Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Photography chat and shares


Recommended Posts

On 8/8/2017 at 9:12 AM, Warhippy said:

Sitting here patiently waiting for the Nikon D850 to release....last camera I will ever buy with that name unless they fix their issues.  Still better than Canon at the moment that is shoving out cameras that don't compare to models made 5 years ago.

 

Still not a Sony though

I'm happy with a brief response here, since I am not in the market right now, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on camera brands

 

My first and only SLR (ok, DSLR) is a Nikon D40.  The deciding factor for us was that Nikon lenses seemed to be much better quality than most of the rest (don't remember what others we were considering aside from Canon), and figured that was the way to go.  Since our experience has been decent, we figured when we upgrade the camera, we would look at something in Nikon's FX series (610 or 750, if we were buying today), which would let us play with a wider group of lenses.  I'm sure the 850 you are considering will be well out of our budget, given that this is just a hobby for me, but any insight you have about Nikon now and some good competition would be helpful for when the time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

I'm happy with a brief response here, since I am not in the market right now, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on camera brands

 

My first and only SLR (ok, DSLR) is a Nikon D40.  The deciding factor for us was that Nikon lenses seemed to be much better quality than most of the rest (don't remember what others we were considering aside from Canon), and figured that was the way to go.  Since our experience has been decent, we figured when we upgrade the camera, we would look at something in Nikon's FX series (610 or 750, if we were buying today), which would let us play with a wider group of lenses.  I'm sure the 850 you are considering will be well out of our budget, given that this is just a hobby for me, but any insight you have about Nikon now and some good competition would be helpful for when the time comes.

The D750 is a brilliant camera.  Solid focusing and amazing low light.  The 610 is cheaper and less AF but still decent.  Honestly, the D500 or 7200 DX frames are absolute monsters and withing the 1200-2500 range yet take cheaper DX glass vs the 610 and other full frame cameras

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kragar said:

I'm happy with a brief response here, since I am not in the market right now, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on camera brands

 

My first and only SLR (ok, DSLR) is a Nikon D40.  The deciding factor for us was that Nikon lenses seemed to be much better quality than most of the rest (don't remember what others we were considering aside from Canon), and figured that was the way to go.  Since our experience has been decent, we figured when we upgrade the camera, we would look at something in Nikon's FX series (610 or 750, if we were buying today), which would let us play with a wider group of lenses.  I'm sure the 850 you are considering will be well out of our budget, given that this is just a hobby for me, but any insight you have about Nikon now and some good competition would be helpful for when the time comes.

How much do you have invested in lenses?

 

If it's not much or you could recoup most of it by re-selling the lenses I recommend going mirrorless. Probably Sony but depending on intended use, possibly Micro 4:3 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The D750 is a brilliant camera.  Solid focusing and amazing low light.  The 610 is cheaper and less AF but still decent.  Honestly, the D500 or 7200 DX frames are absolute monsters and withing the 1200-2500 range yet take cheaper DX glass vs the 610 and other full frame cameras

Thanks.  One of the reasons I thought I needed to move up to FX was to be able to use a teleconverter.  I have a 55-300 zoom lens now, and I love it, but with some of the nature shots, it still struggles on some distance shots as you can imagine.

 

Did some poking around, and the two you list are quite interesting.  Dang, I never knew DSLRs shot video too... been a while since I had done any shopping.  I thought for tha tI would need one of those hybrid things, where it looked like a DSLR, but the lens was not detachable.  I also see Nikon packaging the D500 with a 200-500mm lens, so I am starting to literally salivate over that, although it is running close to $4K. Despite having some support now to upgrade, I might have to get promoted once or twice before the wife would agree to that pricetag :)  Although, I might be able to defend that purchase before crossing Yellowstone off the bucket list.

 

8 minutes ago, J.R. said:

How much do you have invested in lenses?

 

If it's not much or you could recoup most of it by re-selling the lenses I recommend going mirrorless. Probably Sony but depending on intended use, possibly Micro 4:3 as well.

Honestly, not much.  A couple lenses came with the camera when we bought it maybe a decade ago, and we bought the 55-300 zoom a little later.  Did some reading up, and mirrorless sure has some benefits worth considering.

 

Sounds like I'll have my work cut out for me when it does come time to do some shopping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Honestly, not much.  A couple lenses came with the camera when we bought it maybe a decade ago, and we bought the 55-300 zoom a little later.  Did some reading up, and mirrorless sure has some benefits worth considering.

 

Sounds like I'll have my work cut out for me when it does come time to do some shopping.

Honestly, without a large/any pre-existing lens collection, I'd be hard pressed to recommend DSLR to anyone these days. Mirrorless is basically on par for performance and is far more convenient and portable.

 

M:43 has arguably a better lens selection than Sony and depending on body is likely 'good enough' for most amateurs not needing massive prints and/or a full frame sensor.

 

Sony offers full frame sensor and better (stunning in fact IMO) low light performance if you're going to do a lot of night shooting, bar shooting etc but doesn't have quite the lens selection (and they tend to be a touch bigger/less portable than M:43).

 

The best camera is the one you have with you and a mirrorless kit with 2-3 lenses can easily be the same size as a DSLR with one. I know which one I'd be far more likely to haul around, particularly if traveling is a hobby.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

Honestly, without a large/any pre-existing lens collection, I'd be hard pressed to recommend DSLR to anyone these days. Mirrorless is basically on par for performance and is far more convenient and portable.

