• 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

Did a shoot with Emily yesterday.

I'm going to stay mostly professional, but can I just say :drool

Links are no nudity, but still NSFW!

These are to give to my friend Shannon, who is making an anti-fur movie.

None have had decent PP yet, some are in aRGB still, this isn't a permanent home, she has all the rights and is sharing them with me.

**NSFW**

www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/_MG_6021.JPG

www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/_MG_6127.JPG

www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/_MG_6129.JPG

*EDIT* fixed this link, wups:

www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/_MG_6147.JPG

www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/_MG_6183.JPG
 
Last edited:
well, THAT subject material is a tough act to follow. :thumbup

I wanted to post these, but didn't think just the two photos were worth a whole thread. ;)


 
Mr Pepsi said:
Nikon all the way.
Click to expand...

*EDIT* I was very grumpy when I wrote this, and just came from a similar thread ruined by a similar off-hand comment. If it was a lighthearted 'Yay I love Nikon' fair enough. If not, see below :laughing


Knock that shit off, please. If you want to start a shit-storm, go to the sink and post in a politics thread.

I couldn't give a crap either way, this is a perfectly good PHOTOGRAPHY thread, not another partisan-sniping thread.

I use Canon - although I have no particular loyalty to them, I've used a Nikon that made my eyes weep with joy, my brother uses a Pentax and take pictures I wish I had the talent to reproduce, one of the best photographers I know uses an ancient Mamiya with infra-red film, my dad a Hasselblad.

The biggest difference is the person using the camera. So please, stay on topic. I see enough of this shit on the Model Mayhem forums.
 
Last edited:
geez, all he said was he was a fine of Nikon, didn't even say a bad word about Canon, don't get all pissy guys :p

and to be fair, this is the DSLR camera thread, not necessarily a photo thread. a new reader of the thread may think its purely a camera discussion
 
BrassPremier said:
geez, all he said was he was a fine of Nikon, didn't even say a bad word about Canon, don't get all pissy guys :p

and to be fair, this is the DSLR camera thread, not necessarily a photo thread. a new reader of the thread may think its purely a camera discussion
Click to expand...

*grumble grumble*

I've seen many a perfectly good camera/photo/lighting thread turn into a fuckpile of partisan bickering over the old Nikon/Canon thing.

Get orf moi lawn you youngins! :twofinger

It was just a pre-emptive strike.

Like Iraq.

Or maybe Poland.

:laughing
 
MackeyStingray said:
70-200 2.8 or 4 IS?

sports photography.

wondering if the extra f stops in the 2.8 is worth the cost (f/4 $1100 vs f/2.8 $1700 incl. current -$200 rebate)

i don't use a mono w the 70-200 so the pod mount isn't needed and from what i'm reading the f/4 is also lighter which would be a plus. then the extra $ would go towards a 1.4x
Click to expand...

What are you using it for?

If you're using it for track-side photography, the super-short depth of field might be an issue at that aperture anyway.

Check out this table:

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

At 30' away, you'd only have a depth of field of 8" !

At 75', it's still only 3' DOF. Not a lot to play with.

The plus would be super-dooper fast shutter speeds.

But for wildlife it would be faaaantastic.

Tough one. Tempted to say get the 2.8 just because it's a big pile-o-money either way, and if you're going to do it, do it properly. But if it's for trackside, the lighter F4 is probably what you want. It's not like low-light is much of an issue at most Cali races. But the 2.8 is more versatile.
 
MackeyStingray said:
70-200 2.8 or 4 IS?

sports photography.

wondering if the extra f stops in the 2.8 is worth the cost (f/4 $1100 vs f/2.8 $1700 incl. current -$200 rebate)

i don't use a mono w the 70-200 so the pod mount isn't needed and from what i'm reading the f/4 is also lighter which would be a plus. then the extra $ would go towards a 1.4x
Click to expand...

Just a thought to keep in mind... when you add an extender you overall f/stop is multiplied by 2 (i believe, but not 100% sure)

for f/2.8 = f/5.6
for f/4 = f/8
 
it matters what size teleconverter you use.

shooting at the track, I was usually shooting around f9 or so. But if you were to shoot indoors or at night, the 2.8 would come in handy. i'd imagine the build quality is a little bit higher with the 2.8 as well
 
The 70-200 f/2.8 is the standard lens in indoor sports photography. Outdoors I used a 2X TC to get to 400mm f/5.6. The pics would come out a bit soft but can be fixed in pp.
The 300mm f/4 is great outdoors but I couldn't use it indoors unless the lighting was great.
 
the WB looks the same between the two (look at city and ground). looks like some blue reflections on bike in 2nd shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top