lol if you hadnt sort of apologiesed i would have given you lots of shit lol but its ok
I was basically just giving you shit in the first place, so feel free to dish it back.
lol
Burn In Hell
lol its a wind up im having with sam
fast shuter speed and flash you could do it on manual mode on a point and shoot then set ur self up a bucket i used a pink one! then start making drips and try your best to get the timing right and your done use a pencil in the water to line the focus up
Nothing to photograph= Boring targets= Bad pictures. I apologize but this is all I got..
Rainy day... (photos taken with my phone)
Om nom nom nom
And you the whole economy.
Or is it the money shot?
Get out disturbing images aaahhhh, shoo shoo!
Or is it the money shot?
Get out disturbing images aaahhhh, shoo shoo!
Sorvaan sulle uuden puujalan tästä hyvästä.
First and second
nice!
Yerr, me old peg is ye bit worn out yerr.
*Knocks wood, slaps forehead*
Yes yes, I know.
It's a great shot, I just can't look at it anymore.
It's a great shot, I just can't look at it anymore.
I was close to buying this until I noticed....
no OS..
Which is why I want the Nikon version with VR, it will make a HUUUUUGE difference, unfortunately the price difference is pretty steep, it costs $1000 more for the Nikon, which.. they just quit making, so hopefully some cheap ones will start showing up on the market and I'll be able to snag one.... hopefully..
But I want to get the 70-200 2.8 and a 2x teleconverter so I have a 4.6 400mm which is awesome..
Sigma's rep is for sure getting back up there, but.. still nothing compared to the big leagues..
Tokina though freaking came out of nowhere and has that 11-16 2.8 that is freaking sharper than Nikon's 12-24 2.8, it's crazy
As for whoever was talking about the camera.... Canons hurt like hell when holding them, you can't pay me enough to hold on to one of those all day!
My Nikon feels like it should.. comfortable, even with heavy lenses on it!
Plus Canons tend to have funky white balance and color rendition, I don't like it..
Never understood the point of VR.
Bear with me, iz not a troll as I got facts and reasons to back that up.
At shutter speeds of 1/500 and faster you are already starting to freeze motion and the VR - no matter whether in-lens or in-body - is actually a handicap at faster shutter speeds and should be turned off (same with shooting from a tripod).
I can see the point of VR if you are to shoot landscapes (which don't move around much, except for foliage and waves and stuff) but since you're probably using a wide-angle anyway, you can shoot at lower shutter speeds in the first place.
And if since the VR can't carry you to very long exposures in night time shooting you probably have to use a tripod - which means VR should be turned off.
Am I missing something here?
Editor's note: This applies to personal shooting preferences and fast lenses. Iz cool if you like the VR gatorade.
That's because you are a pro snob with an excellent camera and gear who can just up the ISO if there is not enough light without almost no added noise?
To get the most out of the low end cameras you need lowest ISO every time, and if you can use 200 instead of 400 the VR is worth it if you hate noise. Especially at longer focal distances shooting small targets or if you need larger f-value. Of course, even a monopod makes VR obsolete most of the time, but it's not as handy.
VR isn't about landscapes or night. It's about low light rather than night light. I don't have experience with it, but I've seen it said many times that it can get you 2-3 stops which could be the difference of having camera shake and not having camera shake, especially at the long end if you were shooting say 200-300 mm and couldn't get a speed up past 1/160 -1/200 and can't get the ISO up any farther because of noise.
by the rule of 1/focal lenght (which means if you have 50mm lens (75-80mm on crop 1,5) you shouldnt go under 1/50 or 1/80 exposure time to have a sharp image), VR is very useful in many situation, however long lenses allow you do reach much faster times than wide ones. VR/IS is on lenses with focal length like 200mm, so when you have it on crop camera, which gives you 300mm lens, you can hardly get always 1/300...there you need IS, simple
Image stablization makes a huge difference at any focal length, I just start failing to see the purpose when you get these slow 18-55s.. I mean its nice to have, there are times I wish I had a 18-55 VR isntead of my non VR just because I was taking night shots at 1600 iso hand held.
Stablization it really doesn't matter how fast you're taking the picture once you get over the 1/800 range, 1/500 and you start seeing plenty of motion, VR/OS/IS doesn't stop this motion, it floats the lens so everything else flat like it should be.
Here, put yourself in this situation, lets say you're taking a photograph with the lens I want, the 70-200 2.8 VR, it is a close up shot of an airplane prop (sorry was at an air show this morning), on a cloudy day, and you want to shoot at 2.8 so you put an ND filter or two on it to slow the speeds down so you get the depth of field to keep the 2.8, so here it is.. normally you would be taking a 1/800 which you can see probably 10 degrees of prop motion typically, but here you are with 2 ND8 filters on this beast and are shooting at 1/100 (not that anyone would do this, at 1/100 you would have no prop at all it would all be a blur), but anyways because you're shooting at 1/100 at 200mm, you would have to know some good breathing excercieses to pull this off without blurring the entire photo, so VR comes on and floats the lens elements and keeps it all steady so you're still shooting at a very slow speed, but everything is still sharp.
