Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The Official TB Photography Thread
- Thread starter PunkerTrav
- Start date
- Status
Vic, I don't know the Cannon line as well as Nikon but there are a few things your should keep in mind.
1) The only advantage a f 2.8 lens gives you in product photography is less depth if field. In other words you can focus on a small item in the foreground and blur the background with a bit more control. If that doesn't interest you there are plenty of smaller aperture lenses that are just as sharp. The reason I like the 2.8's is the ability to focus fast in low light action photography. One of the things you'll find out real quick about your camera with product shots is how good your auto focus is. Take your time on focusing, it's amazing how primitive some of the systems are.
2) Get a tripod, you will be amazed at the difference in sharpness on your product shots.
3) Shoot in Raw and invest in Lightroom or a similar program so you can do some post processing. Digital, is not like the old film days. While you still need to get exposure, composition, and focus right in the camera, there is a huge increase in dynamic range when you're shooting raw. And from what I can tell the dynamic range
ability to get exposure right in a wide variety of light in the same file) is the one biggest difference you will notice in sensors on lesser cameras (that and the dynamic range at high ISO's)
4) Buy used. I have a pretty good portfolio of quality lenses (as you know from my burdens at the NAMM shows
). I haven't bought one new. One good thing to watch for is if a company is upgrading a lens (like when Nikon went from VR I to VR II) on a lens. Their will always be a cadre of Photo GAS nuts that will be unloading their perfectly fine edition one when edition two hits the shelves. If your unsure, there are plenty of camera shops on line that sell with 60-90 day Warranties. I've had good luck buying on line thru a couple of forums who seem to police their own well like TB does.
5) Check reviews, you might be surprised how well some of the "prosummer" lenses work. My Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 is just as sharp and focuses as fast as my Nikon 70-200 2.8 "pro" lens does. It weighs half what the pro lens weighs and sells for used about $800 less! The only time I reach for the 2.8 is when I'm shooting concerts or wildlife in low light and need to focus fast.
6) One word of warning. It is not like the old film days were buying better glass got you better pictures. There are far more limits in in-camera sensors then most lenses. When I stepped from the D70 to the D300 the differences were instantly visible and significant. I could have gone out and spent ten grand on Nikon glass and not seen near the same impact. There is no substitute for a good sensor with a high dynamic range,good color rendition, low noise, and a camera with a quality AF system.
7) Join a Photo forum:
Invalid Link Removed is a good one, that is Cannon oriented, but covers other brands too.
www.nikonians.org is a good one for Nikon users.
1) The only advantage a f 2.8 lens gives you in product photography is less depth if field. In other words you can focus on a small item in the foreground and blur the background with a bit more control. If that doesn't interest you there are plenty of smaller aperture lenses that are just as sharp. The reason I like the 2.8's is the ability to focus fast in low light action photography. One of the things you'll find out real quick about your camera with product shots is how good your auto focus is. Take your time on focusing, it's amazing how primitive some of the systems are.
2) Get a tripod, you will be amazed at the difference in sharpness on your product shots.
3) Shoot in Raw and invest in Lightroom or a similar program so you can do some post processing. Digital, is not like the old film days. While you still need to get exposure, composition, and focus right in the camera, there is a huge increase in dynamic range when you're shooting raw. And from what I can tell the dynamic range
ability to get exposure right in a wide variety of light in the same file) is the one biggest difference you will notice in sensors on lesser cameras (that and the dynamic range at high ISO's)4) Buy used. I have a pretty good portfolio of quality lenses (as you know from my burdens at the NAMM shows
). I haven't bought one new. One good thing to watch for is if a company is upgrading a lens (like when Nikon went from VR I to VR II) on a lens. Their will always be a cadre of Photo GAS nuts that will be unloading their perfectly fine edition one when edition two hits the shelves. If your unsure, there are plenty of camera shops on line that sell with 60-90 day Warranties. I've had good luck buying on line thru a couple of forums who seem to police their own well like TB does.5) Check reviews, you might be surprised how well some of the "prosummer" lenses work. My Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 is just as sharp and focuses as fast as my Nikon 70-200 2.8 "pro" lens does. It weighs half what the pro lens weighs and sells for used about $800 less! The only time I reach for the 2.8 is when I'm shooting concerts or wildlife in low light and need to focus fast.
