• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

I'm waiting for the af-s version to actually be released to see if it's worth getting or if I should get the older af-d but it's definitely on my list...as is a 70-200 but that's 4x the price :laughing
 
Do you think the 85 would be too long since I'm on a crop body? I have no intention of switching to full frame since I like shooting sports.
 
kyles here said:
Can someone school me on lighting? I wanna start doing real portraits but idk where to begin for the lighting. Should i get a couple soft boxes or umbrellas? What size? Etc. Right now I only have 1 sb600 but I wanna pick up another flash and I can fire them with my d300s in commander mode. I'll be using 2 lenses... 50 f1.8 and 28-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...

I offer lessons in advanced studio lighting technique for $250 an hour. You supply the model.

I keed, I keed!

I got the Interfit $300 special - 2 strobes, 1 brolly, 1 small softbox, 2 tripods, some Cowboy triggers.

I added a bunch of non-adjustable Edison fitting strobes and a ton of brollies, but my best investments by far were 5ft umbrella softboxes ($80 each - not as nice a 'real' softboxes, but much more portable and about 1/5th the price).

That, and, read. Get some books, get a model, experiment. No amount of verbal/written tuition beats hands-on experimentation.

But for portraits, specifically - that Interfit set was basically built for doing portraits. Add a kicker and you're set. I got a cheap snoot from Adorama and some plumbing pipe from Home Depot of various lengths, spray painted the inside matt black and voila - dirt-cheap snoot for highlighting hair.
 
kyles here said:
Do you think the 85 would be too long since I'm on a crop body? I have no intention of switching to full frame since I like shooting sports.
Click to expand...

Full frame = bigger pixels for a given megapixel count = lower noise. Just saying :)

Keep the 85. You mean the 1.8, 85, right? Bokeh is fabby (and even better on a full frame because you can move closer to the subject to fill the frame, reducing the DOF even more...)
 
kyles here said:
Can someone school me on lighting? I wanna start doing real portraits but idk where to begin for the lighting. Should i get a couple soft boxes or umbrellas? What size? Etc. Right now I only have 1 sb600 but I wanna pick up another flash and I can fire them with my d300s in commander mode. I'll be using 2 lenses... 50 f1.8 and 28-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...




What you have is fine for portraits on a crop body. You just have to understand what angles work and what don't. I'm in the camp that says that there is no perfect portrait lens. I say shoot with what you have until you understand lighting. Once the lighting bug hit me, I stopped putting money into lenses for a while until I got into more situations where I wasn't allowed to use the lights.
 
wannabe said:
What you have is fine for portraits on a crop body. You just have to understand what angles work and what don't. I'm in the camp that says that there is no perfect portrait lens. I say shoot with what you have until you understand lighting. Once the lighting bug hit me, I stopped putting money into lenses for a while until I got into more situations where I wasn't allowed to use the lights.
Click to expand...

This.

Generally speaking, the longer the lens the better for portraits because you reduce perspective distortion.

However, really long lenses give you a very flat, 2D look.

And it doesn't matter (from a perspective distortion point of view) if the lens is on the crop of full-frame.

But the DOF will be shorter on a full frame, simply because you'll end up being nearer to the subject to achieve the same composition.

I did pretty much the same route as Aris - got the basics, got some lights, spent a year of so having fun with them, then went back to trying more on-location stuff.

I think Aris and Nick have a ton more on-location strobe-assisted lighting experience than I do. I've barely scratched the surface.

This image was taken with 2 hot-shoe flashes, 1 reflector and remote trigger, and it probably my best effort at mixing daylight with flash - 85mm F1.8 - but at F2.8 and using an ND filter and ISO 50 to get that aperture:

event_slideshow01.jpg
 
Last edited:
kyles here said:
how would something like this be? from what ive read the umbrellas might be a little small...?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425220-REG/Impact_DFUMK_Digital_Flash_Umbrella_Mount.html
Click to expand...

Generally with softboxes/umbrellas, bigger really is better.

General rule is, the bigger the light source, the softer the shadows will be, which is generally what people want for portraits as it hides skin imperfections. And close - the closer the large light source is, the better.

I'm talking in generalities here - you want SOME interest, I usually use a 2ft square softbox in fairly close as my main, then the 5ft softbox on the opposite side and slightly lower on lower power to fill and soften the shadows from the main. That's my 'real estate headshot' setup. And a kicker (non-diffuse, but focused) light from the back to help separate the head from the backdrop.

If you already have 2 battery powered camera flashes, that setup is fine.

But for $300 you could get this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/569824-REG/Interfit_INT182_EX150_MK2_Two_Monolight.html

The brolly on that isn't really big enough to be very versatile, but there are a host of smaller places that sell big umbrella softboxes. Wish I had the copy of the magazine, there was a place selling genuinely parabolic brollies with 12 ribs, with a skirt around the edge to reduce spill, for something crazy like $100 for a 6ft version.

The nice thing about using plug-in strobes is waaaaay more power, analog brightness controls, no worrying about batteries, and audible 'ready' signal (3 seconds on full output, which you'll hardly ever need for headshots - even with a hoooge softbox).

That said, I kinda wish I'd gone for a higher output head with faster refresh time, but then, for $300, shit... it's damn good value for a starter kit.

