Jump to content


Photo

Photography


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

#41 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 23 September 2004 - 1058 AM

Originally posted by Juan Sosa:
The only downside to this whole photography deal is that I have yet another interest to spend money in.


Just keep telling yourself that you're saving a fortune on film processing. Posted Image

#42 Rickard N

Rickard N

    Swedish ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden
  • Interests:photography, ice hockey, motorcycling

Posted 23 September 2004 - 2203 PM

I'm using a Nikon FM2 with fixed optics. Nice camera, stopped using my automatic Minolta almost as soon as I bought this one. Now I'm looking to change to a F90X, F100 or a D70/D100, but there's the thing about money...

/Rickard

#43 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2004 - 0309 AM

Did some photography with my Minolta X-700 a couple of weeks ago, and discovered I am very rusty. Need to get back into the swing of things. I want that Kodak 5.0 megapixel digital.

#44 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2004 - 0518 AM

Yeah the Kodak 5.0 camera has a 10x optical lens. I can use that more than the 3x on my current 4.0 mp digital.

Originally posted by Ivanhoe:
That's not a quantum leap, resolutionwise, so I'd look at the other factors pertinent to my style of use. Give me a wider range of ISO equivalents, a decently fast shutter, fast bootup time, SLR focusing, and lens choices.

Juan, how's the Drebel working out?



#45 Paul F Jungnitsch

Paul F Jungnitsch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,151 posts
  • Location:Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada

Posted 25 September 2004 - 0635 AM

As a grad student, digital is the most wonderful thing. I can take millions of project photos without any cost and organize them all nicely on the computer.

Last weekend I put mine up on a kite and took some aerial photos of my project site, worked very well.

#46 John Nelson

John Nelson

    Reactionary and counter-revolutionary

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern Connecticut

Posted 25 September 2004 - 0728 AM

Originally posted by Juan Sosa:
The dRebel is working out great. The kit lens is decent enough, but I already placed an order for some new glass. Bought a Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM, which from all the reviews sounds like a greap general purpose lens for the price.


I'm enjoying my Canon Digital Rebel as well. And I'm noticing a lot of them about. Took my first shots at a ship launching at Mystic Seaport, which is at the end of my street, and the person on either side of me had one! I bought the 28-200mm lens and have gotten great use out of it. The big drawback is that it lacks image stabilization (a rotating glass lens that acts as a gyroscope to remove the minute vibrations from your hand) so you need to use a high shutter speed to ensure a sharp focus.

A 6.3 megapixel digital SLR plus a good zoom lens let me take this photo, among many others, at the New England Airshow just last month:

Posted Image

#47 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Time Zone
  • Interests:Ducats and shot

Posted 29 September 2004 - 1633 PM

BTT in order to post links to my photo album.

Here are a few pics I did. My rig is a Canon T70, and I used 200 speed Kodak High Definition film in Auto Exposure mode with light metering:
[url="http://"http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wargoat6/album?.dir=3618&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wargoat6/my_photos"]http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wargoat6/alb...goat6/my_photos[/url]

I'm happy with these. Great balance and resolution, no editing needed.

And here are rugby pics, taken with 400 speed Fuji Film. Shutter speed was at 1/1000 sec in Shutter priority mode (IOW, I dunno the f stop):
[url="http://"http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wargoat6/album?.dir=953f"]http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wargoat6/album?.dir=953f[/url]

Did some editing on all photos. Poor quality on a lot of them, either due to bad scans or the fact that some of them were taken from afar and I lost quality on zooming in.

How's that for a rookie?

Peace,

Mark

#48 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 October 2004 - 1648 PM

Anyone have any experience with the new 8 mp Nikons?

#49 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2141 PM

Well just got my DX7590 5.0 mp camera (Kodak), its charging as I type. I also got a 512 mb SD card to go with it.

#50 John Nelson

John Nelson

    Reactionary and counter-revolutionary

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern Connecticut

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2258 PM

Gee, you don't want to provide us lazy types with even a link, huh?
Sometimes I feel like a gotta do everything....
Kodak EasyShare DX7590 5MP Digital Camera

Hmmm, I like the 10x optical zoom. Looks like a nice camera. Any immediate plans? You'll have to post some of your photos on Imageshack so we can see how it performs.
Just be careful with the 512MB card-- I went to an airshow with Jeff and ended up taking 243 photos before I knew it! :blink:

Posted Image
Westover AFB, Massachusetts, August 14, 2004

#51 Paul F Jungnitsch

Paul F Jungnitsch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,151 posts
  • Location:Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada

Posted 06 January 2005 - 0015 AM

I went to an airshow with Jeff and ended up taking 243 photos before I knew it! :blink:

View Post


You're taking some hella nice pictures there John. A 28-200 is a very useful thing.

