HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2009, 6:38 PM
toyota74 toyota74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,739
.

Need some info on getting camera cleaned*****



this pic has specs of shit all over,had a filter on .Iknow from other
pics that i have some internal dust or specs but do ihave to
regulary clean lenses and filters...like wiping daily with a cleaning
kit,how much would it cost to get camera internally cleaned in
camera shop etc and some tips on keeping lenses camera in
good nick...and so on ..
__________________
Photography Facebook page
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2009, 1:55 AM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,257
I had a couple of those but they were small. Unless you looked at a picture 100% you couldn't even see them. I also removed them in photoshop.

But anyways. I SOLD my D40X today! Ah! I might get a D90 body this Sunday for 700 bucks. Although I'm kind of skeptical. The guy keeps insisting that I get it today but IDK. Plus I don't want to buy a camera that I might have to get fixed soon. So first I'm gonna get a body then I'm getting an 18-200mm so that I almost never have to switch lenses.

So that's one option. The other option is to buy a D90 body new then an used 18-200mm lens. But it seems harder to find used the 18/200 then the d90 body itself. So what do you guys recommend? I'm also thinking about getting the Tokina 11-16 but I'll get that later on.
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 4:33 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Penticton
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
18-200mm
Maybe try this one before you buy if you can. I was looking at it for the same reasons as you, but some folks I've talked to who have it say they're dissapointed with how soft it is in the corners. It seems you can only do so much with that much focal length in one lense, and it's something of a sharpness/convenience tradeoff.
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 4:49 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
^Yes. Similar story. I was looking at that lens too. The lens quality isn't as great as getting a 18-55/55-200. The photos overall aren't sharp as getting two lenses because it's such a focal range. If you want some more range you could go for a 18-105mm though. That's not to say you can't take great pics with the 18-200 though. But even though it may be a pain to switch, I'd recommend getting 2 lenses. Plus it gets you to think of different shots, say if you don't feel like changing lenses, you'll stick with one and get some different (and unique...) results than just the luxury of having it all-in-1.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 5:19 AM
Ayreonaut's Avatar
Ayreonaut Ayreonaut is offline
EVDS MPlan Grad
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 11,980
I really know nothing about different lenses, but if I were to get two, what would be my best options? Right now I only have the one that came with my Rebel xsi (I guess 18-55mm), and would like something with much more zoom. I think I only need one new lens, since besides the lack of zoom, I don't find anything wrong with this stock one as far as quality goes. I'm not exactly a demanding photographer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 5:27 AM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,257
I've read a lot of reviews on the lens and I've been surprised on how much people seem to love it. But I was a little suspicious also. I read like 2 reviews where it noted that the sharpness was a tad soft in the corners and the middle was distorted some bit. I haven't talked to anyone about it yet, but I'll do so soon since I'm getting the D90 on Monday and I'll need a lens really soon.

I was considering getting the 18-105 but I read in a lot of places about the "F" problem and how it won't take pictures and/or it will limit how much pictures you take after a period of time. Plus I don't get as long of a soom with the 105. So I thought about getting the Nikon 70-300 later on but I also read some reviews and it in the end the lens didn't convince me.

So I guess I'll have to get the 18-55 and the 55-200. Like I said, I'll talk to people about it in different stores around. For now getting both the 55/200 seem like the cheapest and best idea. The 18-200 seems convenient for times when you don't know the unexpected and I'm not sure about the 18-105/70-300. I hope I'll have some good results by Monday!
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 5:32 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Penticton
Posts: 3,757
Not trying to talk you out of anything, just letting you know to be cautious. I asked a couple of my Flickr contacts who use the lens, and that's what both said. I'll be the first to admit, I've seen plenty of shots taken with the lens and they looked fine to me.

@Ayreonaut: Don't shoot canon so I can't recommend a specific lense, but the next typical lense you would get is a telephoto zoom, like a 55-200mm. Everyone's different though. If you like shooting indoors or on the streets at night, you might prefer a fast prime lens. But I think you'd probably want the tele-zoom.
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 5:33 AM
Ayreonaut's Avatar
Ayreonaut Ayreonaut is offline
EVDS MPlan Grad
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 11,980
There we go, so maybe I should get a 55-200?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 5:47 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Penticton
Posts: 3,757
Like I say, everyone's different, but that is an almost universal second lense...
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 6:05 AM
Ayreonaut's Avatar
Ayreonaut Ayreonaut is offline
EVDS MPlan Grad
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 11,980
Alright, thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 6:41 AM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,257
So I checked prices for the 18-55 and 55-200 and I think it's much better than the 18-200. Buying both [new] from ebay will cost around 450 bucks while getting the single 18-200 will cost 700 [used] or a little under 800 [new].

Plus I'm getting more sharpness with both lenses, less distortion and more money! And I'll be saving more money for a Tokina 11-16mm!

