...

that's why I said 24mm, as in 24mm on a FF of course - that's wide angle
I was thinking night land/cityscapes, hand-held
but you're right, shallow dof is often to shallow, which is where the fast digital cameras come in

btw my D90 is not that fast - after all, it's just a 1/2frame
I often struggle with the D90 and my slow 3.5-5.6 zoom (the VR is only 1 stop - should have got the 18-200VR lol)
maybe I should get that 35mm1.8 hmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X