The downside with the above kit is, not so portable.
 
So random question, and if ya'll ever get tired of this camera noob just let me know :twofinger

But randomly I was trying to take an extreme close up of my cat, and my 35mm 1.8G was having a little problem doing so.

In full light conditions ((though it was of a black cat)) it was trying to use the flash, and never truly wanted to focus. Even in manual focus it was a lil tough getting it how I wanted.

Doing some online reading I see alot of macro is done in 50-80mm, so is my 35 too small and that is why I was having problems?

I'm not talking anything to the molecular level but was trying to get in on both her eyes.

Is this something I need to do with manual focus? Is it even possible with my 35 mm or should I put the kit lens on and try it with that?

Or do I just need to STFU and buy a "true" macro lens, and a couple of external flash units :twofinger



Also, sub sub topic.... zoom lens... 70-200 vs 70-300, any thoughts???
 
Your lens isn't made for macro that's why it won't focus extremely close. The closest you can focus, manually or auto, is 1ft away. If you want macro type photos, youre going to need a macro lens. As for the 70-200 vs 70-300, you really can't compare them. 70-200 assuming you mean f2.8 is a professional lens and the workhorse of almost every professional photographer. where the 70-300, while its decent when there's good light is a consumer lens. Not saying its not good but it's 1/4 the cost...that right there should say enough
 
kyles here said:
Your lens isn't made for macro that's why it won't focus extremely close. The closest you can focus, manually or auto, is 1ft away. If you want macro type photos, youre going to need a macro lens. As for the 70-200 vs 70-300, you really can't compare them. 70-200 assuming you mean f2.8 is a professional lens and the workhorse of almost every professional photographer. where the 70-300, while its decent when there's good light is a consumer lens. Not saying its not good but it's 1/4 the cost...that right there should say enough
Click to expand...

It says alot, which is partly why I asked

I also wasn't sure if the extra 100 and 1/4 the cost really was going to be the same thing in the end because of quality...

Also curious about brands, Sigma vs Nikon etc.....
 
been geeking out on strobist in all my spare time, my triggers and a lightsphere arrive tomorrow, already have a few stands/umbrellas and some continuous lights. Now I just need some subjects...
 
highonF4i said:
been geeking out on strobist in all my spare time, my triggers and a lightsphere arrive tomorrow, already have a few stands/umbrellas and some continuous lights. Now I just need some subjects...
Click to expand...



That's the hard part when you first get started. It was easy for me when I started because I used to dance on a semi-pro salsa team. So, I had an almost unlimited supply of female salsa dancers who wanted their pictures taken. Once I got better, it became easier and easier to convince people to model for me. Eventually, you get good enough where you can convince some professional models to work with you for free. :teeth

But, initially, I practiced lighting on a stuffed Curious George doll. :teeth
 
i_am_the_koi said:
It says alot, which is partly why I asked

I also wasn't sure if the extra 100 and 1/4 the cost really was going to be the same thing in the end because of quality...

Also curious about brands, Sigma vs Nikon etc.....
Click to expand...



By the way, you can buy a spacer that goes between your camera and lens, and it'll turn your lense into a poor-man's macro. The farther away you mount the lens from the sensor the more you reduce the len's depth of field and the closer you can focus on any object.
 
wannabe said:
By the way, you can buy a spacer that goes between your camera and lens, and it'll turn your lense into a poor-man's macro. The farther away you mount the lens from the sensor the more you reduce the len's depth of field and the closer you can focus on any object.
Click to expand...

I saw those but didn't know how well they worked, or if it was even worth it....
 
i_am_the_koi said:
So random question, and if ya'll ever get tired of this camera noob just let me know :twofinger

But randomly I was trying to take an extreme close up of my cat, and my 35mm 1.8G was having a little problem doing so.

In full light conditions ((though it was of a black cat)) it was trying to use the flash, and never truly wanted to focus. Even in manual focus it was a lil tough getting it how I wanted.

Doing some online reading I see alot of macro is done in 50-80mm, so is my 35 too small and that is why I was having problems?

I'm not talking anything to the molecular level but was trying to get in on both her eyes.

Is this something I need to do with manual focus? Is it even possible with my 35 mm or should I put the kit lens on and try it with that?

Or do I just need to STFU and buy a "true" macro lens, and a couple of external flash units :twofinger
Click to expand...

You do not need a macro lens for that type of shot. If you are doing a "close-up" shot all you need is either a 50mm, 85mm or 100mm. These lens will allow you to get a good 'face' shot (eyes/nose or eyes/nose/mouth). I know you were talking about your cat but the same still applies. :cool Or if you get that zoom you are talking about just go a bit pass the minimum focus distance and zoom into your cat's face.

wannabe said:
By the way, you can buy a spacer that goes between your camera and lens, and it'll turn your lense into a poor-man's macro. The farther away you mount the lens from the sensor the more you reduce the len's depth of field and the closer you can focus on any object.
Click to expand...

I have a set of Kenkos (12mm, 20mm and 36mm) and attached to my 35mm 5D MkII will minimize focusable area to 1" to 3" in front of the glass. :p Koi will need to strap his cat down to get that macro of its eye booger! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top