But I found a package where I get the 18-105 and the 55-200! So I think it's better and it only costs 1350 dollars! But I don't think it comes with a battery. And I should get a bag, just in case I go on vacation or somewhere a little far from home.
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-

Last edited by Aleks; Sep 13, 2009 at 6:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 6:43 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
I think Canon has a 55-250mm, if you know Sekkle, I think he uses it. Very nice lens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 6:57 AM
Ayreonaut's Avatar
Ayreonaut Ayreonaut is offline
EVDS MPlan Grad
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 11,980
Thanks, I'll read up on it.

Edit: After skimming a couple reviews, it seems like it could be the one. I'm going to go in and ask about it within the next couple days. Thanks for the input.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2009, 12:30 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Has anyone here heard of the Leica M9? It seems awesome, exactly the kind of camera I need. I want to get a rangefinder so bad (I don't like SLRs), but the M9 is too expensive, maybe I'll just settle for film rangefinder, like Voigtlander Bessa R4M. But of course, I will have to learn how to process film first, since I have never used a film camera before. I might just experiment with a Holga first since it is cheap before I spend hundreds of dollars on a camera like the R4M.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2009, 1:19 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
There aren't any Rangefinders in digital. The M9, EP1, etc. are a different 'genre' all together, they're the Micro Four Thirds System. Finally the digital world gets something other than dSLRs for professional quality. These are reminiscent of the rangefinders back in the filmie days but they are different I think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2009, 2:01 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
There aren't any Rangefinders in digital. The M9, EP1, etc. are a different 'genre' all together, they're the Micro Four Thirds System. Finally the digital world gets something other than dSLRs for professional quality. These are reminiscent of the rangefinders back in the filmie days but they are different I think.
No the M9 is actual true digital rangefinder just like the M8 before it and the Epson R-D1. All these cameras use the old Leica M mount, not the new Micro Four Thirds mount. They all use a real rangefinder viewfinder, rather than LCD or electronic viewfinder.

The Micro Four Thirds format does seem very interesting, but the implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired. The design of bodies so far are quite bad (why a bulky SLR-like design?) and they lack a focus distance scale and depth of field scale on the LCD/EVF for manual focusing. Otherwise I would not bother with a rangefinder.

It is sad there are no available digital cameras for me, aside from the M9. Way too many "me too" cameras out there now. The Canon G11 comes close to what I need though, but it is too similar to my current camera, the 5 year old Olympus C7070. Funny isn't it? Five years have passed, and there has not been a single suitable (and affordable) upgrade to the C7070. Oh well, I can still take good pictures with it so i shouldn't complain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2009, 10:52 AM
toyota74 toyota74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,739
.

Have been reading KENROCKWELLS tips and settings for the nikond70.
When it comes to white balance he suggests not to use auto and recommends shade and cloudy settings.As im only interested in landscape
and exterior pics has anyone some views on w/b settings etc. i have followed his tips on w/b and my pics are less blue and more warm.

When i edit my pics i always find i have to bump up saturation and have
the camera setting in saturation+............any tips on settings to get good
colours in a pic without notching it up a bump or two in editing,,,,or is
normal that everyone increases saturation a bit in editing.{have image
on vivid settings}
__________________
Photography Facebook page
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2009, 9:16 PM
Ayreonaut's Avatar
Ayreonaut Ayreonaut is offline
EVDS MPlan Grad
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 11,980
I both increase and decrease saturation depending on how I want the picture in question to turn out. The one thing I almost always do is decrease exposure, but I suppose I could do that on my camera as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2009, 11:25 PM
Robert Pence's Avatar
Robert Pence Robert Pence is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Posts: 4,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by toyota74 View Post
Have been reading KENROCKWELLS tips and settings for the nikond70.
When it comes to white balance he suggests not to use auto and recommends shade and cloudy settings.As im only interested in landscape
and exterior pics has anyone some views on w/b settings etc. i have followed his tips on w/b and my pics are less blue and more warm.

When i edit my pics i always find i have to bump up saturation and have
the camera setting in saturation+............any tips on settings to get good
colours in a pic without notching it up a bump or two in editing,,,,or is
normal that everyone increases saturation a bit in editing.{have image
on vivid settings}
An improperly calibrated monitor or an one with weak phosphor (in the case of CRT) may make them appear lacking in saturation when they are not. Have you looked at them on anyone else's monitor to see how they stack up against your expectations?
__________________
Getting thrown out of railroad stations since 1979!

Better than ever and always growing: [url=http://www.robertpence.com][b]My Photography Web Site[/b][/url]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 6:35 PM
Ayreonaut's Avatar
Ayreonaut Ayreonaut is offline
EVDS MPlan Grad
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 11,980
So I went to look at the 55-250 lens, which would be around $300, but all they had was a 70-300, which was $750! So they said they'd bring in the 55-250 for me, picking it up tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.