6) One word of warning. It is not like the old film days were buying better glass got you better pictures. There are far more limits in in-camera sensors then most lenses. When I stepped from the D70 to the D300 the differences were instantly visible and significant. I could have gone out and spent ten grand on Nikon glass and not seen near the same impact. There is no substitute for a good sensor with a high dynamic range,good color rendition, low noise, and a camera with a quality AF system.
7) Join a Photo forum:
Invalid Link Removed is a good one, that is Cannon oriented, but covers other brands too.
www.nikonians.org is a good one for Nikon users.
Interesting, when looking around I got the general feel that it was better to buy a cheaper camera and a better lens than a better camera with a cheaper lens, that with modern DSLRs the greatest impact in photo quality will be from the lens used.
I think it's like the oft-repeated question on here of which to upgrade first, the bass or the amp? If you have a nice lens (bass) what good does it do on a cheap camera (amp) and vice versa. Just get a nice one or the other and a passable one or the other and go from there. I currently have a nice camera (IMO) with a decent but not fantastic lens, and am waiting for some more cash to get a nicer lens that can really show off what my camera can do.
Thanks for the tips... one question...
So here's my issue... of course I'm not taking action shots, but I need a fast lens because I have to make a lot of shots by hand, as I have to move the camera around a LOT to get the light to do what I want it to do on the surface and on the contours of what I'm shooting (so a tripod is out for at least some stuff.)
I guess what I'm asking is, is there such a thing as a fast lens that also has decent DOF? Maybe that means I need to use zooms from a little further away instead of primes up close?
@upgrade camera vs lens issue, I've always heard it that having great lenses is more critical than having the best body out there.
Not sayin' this is the answer, just what I've mostly been told.
Not sayin' this is the answer, just what I've mostly been told.
While the quality of lens is still important, your sensor is like film in the old days. Their was a huge difference in the quality of our shots back in the days if we shot with K-Mart film or Fuji Velvia. And while there advances in lenses every day the advances between the early first generation digital sensors and the current crop are much greater.
For instance the Nikon D100 was considered the first real pro digital SLR. It was "effective" 6 mp on APS sensor, if you were shooting fast the file sizes were reduced due to buffer space and it was a 3mp camera. It had about a 2 sec. shutter lag. It had a 5 area autofocus system. Due to noise limitations about the highest ISO you could shoot at without overwhelming noise was 800. It retailed for around $2000
Nikon just released the D7000 (a consumer not pro camera) it has a 14 mp sensor with no buffer limitations on image size. It has an Exspeed processor with no perceivable shutter lag. The autofocus system has 39 programmable area sensors. With the new sensor, it will render images with very low noise at 6400 ISO. It retails for $1100.
In fairness we are reaching a point of limited returns and next years camera is not massively better then this years camera. And the advantages are now more targeted. But the D70 which was considered a very good camera (I have a friend who has done photo-shots for Maxim with one) is a dinosaur compared to a D300 or even a D90. It took me a long time to make the jump to digital even when I had the D70, because my files never looked as good as my old Velvia transparencies. The colors didn't jump and they never looked as crisp. I can confidently say that there is nothing Velvia could do my D300 can't do.
We are on what I consider the fourth generation of digital sensors. So the changes aren't as huge now, and we are beginning to reach limits of megapexils v. sensor size. Where I see the real changes coming are in high ISO performance, autofocus, and dynamic range.
To answer your question, products don't move, so you can shoot at a slower shutter speed. GET A TRIPOD! I know it's a pain in the butt to position a tripod for some shots. But the tripod will make up for your lack of ability to hand hold a camera at slower shutter speed in lower light and allow you to maintain DOF.
A fast lens will not give you any DOF advantage, because you get DOF by "slowing down" the lens (smaller aperture). Even though the lens will open up to f 2.8 the DOF for all lenses of the same focal length is constant and the only way to increase the depth of field is to close the lens down to a smaller aperture. In other words a 100 mm lens will always have maximum DOF at f 32 even if it opens to f 1.4. The amount of light the sensor receives for correct exposure is always a constant. The only advantage of the faster lens is it allows you to use a faster shutter speed (again not a factor on a tripod shooting product shots).
