New camera?

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by fwgx
especially as I don't have a diffuser.

Yep. I've had pictures turn out the other way too.... X-RAYED!! So yeah, candid shooting does present challenges.

I look at every shot I ever take and figure out what's wrong with it. I always find something that could have been better.

It's in that spirit, I offered this critique. The photos are a lot better than some "pro" work I've seen. I was ready to shoot the guy that did my brothers wedding pictures and he was an hour late and got a grand .

You did better.

[Razzinno]

Originally posted by fwgx
http://gallery.fwgx.co.uk/main.php?g...2_enterAlbum=1

Pretty good shots overall. The available lighting indoors was considerably better than what I had to work with. BTW, is the groom's name actually "Sutart" or is it Stuart?

Originally posted by rockouthippie
The photos are a lot better than some "pro" work I've seen. I was ready to shoot the guy that did my brothers wedding pictures.

My friends' had a bad experience with a photographer as well. They had her reshoot mock wedding pictures a week after the actual event. Tell me that won't always be on their minds years down the road when they look at their "fake" wedding album.

[rockouthippie]

I don't think it's a problem if the "fake" pictures are taken before the event, like the rehearsal. Afterward... that isn't cool..... Usually it's enough of a hassle to get married, that you didn't need extra chores afterward.

Glamour shots of the bride before the wedding are nice to have too. I'd spring for some studio work.

And Uh, let the woman hire the photographer, you don't want to be anywhere near that.....

[Razzinno]

You can imagine what the rest of us was muttering amongst ourselves when we had to dress up again for the dubious event. We were unhappy with the photographer grant you, but we were also a bit miffed at our friends' decision to stage this event. Some of the original party refused to participate.

The bride is the one who hired the photographer. It was a friend/coworker of her's.

[rockouthippie]

The bozo for my brothers wedding showed up after the ceremony when everyone had been properly beered. It sucked. I guess he was actually 2 hours late. The wedding was an hour late waiting for the bozo. Luckily some guests sort of saved the day and they've come up with something resembling a decent wedding album.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

My friends' had a bad experience with a photographer as well. They had her reshoot mock wedding pictures a week after the actual event.

The bozo for my brothers wedding showed up after the ceremony when everyone had been properly beered. It sucked. I guess he was actually 2 hours late.

Oh man, I'd have been so pissed off...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Well, I decided to wait on the tripod case, and instead I just ordered this, this, and this. After doing some more measuring, I decided that the 1554 is a little bit on the large side and that the 1524 would be a great size for my needs. It should have more than enough room inside, leave me enough space to add accessories, and is also physically stronger than the 1554 (simply because of the size difference). And since I ordered the filter adapter rings at the same time, B&H doesn't charge for shipping since they'll just be put in same box with the Pelican case. That, along with the reduced cost and shipping charges of the 1524 (vs 1554), means that I spent $154 instead of ~$200 for these things.

Sometimes I still think that Pelican cases are too expensive, but whenever those thoughts cross my mind, I remember that half of Lowepro's lineup of backpacks are twice as expensive as the Pelican I just ordered. And you can't drive a pickup truck over a Lowepro without destroying your gear...



They're also watertight and can float with a load that's upwards of five times their own weight.

[fwgx]

Nice sarge.

I've decided to go through the pics again in Capture NX instead of lightroom. I've only done about 3 so far, but I'm getting much better results than with lightroom - perhaps because the Nikon software is reading the RAW files better.

edit: so I've taken the gallery down for now. It'll be back with the better images when I'm done.

[fwgx]

I finally finished them all. I'll post them tomorrow, I'm shattered now.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Looking forward to seeing how they turned out.


Also just got an email from Canon. My lens has been repaired and is on its way back to me now.

[skryingbreath]

I had the pleasure of going out in the country.

[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Still going for the whole "oh my God the world just ended, lol" feel.

