Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

[nweaver]

maybe i'm old school, but since you're just starting out, have you considered a used manual 35mm slr? they can be had for very cheap, lenses are quite cheap (manual focus ones).

best of all, it forces you to stop and think about what you're doing. i know you're prob thinking, "but i can do everything and more with a new dslr..." well, sure you can...you just have a different mindset when you work with film. i find myself spending more time on composing my shot with my manual camera instead of shotgunning 10 shots and hoping one came out ok.
.

Except that you very quickly realize that you can do so much more with a dSLR.

a) Why does National Geographic get such good photos? Uhh, "One case, one frame": good photographers would go through film faster than I can go through pixels.

b) Instant feedback on lighting, composition, etc. You want to learn aperture, shutter speed, etc, and how it affects things? Just take photos, and see the results. Its a great way to get better faster.

c) Roll of film: $5. Development: $5. so thats $10/30 frames easily. Given I've dumped near 1000 frames in a motoGP weekend (to get a few fantastic shots, mind you), that would be $330 in film costs if I was shooting film! Film very VERY quickly gets more expensive than a digital body (which, for something like the Canon XS is now $450 with the kit lens!)

 

[Cycle61]

You mean like this? http://flickr.com/photos/spurdog/2569956807/

Oh, another question, as I'm considering buying an SB600...

What does "slave only" mean? I keep reading that the SB-600 can only be used as a slave. Not sure how, or when, that would pertain to me.

Yep, exactly. That one's actually bigger than what I used. It's incredible what a simple piece of white paper can do for your lighting. Look up Better bounce Card sometime. Same idea.

The "slave only" is in reference to a multiple-flash setup. You can put an SB-800 on your camera and use it to control multiple SB-600's or 800's off of the camera. The SB-600 does not have this function, in a multi flash setup it can only act as a remote, or slave.

 

[VeloceMoto]

Yep, exactly. That one's actually bigger than what I used. It's incredible what a simple piece of white paper can do for your lighting. Look up Better bounce Card sometime. Same idea.

The "slave only" is in reference to a multiple-flash setup. You can put an SB-800 on your camera and use it to control multiple SB-600's or 800's off of the camera. The SB-600 does not have this function, in a multi flash setup it can only act as a remote, or slave.

Ahh, so it sounds like an SB600 would be fine for now, and then when I eventually step it up to two flash sources, the next flash should be the 800?

I guess I am just trying to plan ahead. I have been reading the Strobist guides and I am afraid multiple flash setups are going to be inevitable...

 

[Cycle61]

Ahh, so it sounds like an SB600 would be fine for now, and then when I eventually step it up to two flash sources, the next flash should be the 800?

Yep.

I guess I am just trying to plan ahead. I have been reading the Strobist guides and I am afraid multiple flash setups are going to be inevitable...

you're trapped now.....

 

[rangefinder]

Every time I work up the balls to buy a D90 or D300, I get cold feet because the lens I want (18-55/2.8) costs upwards of 1200$. I'm a lousy photog anyway. bah

I've got a D200 and a 17-35/2.8D (price that pig of a lens—sweeeet glass though). If I was in the market for a DSLR, I'd go with the D700 (FF sensor!!). Second choice the D300. If I had the $$$, the D3.

 

[Cycle61]

I've got a D200 and a 17-35/2.8D (price that pig of a lens—sweeeet glass though). If I was in the market for a DSLR, I'd go with the D700 (FF sensor!!). Second choice the D300. If I had the $$$, the D3.

Have the D700. It's awesome. I would love to try a 17-35 on it, that lens was incredible on film and I've gotta rent one sometime for the full-frame.

Hmmmmm.....

 

[TylerW]

Dude, I may point the thing and press the button, but the D60 does all the work. The camera takes amazing photos, so good that I wonder how there are any professional photographers at all when a camera can turn my snapshot into beauty.

Seriously, this camera has put the availability of pro quality photography into the hands of neophytes like me.

This will be true for those who only strive to be as good as their tools.

 

[rangefinder]

Have the D700. It's awesome. I would love to try a 17-35 on it, that lens was incredible on film and I've gotta rent one sometime for the full-frame.

Hmmmmm.....

Dpreview gave the D700 a great review. I'm this || close to buying one. I really like my D200, and the D300 is it + better low light sensitivity and the D700 is all that + FF. I've been slowly acquiring Nikon MF AI-S and non-DX lenses for the day I get that FF DSLR. The lenses were pretty cheap on CL several years back. It seems folks were dumping them because they weren't "digital." It's a blast to twist an old MF AI-S onto the D200 and shoot "old school," but, then, I still shoot film too (it's an addiction that I don't want to kick).

.

 

[TylerW]

Okay, so who wants to sell me a 580ex I for a good price? Tired of getting outsniped on ebay.

 

[Cycle61]

Dpreview gave the D700 a great review. I'm this || close to buying one. I really like my D200, and the D300 is it + better low light sensitivity and the D700 is all that + FF. I've been slowly acquiring Nikon MF AI-S and non-DX lenses for the day I get that FF DSLR. The lenses were pretty cheap on CL several years back. It seems folks were dumping them because they weren't "digital." It's a blast to twist an old MF AI-S onto the D200 and shoot "old school," but, then, I still shoot film too (it's an addiction that I don't want to kick).

.

The D700 is all that plus FF plus about a stop and a half of clean pictures at high ISO. I don't even hesitate to shoot at 3200 any more.

And yah, it's a hoot with the old school lenses. I've gotta pick up another 105/2.5 ais sometime.

 

[VeloceMoto]

So I've been having a blast lately with my d70, the 50mm f/1.8 lens and my SB600 flash. The flash is especially cool since it has a swivel head and I can bounce the flash off the ceiling or walls.

I've also been playing around with flash-fill, but haven't quite gotten the hang of it. For example, if I'm shooting in the bright sun, harsh shadows are cast on the face of the subject. When I try and use the flash for fill, almost the entire picture is blown out. How do I correct this? I thought it would help if I could bump the shutter speed up, but it won't go past 1/500.

What are my options?

The only thing I can think of that would help is shooting at smaller apertures, but then I would lose the nice, shallow depth-of-field from shooting at f/1.8 or f/2.8 (something that is nice for portraits).

EDIT: Oh yeah, I believe I had my ISO down as far as it would go, 200.

 

[Cycle61]

I've also been playing around with flash-fill, but haven't quite gotten the hang of it. For example, if I'm shooting in the bright sun, harsh shadows are cast on the face of the subject. When I try and use the flash for fill, almost the entire picture is blown out. How do I correct this? I thought it would help if I could bump the shutter speed up, but it won't go past 1/500.

What are my options?

The only thing I can think of that would help is shooting at smaller apertures, but then I would lose the nice, shallow depth-of-field from shooting at f/1.8 or f/2.8 (something that is nice for portraits).

EDIT: Oh yeah, I believe I had my ISO down as far as it would go, 200.

You sir, have found the reason that a high flash sync speed is critical for outdoor shooting. You really only have two options here:

1) Dial down the aperture to keep a good exposure at 1/500th of a second.

2) Buy an ND filter. ND stands for Neutral Density, and what it will do is cut the amount of light entering the lens by a specified amount. They're available in all different strengths, from less than one stop up to ten stops or more. I'd suggest a two or three stop filter for what you're trying to accomplish here.

Or, there's the option....

Read this and get back to me. You have one of the few cameras in Nikon's lineup that can handle this little trick. Basically, it makes your camera not realize there's a flash attached, and it will happily sync all the way up to 1/4000th of a second. You will have to set the flash exposure manually however.

 

[VeloceMoto]

You sir, have found the reason that a high flash sync speed is critical for outdoor shooting. You really only have two options here:

1) Dial down the aperture to keep a good exposure at 1/500th of a second.

2) Buy an ND filter. ND stands for Neutral Density, and what it will do is cut the amount of light entering the lens by a specified amount. They're available in all different strengths, from less than one stop up to ten stops or more. I'd suggest a two or three stop filter for what you're trying to accomplish here.

Or, there's the option....

Read this and get back to me. You have one of the few cameras in Nikon's lineup that can handle this little trick. Basically, it makes your camera not realize there's a flash attached, and it will happily sync all the way up to 1/4000th of a second. You will have to set the flash exposure manually however.

