The Photography Thread

[winky]

interesting pics everyone, Marty I liked your little spider picture but you never posted it here.
EB I like the street scene, nice sky.
Spag, looks like you need to draw faster :P

First go at light painting with a little torch, can only seem to set my Canon400D to 25 second exposure or BULB so was a bit limited to what I could 'draw' - man its fun though...can see me getting well into this!

Get yourself a shutter release cable. It lets you lock the shutter button down in bulb mode allowing you to expose for as wish

[Alastair]

It's finally over!! Two more from today.

Lightspeed Champion:


Front man of Dead Kids (pre swim):

[Ish]

As ever lots of awesome shots. Spagmaster - love your Bear Garden shot and Marty I particularly like your macro of those metal things. EvilBoris - I like the cathedral. Alastair - I like The Hold Steady shot.

Bought a couple of new bits of kit this week. Finally bought a good quality tripod (as opposed to the rickety thing I had before). Got a Giottos MT93.

And also bought a new bag to keep my kit in. A Tamrac Adventure 9.

[funkydan]

It's finally over!! Two more from today.

Lightspeed Champion:

Dude, that is freakin' awesome!

[MartyG]

I went to Barnsdale Gardens this morning with the macro lens - I took close to 300 shots, and got quite a few I really liked ( uloaded 19 of them ). Should definitely be usable in next month's amateur photographer competition which is "Plant Life".

Couple of the best ones here ...

[TommyG]

Wow! They're stunning Marty. Macro shots are my favourite at the moment.

[EvilBoris]

I like the 2nd one down, the little stamen thingies look cool!

[winky]

Marty the 2nd is really good, like that one a lot. The first is an amazing picture, colour and sharpness but I find it a little bland (I have a few like that myself and I find my own boring too! no offence meant)

Are you using a flash for those pictures, they are nice and bright with good DOF?

However talking about the Sigma 105mm; its an excellent lens, and while the AF is noisy, slow and near useless because it hunts constantly, the quality of the images it produces is immense for the price. Contrast and saturation are fantatic and the bokeh is pretty damn good too. AF is pretty useless for macro work anyway. While its a little long for portraitsts one of my favorite lenses due to the excellent optics.
The quality of the images it produces still surprses me. The shot attached at the bottom is straight out of the camera, no PP other than the in-camera processing I have set for my RAW files.

Otherwise, I went to a butterfly farm, which was amazing, although very dark so conditions were less than ideal but I still got a few decent shots.





This is a bit of a swan song for the 400D becuase my 40D arrives tomorrow according to Fedex . Mananged to find a buyer for the 400D which means I lose the kit lens and the nifty fifty.

So I need a new wide angle lens and almost set on the tammy 17-50.
Al, I think you mentioned you had it. I assume the build quality is decent (I am not exepecting L build quality, but I hope its better than kit lens plastic build?) Also the only negative thing I have heard is the noisy AF. Is it really a big deal? To be honest I doubt it would put me off but I guess I should ask if anyone has had any problems.

[Alastair]

Macro does nothing for me but I appreciate the quality of those shot s guys especially Martys second and your first winky.

As for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, I've just dug out the kit lens and done a back to back comparison. The Canon (C from now on) kit lens seems silent when used after the Tamron (T). T is more than twice as heavy as C I'd guess and doesn't rattle when you hold it in you hand and giggle it about. Build quality for T is not as good as on my L but it is still good, there's barely any play between components. T focuses at the same speed as C. T is as sharp at 2.8 as the best shot you'll ever get out of C at f8 on a great day. T is sharper stopped to around 4 or 5.6. T is better to look through than C.

In summary, T is a noisy lens when focusing yes but unless you need to shoot in silent situations (where the shutter noise will be just as intrusive) then who cares. All the reviews I read stated that the IQ is as close as makes no difference to the Canon 17-40 f4L, you get the extra light getting in, you get 10mm more zoom and you save about 150 quid. That's win win mate!

[Ish]

Awesome macros all. Really fantastic.

[Malc]

These photo's are all awesome!

Can anyone recommend me a decent camera for a beginner looking to take such amazing shots like you guys? As this thread has really inspired me.

[MartyG]

It very much depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to achieve.

Most of us shoot with DSLRs - but they are not cheap - so how much do you want to spend and how serious are you about photography?

[EvilBoris]

You guys are gonna get bored of seeing the view outta my window!
Just used the photostitch software that came with the camera, I'm mega impressed. I just took a bunch of overlapping shots , selected them , pressed a button and it came out with this. Very good results apart from the uneven sky. I love technology!


Flickr didn't like the full 20meg file :P

[winky]

As for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, I've just dug out the kit lens and done a back to back comparison. The Canon (C from now on) kit lens seems silent when used after the Tamron (T). T is more than twice as heavy as C I'd guess and doesn't rattle when you hold it in you hand and giggle it about. Build quality for T is not as good as on my L but it is still good, there's barely any play between components. T focuses at the same speed as C. T is as sharp at 2.8 as the best shot you'll ever get out of C at f8 on a great day. T is sharper stopped to around 4 or 5.6. T is better to look through than C.

In summary, T is a noisy lens when focusing yes but unless you need to shoot in silent situations (where the shutter noise will be just as intrusive) then who cares. All the reviews I read stated that the IQ is as close as makes no difference to the Canon 17-40 f4L, you get the extra light getting in, you get 10mm more zoom and you save about 150 quid. That's win win mate!

wow excellent! Thanks for the comparison. Appreciate it much Probably pick one up in a few weeks then. Your right about the noise being a none issue, but worth checking it out. Thanks for the opinions.

These photo's are all awesome!

Can anyone recommend me a decent camera for a beginner looking to take such amazing shots like you guys? As this thread has really inspired me.

What Marty said. If you really want to get into it you can buy a DSLR, the flexibility of buying your own lenses cannot be beaten. However it is expensive and there is more than the inital outlay especially if you want to get involved in more specialised photography (sports, macro, nature etc)

Perhaps a bridge camera (The G9 from canon gets a lot of love) would perhaps suit your needs. It gives you the creative controls of DSLR without the interchangable lenses. TommyG just bought one and shows how good such a camera can be in the right hands.

EB thats a fine panaoramic. I tried one and they are hard work. How many shots did you use to make it up?

[MartyG]

Are you using a flash for those pictures, they are nice and bright with good DOF?

Yes - I used the SB600 that I got for the bargain price of £170 along with a D70 and 2 lenses.

The SB600 is an awesome bit of kit - truely brilliant flash and well worth the cost alone.

Another one from today