[fwgx]

Here we go. they're still uploading as I write this. There is a B+W and colour gallery for whichever takes your fancy.

http://gallery.fwgx.co.uk/main.php?g...2_enterAlbum=1



very nice shots skryingbreath. How do you get that look and feel to the images? It looks kind of cross processed.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

I'm thinking of getting a new camera. I figure it's time for a bit of an upgrade.

I currently have a Nikon Coolpix 4800 and a Canon PowerShot A520.

I'm currently leaning towards a Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200.

Any suggestions? Would like to primarily use it for astrophotograhy.

[skryingbreath]

The black and whites turned out really well, fwgx.

Originally posted by fwgx
very nice shots skryingbreath. How do you get that look and feel to the images? It looks kind of cross processed.

Just tweaking the curves in Photoshop.

[Razzinno]

Skry > pic[5] > inexpressibly cool

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by Razzinno
Skry > pic[5] > inexpressibly cool

Hey thanks man. I'd gleefully offer a larger resolution version to you if it weren't so blurry. I was somewhat cramped where I was standing/spidermaning.

[Canon]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
The black and whites turned out really well, fwgx.

Just tweaking the curves in Photoshop.

So thats why all the pictures have a weird blue cast.

Very nice pictures. I need to get out and take more pictures.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Got my lens back from Canon today. Just like new.


I haven't really had a chance to check out the pictures you guys posted because my internet connection blows. Briefly looked at the review link on that K-M DiMAGE A200. I don't have any personal experience with Konica Minolta, so I can't be of much help on that one. I probably wouldn't get that model simply because it's over two and a half years old, now. I'm sure there's something better being produced now that's in the same category with better specs for about the same price...

[gaekwad2]

I wonder if it's even available new anymore (over here it isn't).

There isn't much (or anything, depending on how you look at it) new in that category, otoh for its original price you can now choose between a couple of dSLRs (that would produce much better long exposures).

[Canon]

Canon Powershot firmware hacking

The firmware works on these cameras.
* A610, Fw: 1.00D, 1.00E, 1.00F
* A620, Fw: 1.00F
* A630, Fw: 1.00C
* A640, Fw: 1.00B
* A710, Fw: 1.00A
* S3 IS, Fw: 1.00A
* S2 IS, Fw: 1.00A

With this new firmware you can shoot in RAW, but currently it only supports DIGIC II cameras.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I'm still waiting for a damn update that will remove the '100 images per folder' limit that my 350D has. That crap gets annoying very quickly.

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by Canon
Canon Powershot firmware hacking

The firmware works on these cameras.
* A610, Fw: 1.00D, 1.00E, 1.00F
* A620, Fw: 1.00F
* A630, Fw: 1.00C
* A640, Fw: 1.00B
* A710, Fw: 1.00A
* S3 IS, Fw: 1.00A
* S2 IS, Fw: 1.00A

With this new firmware you can shoot in RAW, but currently it only supports DIGIC II cameras.

Did you try it?

I saw some images on dpreview a while ago, they were noisy but certainly had more detail than out-of-camera jpegs (not in terms of absolute resolution but the kind of low-contrast stuff that gets smudged away even by Canon's not-that-aggressive noise reduction).

[fwgx]

heh, I've just rolled around the numbering on my camera. Get to 10,000 shots and it starts back at 1 instead of going to 10,001. A bit annoying, but it has meant I've had to reorganise my workflow folders, which is a good thing!

[Canon]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Did you try it?

I saw some images on dpreview a while ago, they were noisy but certainly had more detail than out-of-camera jpegs (not in terms of absolute resolution but the kind of low-contrast stuff that gets smudged away even by Canon's not-that-aggressive noise reduction).

I haven't tried it out yet because I have the canon S2 IS. The S3 firmware works on it, but you can only take raw images, and you don't get all of the other features as the S3. So I'm going to wait until they fully support the canon S2. The link below shows you all the neat features that you can use on the supported camera models.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHD...firmware_usage


Yeah the raw images do have more detail.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...0&changemode=1


jpeg



RAW



The Raw image has more detail in the bricks and tree limb compared to the jpeg image, but the RAW also has more noise. mostly in the windows and shadows. Its not really a big deal. You can always get rid of the noise using the photoshop CS2 noise filter or noise ninja.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

My new case and filter adapters came today. The case is teh sex. But, the dolts that packaged my order didn't know what they were doing... My 58-72mm adapter ring is now bent because they stuck it in the box with my Pelican case rather than inside my Pelican case. The 52-58mm ring seems to be ok, though. I'll post pictars later.