With my 55-200 4-5.6 VR, I have taken shots well below 1/50 at 200mm at 5.6 and VR has saved my life plenty of times, image stablization makes a huuuuuuuuuuge difference, it is honestly worth the expensive price you save so many more photos.
Someone else may say, well why not get a faster lens then? Well I do, I have a manual 135 2.8 I used for shooting my sisters' wedding, it was fast enough shooting at 800 iso (was shooting 800 iso all night), but.. 2 problems
1 I had to focus manually, as dark as the place was, it was a hit or miss with the 2.8 indoors, literally, I probably lost nearly HALF of my images from being out of focus, I don't know how many photos I took with that lens but I took 500 shots that night.
2 I could use my 55-200 VR still at 800 iso and not only did I have auto focusing so I never missed.. Besides the shot being taken slightly slower, having a shot with motion in it was much more worth it than an out of focus fast shot.
And for those that don't understand how much of a difference depth of field is with a 2.8, at the distances I was working at, if I missed the focus ring by 3mm or so from being on focus, the shot was pretty much worthless
Stablization it really doesn't matter how fast you're taking the picture once you get over the 1/800 range, 1/500 and you start seeing plenty of motion, VR/OS/IS doesn't stop this motion, it floats the lens so everything else flat like it should be.
Here, put yourself in this situation, lets say you're taking a photograph with the lens I want, the 70-200 2.8 VR, it is a close up shot of an airplane prop (sorry was at an air show this morning), on a cloudy day, and you want to shoot at 2.8 so you put an ND filter or two on it to slow the speeds down so you get the depth of field to keep the 2.8, so here it is.. normally you would be taking a 1/800 which you can see probably 10 degrees of prop motion typically, but here you are with 2 ND8 filters on this beast and are shooting at 1/100 (not that anyone would do this, at 1/100 you would have no prop at all it would all be a blur), but anyways because you're shooting at 1/100 at 200mm, you would have to know some good breathing excercieses to pull this off without blurring the entire photo, so VR comes on and floats the lens elements and keeps it all steady so you're still shooting at a very slow speed, but everything is still sharp.
With my 55-200 4-5.6 VR, I have taken shots well below 1/50 at 200mm at 5.6 and VR has saved my life plenty of times, image stablization makes a huuuuuuuuuuge difference, it is honestly worth the expensive price you save so many more photos.
Someone else may say, well why not get a faster lens then? Well I do, I have a manual 135 2.8 I used for shooting my sisters' wedding, it was fast enough shooting at 800 iso (was shooting 800 iso all night), but.. 2 problems
1 I had to focus manually, as dark as the place was, it was a hit or miss with the 2.8 indoors, literally, I probably lost nearly HALF of my images from being out of focus, I don't know how many photos I took with that lens but I took 500 shots that night.
2 I could use my 55-200 VR still at 800 iso and not only did I have auto focusing so I never missed.. Besides the shot being taken slightly slower, having a shot with motion in it was much more worth it than an out of focus fast shot.
And for those that don't understand how much of a difference depth of field is with a 2.8, at the distances I was working at, if I missed the focus ring by 3mm or so from being on focus, the shot was pretty much worthless
http://i270.photobucket.com/al ... yroFish1337/DSCF01641.jpg
This was when i still had my Fuji Finepix S1000FD
This was when i still had my Fuji Finepix S1000FD
I can vouch for IS/VR. The 70-200 2.8L IS I use can be hand-held at 200mm all the way down to 1/20th, provided people aren't moving through the frame, while still retaining sharpness. Amazing lens, and I'm sure the Nikon version is just as good. If I ever shoot with an assistant who doesn't have the IS version, no matter how awesome they are, I know before we even start that I'll end up with a much higher percentage of tack sharp shots than they will.
They tell you not to use the IS feature on a tripod, but many times during weddings (specifically indoor ceremonies) I'm just using a tripod as extra stability, I'm not actually locking the ball head after I frame something up. So in these cases (mostly at f2.8 1/60th) I've found the IS is still helpful on the tripod. I'm not sure about the Nikon, but the Canon gives you 2 IS modes, one that only stabilizes vertically, so you can pan a shot and still get the horizontal blur. Pretty cool.
Wide angles are a different story. Sure, it can't hurt to have it, but the extra cost may not be justifiable given how easy it is to hand hold a wide angle at the reciprocal of your focal length.
They tell you not to use the IS feature on a tripod, but many times during weddings (specifically indoor ceremonies) I'm just using a tripod as extra stability, I'm not actually locking the ball head after I frame something up. So in these cases (mostly at f2.8 1/60th) I've found the IS is still helpful on the tripod. I'm not sure about the Nikon, but the Canon gives you 2 IS modes, one that only stabilizes vertically, so you can pan a shot and still get the horizontal blur. Pretty cool.
Wide angles are a different story. Sure, it can't hurt to have it, but the extra cost may not be justifiable given how easy it is to hand hold a wide angle at the reciprocal of your focal length.
Camera Showoff
(5560 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG