• 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

VeloceMoto said:
Yeah, it looked like it had a dish of some sort, like an aluminum mixing bowl maybe, some wires going down the stick to what I assumed was a battery pack. The refresh is what amazed me though. I don't know if my SB600 can do it that fast. Then again, I have never tried.
Click to expand...

Yep, sounds like a small studio strobe with a battery pack. Probably an order of magnitude more powerful than an SB-600 or -800, and the refresh rates are ridiculous.
 
Qflash:

9d1024.jpg


Small studio strobe:

b400b.gif
 
A company called AlienBees makes some decent units for $250-$450 each.

http://www.alienbees.com/flash.html

You can certainly spend a lot more money (x10) for the same light output but the AB's are solid little units.

I really want to get a few at some point, but haven't been doing enough shooting to really justify it to myself.
 
$1800 sounds fair. Not cheap, but fair. ;o) Just price a decent lighting stand ($125+) or tripod ($250+) and they're just a bunch of aluminum tubes.

If you really wanted to do something like that for cheap you could rig up an external battery pack using D cells. Not pretty, but do-able for $10. (Plus the cable)


VeloceMoto said:
... FYI, I just read an interview with Zoriah and he uses two lenses, an 16-35 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. It's a shame his Flickr stuff does not have EXIF data. I learn so much from browsing Flickr, observing and milling over that stuff. ...
Click to expand...

Yep, it's also great to visit shows and galleries IRL and see the full range of imaging available. It's inspiring. Next time you make it to Pt. Reyes on a Saturday afternoon, stop at the photo gallery on the west side of the main street, kinda across from the grocery store. He's got some good stuff and is appreciative of visitors' appreciation.


VeloceMoto said:
... I don't know why I thought the FX would be any different for DoF, but your explanation helps clarify everything. ...
Click to expand...

Actually the size of your imaging surface does matter, and you're right bigger means narrower DoF (for the same focal length, not lens, used and the same final viewing size & final grain/resolution). For myself, I've been shooting off and on for twenty-five years and getting back into it a few years ago with the DSLR I couldn't justify the additional expense for full-frame.

To continue the moto analogy... it just doesn't make any sense to spend the research time and money to go to a larger format in the same way it doesn't sense for me to buy a Gixxer 750: I'm just beginning to get consistent control over my small standard. Plopping down a chunk of change to start a new learning curve isn't going to do me any good. I could squid it, but that's taking snapshots and showing off, not capturing beauty.

Now, for something to strive for... I've always wanted to shoot medium format. *Grinn* AFM'ers? They're all riding Hasselblads.


VeloceMoto said:
... I ask these questions not necessarily because I'm trying to be a camera technology expert, but rather to understand the limits of the equipment and the medium in general. I think I have a general idea now of the limitations of DoF and what equipment to use to get a desired effect. ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally get it. I'm doing the same thing with bikes. I get out there and sometimes I realise x or y is happening consistently but I'm still like, "WTF? Why? Why is this happening? Is this *supposed* to happen?" Then I think about it, scour the web and ask around on BARF. That's why I wrote all of that up there ^^^ :eek:).
 
Last edited:
mosquito said:
Now, for something to strive for... I've always wanted to shoot medium format. *Grinn* AFM'ers? They're all riding Hasselblads.
Click to expand...

Forget medium format. There's a photography snob deep within me that's dying to buy a 4x5" and some Velvia, and go do some real landscape photography.
 
Naww, mang. After I get medium format film setup the next step is building my own cameras to shoot 8x10 ... I'd also like to play around with lens design and multiple apertures ... *maybe* in another ten years or so. I might play around with some of that on a 35mm scale sooner though. I've been thinking about teaching classes for my nieces and nephews ... camera oscura, pinholes, developing and printing, 35mm *then* stepping over to digital.
 
Hey what's the deal with "macro" lenses?

Can they only be used for macro stuff or can you do normal shooting on them too? Are they just like normal lenses but can also focus at REALLY short distances too? I can't find an answer.
 
VeloceMoto said:
Hey what's the deal with "macro" lenses?

Can they only be used for macro stuff or can you do normal shooting on them too? Are they just like normal lenses but can also focus at REALLY short distances too? I can't find an answer.
Click to expand...

macro = close-up.

Depending on the lighting either handheld or tripod. And with or without flash.

And any lens can be used to take a portrait. That's the purpose of a lens anyway.
 
VeloceMoto said:
just like normal lenses but can also focus at REALLY short distances too?
Click to expand...

Exactly this. They tend to be very sharp and high quality as well. There aren't really any bad macro lenses that I'm aware of. I use mine, a Sigma 150mm f/2.8, as an all purpose short telephoto, rarely actually do any macro stuff. It's fascinating, but I have no skill for it. :laughing

(And BTW the lens is for sale :teeth)
 
cycle61 said:
... I use mine, a Sigma 150mm f/2.8, as an all purpose short telephoto, rarely actually do any macro stuff. It's fascinating, but I have no skill for it. :laughing
...
Click to expand...

^^ I've wanted to do it, I just can't find a purpose for it.
 
Last edited:
cycle61 said:
Exactly this. They tend to be very sharp and high quality as well. There aren't really any bad macro lenses that I'm aware of. I use mine, a Sigma 150mm f/2.8, as an all purpose short telephoto, rarely actually do any macro stuff. It's fascinating, but I have no skill for it. :laughing

(And BTW the lens is for sale :teeth)
Click to expand...

AHHH!

Btw, your ad speaks to me.

If you're looking to extend your reach beyond the 55mm or so that the kit lenses give you

*noddle*

if you're unhappy with the slow f/5.6 apertures the long zoom lenses give you

*noddle*

Optical performance on a par with the big 70-200/2.8, at about a third of the price.

*noddle*


Unfortunately, it's too rich for my blood right now, damnit! :laughing

That would be the ticket though.
 
mosquito said:
^^ I've wanted to do it, I just can't find a purpose for it.
Click to expand...

Me neither. One guy I know of who does some incredible outdoor, natural light stuff is Ronnie Gaubert. He lives in Louisiana somewhere, and does his work (last I checked) with a D200, a 300mm f/4, and some extension tubes. This is Ronnie's picture, not mine.

84125170.wGLqXfbT.AnimalInsectRobberfly818071656.jpg
 
cool shot

Anyone every try one of those Nikon DC lenses? The ones where you can adjust the bokeh? Sounds interesting, but hefty pricetag
 
What? Adjust it *how*? Bah. Now I gotta find some images...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top