[!01]

If you are considering the economical issues, Nikon wouldnt be the best brand to buy, it has one of the most expensive prices, with the same amount of money, you can buy cameras that are a lot better.
Ted

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Choices, choices... I'm looking at the following cameras, all of which should be in my affordability by the end of this month, if not, the first payday of June:

Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi)
Canon EOS 30D
Nikon D80
Pentax K10D


I think I'm leaning towards the D80 more than all of them, but that Pentax looks awfully nice, too.

I plan on getting the kit lens the camera comes with, and a 70-300mm or so zoom lens, plus a cable release for some kick-ass astrophotography.

Any input on those cameras?

[fwgx]

Don't get the pentax due to compatability (go into a shop and they'll generally have only good ranges of canon and nikon fitting glass). That for me is a deal breaker - plus Nikon and Canon glass is very very good.

Get the 30D over the 400D no question.

So it's either the D80 or 30D. At which point, if you're willing to spend enough money to afford a 30D you may as well get a Nikon D200 with 18-70 lens and be set for anything.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Well, I can get a D200 body only on e-bay for around $800, and an 18-70mm lens on Adorama for about $300, and can probably get a decent polarizing filter for $30 or so.

All in all, less than $1200. That should be doable.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Get the 30D over the 400D no question.

That'd be a tough one for me. It was difficult enough for me to choose my 350D over the 30D when I was in the market (before the 400D was released). The 350D and 30D have extremely similar image quality and resolution, and in the end, it's all about the images, right? Sure, the 30D has a few more features, slightly faster write speeds, and is larger overall than the 350D, but it's also quite a bit more expensive. And since the 400D was released, it offers even more reason to go with the Rebel line. The shooting performance is on par (if not better), the image quality is at least as good, the image resolution is higher, it's lighter, it's more compact, and it's less expensive than the 30D. Of course, the 30D has its advantages as well... Magnesium chassis, for example. But the features come at a hefty price premium compared to the 400D, and in the end, the image quality and resolution aren't any better.

Don't get me wrong. I'd highly recommend either of these two cameras over anything else in their respective categories. They're both very capable and high quality. I guess it just depends on each individual's particular needs and wants.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

How does this sound for a small kit?

Nikon D200 Camera Body
Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Lens
Nikon 67mm Circular Polarizer II Filter
Nikon MC-20 cable release

[Canon]

What do you think of this lens Sarge?

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Cripes, that's a real lens, too...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07...ma200500mm.asp

Insanity.

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by Canon
What do you think of this lens Sarge?

[Image]

It even has handles. Mother of God.

[fwgx]

A church in Bath

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Damn that's a nice photo...

[skryingbreath]

I must see a high res version. Please?

[Canon]

sgtfuzzbubble99, whats you opinion about the Sigma SD14?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I don't really have any personal experience with Sigma hardware. I'm pretty skeptical of the X3 sensor. Well, maybe not skeptical, but calling it a 14.1 megapixel camera when it's really a 4.6 megapixel camera doesn't sit right with me. I know that overall resolution should take a back seat to image quality and sharpness, but I still don't like that. Also, the selection of lenses available for Sigma cameras doesn't appear to be nearly as large as Canon's and Nikon's lens lineups. The LCD screen has a very low resolution for one of its size. 2" LCDs typically have 130,000 to 150,000 pixels. 2.5" LCDs should be somewhere around 230,000 pixels. It appears to only have one self-timer setting (can be a pain in the butt when you're trying to take long-exposure shots with a remote switch). I'm sure there are some other things, but I'm not going to look at all the details.

@Phily:
Love the picture.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Phily, that is an incredible photo