 

M:43 has arguably a better lens selection than Sony and depending on body is likely 'good enough' for most amateurs not needing massive prints and/or a full frame sensor.

 

Sony offers full frame sensor and better (stunning in fact IMO) low light performance if you're going to do a lot of night shooting, bar shooting etc but doesn't have quite the lens selection (and they tend to be a touch bigger/less portable than M:43).

 

The best camera is the one you have with you and a mirrorless kit with 2-3 lenses can easily be the same size as a DSLR with one. I know which one I'd be far more likely to haul around, particularly if traveling is a hobby.

Yeah, portability was definitely a plus.  Hiking and photography go together pretty well, but having a bulky camera around my neck gets old quickly.  I think I would do just fine with a couple lenses... it got me this far.  I'll definitely keep this in mind when it comes time to shop.  Thanks!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Fujifilm X-T10, I switched last year as my Canon DSLR was getting on a bit (I think it was 8 years old or so, really battered) and I just wasn't using it as much.  I like long exposures, here's one I took earlier this year down in False Creek.

 

 

CDC3.jpg.a981e5bfb6383bd7f2b7040fd99e92bf.jpg

 

I tried astrophotography for the first time this summer too.  I was camping and decided to see what I could get from the campground.  The light on the trees is from fires at other sites, ours was pitch black.  I was really happy that I managed to get at least 1 decent picture.  The rest were pretty naff / blurry.

 

 

CDC1.jpg.fd7bf18cd67293c8d10c6d6b5b36b32d.jpg

Edited by moz
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

How is it? Saw it on sale recently and was torn between it and the Sony a6000.

Takes pretty &^@#ing good pictures, great lens selection, quality and size, handles nicely.

 

What would you be using it for? Lens junkie? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2017 at 10:51 AM, Warhippy said:

So what IS everyone's favorite genre or field of shooting?

 

Myself I love astrophotography and the challenge of portraiture and shaping of light.  But would kill to get in to more journalistic or sports style endeavors.  Which are limited in a town as small as Penticton.

 

But having a camera on any road trip ever is one of the reasons I bought my first body.  I realized too late I'd worked across the globe without actually ever taking a single photo of where I'd been.  Then after my accident haven't really traveled since.  

 

Always have a camera on you

 

Image may contain: tree, sky, outdoor, nature and water

a little late to this thread but id love to get more into astrophoto however living in Calgary limits that. One thing I do get is some amazing sunrises, sunsets, skylines and being so close to the National Park Ive taken an interest in nature and scenic pictures. These 2 pics were taken from my deck at home..

clouds 2014 (7).JPG

DSC_0802.JPG

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2017 at 9:38 AM, TheAce said:

a little late to this thread but id love to get more into astrophoto however living in Calgary limits that. One thing I do get is some amazing sunrises, sunsets, skylines and being so close to the National Park Ive taken an interest in nature and scenic pictures. These 2 pics were taken from my deck at home..

clouds 2014 (7).JPG

DSC_0802.JPG

Looking forward to some prairie sunsets soon myself.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be doing a photo tour tomorrow I think.  Debating hope princeton and manning park, or coquihalla and a two hour trip of the summit area.

 

Goal is Bridal Veil Falls and Othello tunnels for a few hours then home via the Coq for a few mountain lake stops.

 

So...you know, if you're free

 

Image may contain: outdoor, nature and water

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Will be doing a photo tour tomorrow I think.  Debating hope princeton and manning park, or coquihalla and a two hour trip of the summit area.

 

Goal is Bridal Veil Falls and Othello tunnels for a few hours then home via the Coq for a few mountain lake stops.

 

So...you know, if you're free

 

Image may contain: outdoor, nature and water

 

 

Manning is one of my favourite places in BC. If Heather Trail is still in bloom that is a great photo op (if you've never been its right across the highway and you can drive right up to the top).

 

Here's a phone shot from a hike today at Deep Cove, show me where you can do this in Toronto eh? ::D

 

 

 

attachments.jpeg

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Manning is one of my favourite places in BC. If Heather Trail is still in bloom that is a great photo op (if you've never been its right across the highway and you can drive right up to the top).

 

Here's a phone shot from a hike today at Deep Cove, show me where you can do this in Toronto eh? ::D

 

 

 

attachments.jpeg

You can't 

 

Which is why I'll never stay in Toronto 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Penskih said:

So the highlights are clearly blown out. Is a circular polarizer the way to go when shooting bright skies? I assume an nd filter would  darken the whole image which you wouldn't want. Also ordering lightroom soon so will be able to edit :)asdf.thumb.png.02f421c0bc528f0c5498028f373d06b3.pngasdfg.thumb.png.c0f3f12527f86d587451250d1dbef0ab.pngasd.thumb.png.1a13f32ea645375ae2488620b3516ebc.png

CPL and polarizers are great for cloudy days and water

 

You're looking for a Grad Neutral Density for super bright skies which is a filter that is a stop or 2 darker at the top than the bottom which in essence tones down the harshness of the sky while allowing your foreground to still shine through

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/09/2017 at 11:50 AM, Warhippy said:

CPL and polarizers are great for cloudy days and water

 

You're looking for a Grad Neutral Density for super bright skies which is a filter that is a stop or 2 darker at the top than the bottom which in essence tones down the harshness of the sky while allowing your foreground to still shine through

Ahh okay makes sense thanks! Ive heard that what a grad filter does can be replicated with lightroom. Whereas cpl's are more necessary. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...