Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BUG_EAF322 on March 25, 2006, 06:05:32 AM
-
Got me a new zoom lens.
:)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0094.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0069.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0060.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0096.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0018.jpg)
-
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0123.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0054.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0107.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0106.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/Marco322/DSC_0058.jpg)
thats it
-
Cool, what lens exactly?
-
Actualy its a cheap 70-300mm 4-5,6 nikkor lens cost me 126 euros.
through crop factor its 450mm equivalent.
Its not the most crisp lens but good for its price.
I got to begin with something
After this i want the 50 mm F1,8 its a cheap but very crisp low light lens.(http://www.nl.bol.com/intershoproot/large/SCECOVER/FC/1/4/1/8/4/1418434.gif)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Actualy its a cheap 70-300mm 4-5,6 nikkor lens cost me 126 euros.
through crop factor its 450mm equivalent.
Its not the most crisp lens but good for its price.
I got to begin with something
After this i want the 50 mm F1,8 its a cheap but very crisp low light lens.
I have the same lens, Bug. I'm very happy with it. I think I paid $139 for it in Aug. 2005. Can't live without it when shooting sports.
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8605995/116821836.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/9197511/129065941.jpg)
-
nice pics Bug...particularly the Herron:aok
-
nice quality Bug.
zooooom in on some titties next time and leave the birds for the freaks
-
Nice image clarity! I don't think I've ever gotten my Pentax 35mm that sharp.
-
Beauuutiful, nice pics Bug!
Daniel
-
Nice pics BUG, makes me want to visit the country again :)
-
They look good ripsnort :O indeed not dissapointing
Thnx all
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
They look good ripsnort :O indeed not dissapointing
Thnx all
I wish I had the eye you have for photography...my specialty is sports...I don't "see" a good picture when its staring me in the face very well when I'm out there shooting (exception would be sports).... You obviously do! :aok
-
Nice pictures Bug!!
-
Nice pictures!!!!!!! I really like the smokestack one.....btw....what kind of camera do you have and do you take photos for a living?
-
Man how do you guys get pics like that. We've got a beautiful piece of scenery at the end of our street which looks gorgeous at sunrise/sunset. I've got a Casio Z110 6mp, not the greatest camera in the world but not the worst.... any advice on how to get better looking pics (is it exposure settings, focus settings etc?) as this is all I end up with:
(http://renaissance.xtreme.net.nz/ms/scene.jpg)
-
My camera is a DSLR D50 from NIKON. Its just a hobby for me and its all just experimental i just shot this by leaving the camera on program "P".
I always try to a bit underexposure. U can brightup dark areas in pictures with photo editing software.
I do that alot after that i sharpen so everything gets more crisp.
I found out that the camera keeps the image a bit soft but that seems on purpose.
Its the last step in editing photo's
Vulcan: u can try also an earlier time to take the shot it stil looks dark.
also u can try longer expore times but the camera should be freezed.
Higher iso's might be an option as wel.
All cameras suffer the problem u have
Im consider my self a beginner btw i realy renewed my love for photography with my 3 month old D50.
-
I've been eyeing that nikon 50mm f1.8 lens, but...
My D50 hasn't arrived yet!!!!! (argh)
I ordered the D50 plus the 18-70 lens from the D70 kit, and added the 55-200 lens since the 55-200 has a good rep. I should have also gotten the 50mm but got an SB600 flash instead.
Might get the 50mm 1.8 later, but I suppose I should actually use the camera a bit before buying more lenses. And I can't use it until it arrives. Bah.
-
Vulcan,
You're going to have probs getting better low-light pics until you get a camera with a "real" lens. It's not about megapixels anymore... Anything above 4mp is fine for even fairly large prints and on-screen viewing, so it's more about the lens.
If you want a dramatic improvement in the POTENTIAL image quality, you'll need to step up to either a hideously expensive point-and-shoot camera with a big lens, or go for a DSLR camera like the D50 a bunch of us in here have purchased.
It's about twice as expensive as an average point-and-shoot digital camera, but the results speak for themselves. You can get a generic D50 kit at newegg for about $630, but I suggest going to Cameta Camera's ebay storefront and buy their D50 combo that includes the better lense from the D70. You pay a bit more for the 18-70mm lense instead of the D50's usual 18-55mm lense, but it's a much better lens and Cameta Camera's prices are about as low as you'll find anywhere.
http://stores.ebay.com/Cameta-Camera
I bought my kit there and they shipped within a day or two of the order.
-
URRRRRGGGGG.....
I HATE YOU GUYS.....now why did you have to tell me about that! Now I want another camera!!!!!!!:mad:
BEAUTIFUL pictures though......how hard is it to make changes to your photos with software? I have never done this.
-
Nilsen is right BUG, zoom in on some big TA-TA's and post them KNOCKERS!:D
-
gutt,
It's a matter of having the right software and the time to learn how to do it. Pretty much all cameras do a certain amount of processing automatically so pictures look decent straight from the camera, but in tough situations or when you're looking for a particular effect you sometimes end up fighting the camera and the results look terrible.
The real pros take pictures in a "RAW" format which is essentially an unprocessed dataset straight from the image sensor, plus data fields that include such items as exposure, ISO, etc. Once they import it to photoshop or whatever, they manipulate it by adjusting the white balance, colors, brightness/contrast, sharpness, apply anti-noise filtering, filter out artifacts like that annoying purple "fringing" that appears on high-contrast edges in all digital cameras, etc. At the end of the process, they can come up with a unique image that looks completely different than what the camera would have come up by itself using default processing.
The D50 and most (all?) other DSLRs come with a decent set of default processing options and will output a nice looking .jpg file that needs little if any post-processing touchup work. Maybe a little brightness/contrast or extra sharpening, maybe some exposure compensation, but that's about all you'd do to a camera-processed .jpg. But the D50 and other DSLRs also output in RAW in case you want to do all the image processing yourself. The camera *should* come with software that lets you import and process the photos, but in Nikon's case the included software is sufficient but not particularly user friendly. Unsuprisingly, Nikon sells a software package separately from the cameras that is more powerful and supposedly easier to use.
Since Nikon doesn't include the better software with the camera though, many people give nikon software the *finger* and buy photoshop or photoshop elements, or some other software package that can decode Nikon RAW formats. There are even some freeware RAW image packages out there, but you really have to find and try them yourself because each one has custom filters and various features that are all a bit different from the others.
-
Nice pics bugs.
The 2nd one and the tall chimney remind me of the canal trip in Half-Life 2 (yeah I'm an irrecoverable nerd)...
-
Nice pics. I like the heron shot the best.
Looking at all the pictures on this board and reading about the joys of DSLR cameras, you guys convinced me to drop my point and shoot 2MP chepo camera for a real one. I ordered a new Canon 20D with a couple extra lenses a few days ago. The wait is killing me.
-
Thanks eagl!!!!
Great explanation!
-
FYI: If you set up your camera in manual mode ahead of your shooting, there is no need for photoshop (except if you plan to use RAW, as eagl said, Nikon sells you its RAW software separately, but you can just use Photoshop for this purpose.)
Most of my pictures, when I do an auto-correction in Photoshop, it rarely changes the picture...means that I've properly set the camera correctly. :aok
Bug, incidently, that 2nd pic I have with the kid in red, that was taken at full zoom, from 174 feet away, and cropped up to roughly 450mm. That's why its not as crisp as the soccer photo. that's the Price one will pay for cropping though.
Chickenhawk, good choice. You can't really go wrong with Canon or Nikon SLR digitals IMO.
-
Saw that rip but the first one is crisp.
:)
red and black are also hard colours i think.