One of the things I used to like with my old conventional (Pentax w/28-200) SLR is how 'photographic' everything became looking through the viewfinder through the lense. Is that the same with this new breed of digital SLR's? Using the display on my pocket digital is just not the same.

#52 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2005 - 0029 AM

Thanks John, it seems to be good so far, but I have only taken one photo with it, and that is of my "cave". But its so messy that I will not post it. The kids were playing in my office.

So far, I am just getting used to the thing, tomorrow, however, I am going to take it to work with me, and do some photography there. Lupe is amazed at how small, and awkward it looks.

512 megs seems like a really big card, but I can get 147 photos on it at fine compression levels.

#53 John Nelson

John Nelson

    Reactionary and counter-revolutionary

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern Connecticut

Posted 06 January 2005 - 0204 AM

As soon as I got my Canon Digital Rebel I started looking around for opportunities to use it. Luckily Mystic Seaport is literally 300 yards away from me. Went to an air museum, an airshow, the Nautilus Museum in neighboring Groton. I'm a pain in the butt at family events now. I'll be going to Lime Rock Park later this year, hopefully to get photos of the American LeMans series. I transfer all my photos to two backup CD's so that if one goes bad or gets damaged they're not lost forever.

Now please indulge me in posting one more photo. I took this next one while actually sitting on my butt on the taxiway and looking up at the four roaring Hamilton Standard propellers of this B-17G. What an incredible rush that was!!!

Posted Image
Westover AFB, August 14, 2004

Note the C-5 Galaxies in the lower left.
This photo is 1021x681. The original is three times that resolution at 3072x2048.

#54 Juan Sosa

Juan Sosa

    Back in the land of Sam

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,318 posts
  • Location:Miami... again

Posted 06 January 2005 - 1721 PM

I just got back from 3 weeks in Spain and 3 weeks in Caracas before that. I took my Digital Rebel with me, and I took a few hundred pictures. Now I have to start the painfull and fun process of sorting all the trash from the good shots, backing up files and printing the ones that are worth it. I'll post the best shots once I finish sorting.

The camera is very good. I have the 18-55mm kit lens and a 28-105mm Canon USM lens. The USM stayed on the camera 99% of the time, but a 70-200 would have allowed me a number of shots I missed. My family hates me now BTW. While driving through northern Spain I asked to spot every few miles so I could take a photograph. They got annoyed after a couple of days hehehe.

#55 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 06 January 2005 - 2124 PM

Now please indulge me in posting one more photo. I took this next one while actually sitting on my butt on the taxiway and looking up at the four roaring Hamilton Standard propellers of this B-17G. What an incredible rush that was!!!


I see there is no smoke belching from those radials, thus I conclude that you must have photoshopped those moving props. :D

#56 GregShaw

GregShaw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 927 posts
  • Interests:snowmobiles, guns, computers

Posted 06 January 2005 - 2218 PM

I see there is no smoke belching from those radials, thus I conclude that you must have photoshopped those moving props. :D

View Post


Turbo-supercharged engines, would not be any exhaust from the cowling.
:P

#57 John Nelson

John Nelson

    Reactionary and counter-revolutionary

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern Connecticut

Posted 07 January 2005 - 0133 AM

I see there is no smoke belching from those radials, thus I conclude that you must have photoshopped those moving props.  :D

View Post


Why you doubting wankers, you!!! :P
Again, with my tuchis* on the tarmac, here's the B-17G roaring to life right in front of me. Obviously another expert bit of Photoshopping for you:

Posted Image

Confession: I DID photoshop out the giant dayglo lime green Michael Moore impersonator in the background from the head on shot. Why despoil such a magnificent tableau with such an unattractive distraction?


*Tuchis Behind. As in what you sit on.

#58 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 07 January 2005 - 1028 AM

That's one fellow who isn't going to be blown over by the prop wash.

For those who appreciate good photos of aircraft, here's one of a
F/A-18C over bonny Scotland, courtesy of navy.mil...

Here's an unusual pic; a Super Etendard landing on the Enterprise; story here, full sized piz is too blurry though.

#59 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2005 - 1040 AM

I am working with the Kodak, and it seems less responsive in terms of focus than my DX4900. Which is odd, since the 4900 is a generation older. Oh well.

#60 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2005 - 1752 PM

It definately is slower to focus than the DX4900. Went to the Alamo today, and took some snapshots. Definately not a 35mm in terms of response. Photographs look bloody wonderful though. Still getting the hang of it. I emailed two photos to Geoff to post for me, The rock is a monument at the Alamo donated in 1914 by the Japanese. The other is a typical tourist shot, since there were so many bloody tourists around the Alamo, I could not get a good angle.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users