AWESOME!

By the way, my decision to purchase an SB600 was almost entirely based on the example photos (above) that you took, so thank you! I'll check out the filters you mention.

OH, speaking of filters, I'm told I want to buy some UV filters to protect my lenses. Is there any reason to buy one UV filter over another, or should I just shop for the cheapest?

 

[Cycle61]

OH, speaking of filters, I'm told I want to buy some UV filters to protect my lenses. Is there any reason to buy one UV filter over another, or should I just shop for the cheapest?

Glad you're enjoying your 600. The 400 wouldn't have a prayer against bright sun.

UV filters, in one word: Don't.

Seriously, think about it. What are you protecting your lens from? The front element of the lens is designed with the understanding that it will be exposed to the world, and the coatings on the glass are very hard and durable. You're not gonna smudge it, scratch it, etc without purposefully trying. The only real danger to the lens is an impact, and in that case all the filter is gonna do is break first adding little bits of broken glass to attack the front of your lens.

If you want to protect your lens, always keep the hood on it. If it gets dirty, breathe on it and wipe it on a t-shirt. If it gets really dirty, hit it with a small shot of vodka and wipe it off.

Also, there's the lesser factor of diminished image quality. This is pretty minor, but like any system, a lens is only as good as it's weakest link. I can't imagine willingly putting a cheap $30 piece of flat glass in the optical path of my image without a very compelling reason to do so.

 

[VeloceMoto]

Glad you're enjoying your 600. The 400 wouldn't have a prayer against bright sun.

UV filters, in one word: Don't.

Seriously, think about it. What are you protecting your lens from? The front element of the lens is designed with the understanding that it will be exposed to the world, and the coatings on the glass are very hard and durable. You're not gonna smudge it, scratch it, etc without purposefully trying. The only real danger to the lens is an impact, and in that case all the filter is gonna do is break first adding little bits of broken glass to attack the front of your lens.

If you want to protect your lens, always keep the hood on it. If it gets dirty, breathe on it and wipe it on a t-shirt. If it gets really dirty, hit it with a small shot of vodka and wipe it off.

Also, there's the lesser factor of diminished image quality. This is pretty minor, but like any system, a lens is only as good as it's weakest link. I can't imagine willingly putting a cheap $30 piece of flat glass in the optical path of my image without a very compelling reason to do so.

Well you haven't steered me wrong yet! No UV filter for me. I'm happy about that, because 1) I really didn't want to spend $60 on essentially a crappy insurance policy and 2) it's yet another thing in the whole complicated optical system.

I've already got a hood for my 18-70, perhaps now for the 50/1.8.

I guess I'm easily influenced by FUD, being new to all of this. I've seen how durable my iPhone's glass is in my pocket full of change and keys (no scratches to date), so maybe I shouldn't overly fret about my camera's lenses.

 

[Cycle61]

Sounds good. I wouldn't worry about the 50/1.8 (is there even a hood available for it?) because the front element is buried so deeply within the body of the lens. You'd have a hard time hitting that thing if you tried.

And yah, like your iPhone, the glass is a lot tougher than people give it credit for.

 

[BrassPremier]

I'm thinking of dropping my UV filter myself. I got it too thinking "extra protection weeee" but I keep getting green/blue ghosts whenever it sees a light source

 

[1sicv8]

lookin for an opinion here... have a friend selling a Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG Macro

now i KNOW its not the best lens, but he only wants 100 bucks for it. should i pick it up or no?

id love a 70-200 L but my pockets arent that deep. lol.... thought this might be a good buy for the macro and the occasional zoom shots... ???

 

[BrassPremier]

Just picked up the Tokina 11-16 2.8. Holy wide! standing on one side of the room makes the other side of the room seem a mile away. This is gonna be fun

 

[Cycle61]

Just picked up the Tokina 11-16 2.8. Holy wide! standing on one side of the room makes the other side of the room seem a mile away. This is gonna be fun

Ultra-wides are a hoot. One suggestion, make sure you have a subject literally within arm's reach when shooting so wide, otherwise you just end up with a lot of really small things in the frame.

For instance (14-24, literally about 4-6" away)