Who is in to... Photography?

[Chief]

Great stuff, Saltwater.

My wife works for a company that has an annual catalog that includes photographs of food products. Those shoots are brutal. They take up to three hours to set up one shot. Unbelievable.

Like the model images.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

Personally, I'd rather have the better camera and opt for a separate video camera. Shooting HD movies on a DSLR is nice, and a real consideration for choosing a camera with that option, but to make it the deciding factor seems pretty damn silly to me.

Either choice is pretty damn good though. Apples and Oranges.

I'm with you there. I want my camera to take pictures and I want my video camera to make movies. I don't complain about the quality of pictures on my video camera and I don't worry about the quality of the video on my camera.

You know the saying... Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

I shoot an older Fuji S3 Pro that will get upgraded to a pro-sumer Nikon one of these days. My best work isn't available for display for model disclosure reasons.

My first ever "photograph".

All those shots are great. Proof that it's not the camera, it's the photographer.

 

[Chief]

 

[YosemiteSam]

Sorry, no RAW image format on these. Just straight REDNECK.

 

[kmp77]

Personally, I'd rather have the better camera and opt for a separate video camera. Shooting HD movies on a DSLR is nice, and a real consideration for choosing a camera with that option, but to make it the deciding factor seems pretty damn silly to me.

Either choice is pretty damn good though. Apples and Oranges.

If it can do both good, why not go that route? Not like the D90 is heads and shoulders better. Unless you're shooting super high fps photos, most dslrs are the same and can get the same results. Just put some decent glass on it and you're good to go.

 

[kmp77]

I'm with you there. I want my camera to take pictures and I want my video camera to make movies. I don't complain about the quality of pictures on my video camera and I don't worry about the quality of the video on my camera.

You know the saying... Jack of all trades, master of none.

You're little video camera can't shoot what DSLRs can. You can use any lens to shoot hd video and get the DOF of your choosing. Video cameras can't, that's part of the big craze now with DSLR video. To get the effect with a video camera, you have to put on a 35mm adapter.

 

[YosemiteSam]

A co-worker just sent me this.

Co-owner Christian Petersen looks out of a window at his bicycle shop in Altlandsberg, north-east of Berlin August 17, 2010. The owners attached about 120 bicycles on the facade to advertise their shop.

 

[CowboyWay]

Got into photography about a year ago after I posted a thread of Iraq photos. The photos were mesmerizing and got me involved into photography.

Since then I bought a Nikon D90, Nikon18-200mm lens, a Sigma 150mm macro lens, and a Tokina 11-16 wide angle lens.

Great stuff and I couldn't be happier with it all.

I'm currently scouring craigslist to find some studio strobe lights.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

Nikon18-200mm lens

That's the lens I want. Right now I have the 18-55 and 55-200, seems like I am always switching or have the wrong lens. I've used a friend's 18-200 a couple of times and love it. So damn 'spensive though

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

You're little video camera can't shoot what DSLRs can.

Who you callin' little?

 

[tomson75]

If it can do both good, why not go that route? Not like the D90 is heads and shoulders better. Unless you're shooting super high fps photos, most dslrs are the same and can get the same results. Just put some decent glass on it and you're good to go.

...and that's admirable, but like I said...personally, I put a much greater emphasis on still photography for my SLR. I like the feature, but I view it more of a bonus than a need. It will be nice to have when something comes up that needs to be captured in movie format when I don't have a dedicated video camera.

I do. I own a GL2 which does a far superior job than any DSLR would do. That's why I choose the D90 over the Canon. In this particular comparison, I simply liked the quality, capabilities, and features of the D90 more than the T2i....and the D90 was at the top of my price range. I disagree about DSLRs being the same, and while both of these options are obviously terrific cameras, I think the D90 wins out convincingly if you don't need the 1080p and external mic. I'll admit that the T2i's price almost got me....Canon's next step was a little too much.

If I didn't have a video dedicated camera, and I needed one but couldn't afford two camera platforms....the T2i would likely be the obvious choice.

 

[CowboyWay]

That's the lens I want. Right now I have the 18-55 and 55-200, seems like I am always switching or have the wrong lens. I've used a friend's 18-200 a couple of times and love it. So damn 'spensive though

It really is the "go to" lens. I rarely if ever take it off. The thing is so versatile, you can use it for anything. Unless I want the wide angle lens, or macro, there is no reason to use anything else. At least for me.

 

[Vtwin]

Thought I'd bump this bad boy....just got a Nikon D90. Pretty stoked so far. Tough call between that and the Canon 50D, but the addition of HD video, a user friendlier flash, and a lower cost prevailed.

I'd love to here more about RAW formatting. I no longer have CS or Photoshop...is there any other way to work with it at home or directly on the camera (I obviously haven't finished reading the manual)? Or is RAW something I should use when I'm planning on taking shots to a pro for larger display?

Anyway...I'd love to see some more shots added to this thread.

You can basically edit down to the individual pixel level in raw. Much more post processing ability.

Check out GIMP. You can download it for free and it is a very powerful photo editing tool.

Your camera didn't come with any processing software?

 

[vta]

 

[Arch Stanton]

I'm not up on the technical side, but I love photography, especially black and white.

I used to spend hours upon hours in the darkroom. My camera of choice in the old days was a Canon A-1.

I have a Kodak digital camera that I'm still getting used to.

I also used a Canon A-1, and had a 35-105 lens. I used it for years, then I traded it in and have succumbed to the digital age. I now use a Panasonic TZ7. I like to use the widescreen function and got a couple of nice shots of the Cowboys Stadium day and night.

 

[Arch Stanton]

 

[Kevinicus]

The great thing about Nikon is that there are a ton of different lenses to choose from. With Nikon, everything is all proprietary and you have very little room to improvise (plus it cost a lot more for the same thing usually). My wife got for her D90 a lense that is like 15 years old and was made for a 35 mm camera. She saved a lot of money on it.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

All those shots are great. Proof that it's not the camera, it's the photographer.

Oh the camera is great. It had the best dynamic range of any DSLR under $5K when I bought it, second only to the Canon 1Ds Mark II. In some situations, it was better than the Canon. It excels at skin tone and color rendition.

For those not familiar with Fuji DSLR's, they use Fuji chips and sensors, but Nikon bodies.

It sucks because RAW images are 25 mb files. Yeah, you read that right, 25 megabytes a pop. It also shoots really slow, somewhere around 3 shots per second when you are shooting with all the things you bought the camera for turned off. Not a sports shooter, not a low light shooter.

I think I've had it 5 years or so. I haven't done a shoot in about 2 years. I had a friend who I was working with to get her portfolio put together. Natural at it, had a real career ahead of her in modelling. She was a passenger in a car and was killed on my birthday in a drunk driving accident. Less than two months later the model in my shots above was brutally raped the night before we were to do a fashion shoot for an agency here in San Antonio.

Never felt the desire to pick it up since.