I think part of this misconception is the "kit lenses" that come with many entry level DSLR's. Most of them admittedly are fairly poor, but if you buy at a camera shop you can purchase a body and step up to a decent quality lens fairly cheaply. In fact both Nikon and Cannon are offering rebates right now to mix and match bodies and lenses if you purchase both at once. While some of the kit lenses are optically OK, in many cases their construction isn't solid enough to keep the optics in line. But both Cannon and Nikon for instance make some very solid optically great non-pro lenses (not as heavy duty-generally not as weather-sealed). And they don't tend to be as heavy or big as the "pro" (f 2.8) lenses. The used market is filled with these lenses in prime sizes from $300-$600 depending on size and brand.
The other thing I see a lot of is people buying a good lens and sticking a cheap filter over it to protect it. I've seen Tiffen circular polarizers that were so distorted pro lenses wouldn't autofocus with them. Get good quality filters, while a good UV costs $50 and a cheap one is $10, the good one will be flat, and it won't interfere with light infraction of the lens, plus the brass threads won't strip like cheaper alloy threads.
Vic, I don't know the Cannon line as well as Nikon but there are a few things your should keep in mind.
1) The only advantage a f 2.8 lens gives you in product photography is less depth if field. In other words you can focus on a small item in the foreground and blur the background with a bit more control. If that doesn't interest you there are plenty of smaller aperture lenses that are just as sharp. The reason I like the 2.8's is the ability to focus fast in low light action photography. One of the things you'll find out real quick about your camera with product shots is how good your auto focus is. Take your time on focusing, it's amazing how primitive some of the systems are.
2) Get a tripod, you will be amazed at the difference in sharpness on your product shots.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I didn't use the quote function properly. Burk48237's quote ends here.^
You've made some good points, burk48237, but I especially agree with your first and second.
At a couple of photography forums I hang around, many people revere fast lenses, f2.8 or faster, almost to the point of idolatry, and completely disregard the slower lenses.
Yes, a faster aperture will give you a brighter image in the viewfinder, and will give you a shallower depth of field at maximun aperture, but one should consider whether these two factors are really necessary.
I use my Pentax 16-45 f4.0 lens mostly outdoors, and mostly at f5.6 to f11. I don't need f2.8 for any of these shots, and sometimes when I do use f4.0, I wish I had used a smaller aperture for a little more depth-of-field.
Also, there's the price difference.
A new Pentax 16-45 f4.0 lens sells for about $425 right now; its one stop faster counterpart, the 16-50 f2.8 sells for over $1,000.00. Whether that 1 stop advantage is worth the more than double the price difference is up to the individual.
What I did in this case was to buy the 16-45, and spend the difference on a prime lens: the DA70mm.
I'm not completely bashing fast lenses with expensive price tags; they do have their advatages. I'm just suggesting that each photographer should do as much research as they can before they buy, and think at length as to what they really need from a particular lens.
As to point #2, I could not agree with you more.
A tripod will not only resolve most slow shutter speed shake issues, but just as importantly, it will slow you down, make you compose a better picture by making you see the things which might better be eliminated from or added to the frame.
A tripod will also give you consistency frame to frame.
True, we don't always have our tripods with us, and some buldings/organizations will not allow you to use a tripod, but I use mine for most of my shots.
What a good thread!
Mike
On Tripods,...look for a nice middle of the road model that will keep up with you in terms of much you abuse it but also is easy/convenient to use. I may upgrade my tripod for xmas,...the one I have currently is a piece of junk,...and I use it a lot. It is annoyingly cheaply made (hey I only paid five bucks at a yard sale) with a ball and pivot joint to adjust pan,...angle,...etc. All the threads are worn out so the camera never stays in the position I put it in. There is something to be said about taking your time to compose a shot,...but there is a point where you realize that cheap is just inefficient.
I agree, but you have to remember in the DSLR market, most pros are buying state of the art. When you're talking about hobbyists, many times they start out with dated digital tech. And the fastest way for them to upgrade their images is to upgrade the technology recording them.
And your right Vorego, so here's some shots from the Detroit Jazz Festival, starting with TOP.
Robert Hurst Jr, Playing with Branford
And one more TOP
I don't know anything about cameras or photography, but this thread is an excellent source of cool desktop wallpaper pictures.
-Mike
-Mike
Too much blabla, not enough pictures
Hahah. Here are two from 5 years ago just on a regular digital camera:
Decided to start investing in some "L" glass and bought a Canon 35mm 1.4L.
IMG_3253 by creative_ape, on Flickr
IMG_3253 by creative_ape, on Flickr
- Status
