The "Post a Picture You Took" thread

[El Diablo 4232]

Nice @DougO , what gear and setting were you using?

[El Diablo 4232]

I tried the video option on my Nikon yesterday. The focus lost lock but other than that it's aight I guess.

 

[stc 1451]

Cell phone pics from backpacking/climbing in Colorado last week.

[DougO 5239]

3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

Nice @DougO , what gear and setting were you using?

D750 (full frame), 24-70mm, 1600 ISO around 250/f2.8, give or take.

[DougO 5239]

Nikon video looks nice. I have dabbled with a little bit of video and also find focus to be tricky. Still not sure what the proper technique is. I find it difficult trying to control with the LED screen rather than looking through a viewfinder, with or without the usual glare.

[El Diablo 4232]

29 minutes ago, DougO said:

Nikon video looks nice. I have dabbled with a little bit of video and also find focus to be tricky. Still not sure what the proper technique is. I find it difficult trying to control with the LED screen rather than looking through a viewfinder, with or without the usual glare.

I've seen a hood that fits over the screen so that it's usable in daylight but I don't know how well that would actually work. I shot that using my tripod and it lost focus with the rider pretty much staying in one place within the frame. I don't have VR lenses so no telling what I'd get if I tried to do something handheld, much less trying to track something. It probably works just fine if you're sitting in front of the camera in one place talking at the camera. Quality of the video is great, so there's that. I did shoot one 3-4 second pan but haven't gone back to really look at it, I do know that it was jerky as fuck though. That was just due to the equipment though. Tripod head wasn't made for video.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Great shots from everyone.  Photo dump of the last couple of weeks...

[Braff Zacklin 13409]

Stronk to very stronk on this page, guys. Thanks for sharing.

[nycHorn 2966]

Minneapolis last week for work.  This building caught the reflection of the sunrise on the front facing side, and the sunset on the edge (shown here)

[El Diablo 4232]

Surly photogs, informal poll: What's your go-to camera/lens combo?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Surly photogs, informal poll: What's your go-to camera/lens combo?

 

Digital: Canon EOS R; Canon RF 24-105mm

Analog: 1976 Canon AE-1; Canon 24mm

[Anton Chigurh 3318]

Very close to Mr. Swayze.

 

Digital: Canon 5D Mark IV with the 24-105 II, and 16-35 F4 IS for landscapes.

 

Film: Canon AE-1 Program with the 50mm 1.8 (have the chrome nose version and the second version; the chrome nose has crazy awesome build quality but it’s close to twice as heavy). I do have a few other lenses including a 24mm but need to use them some more.

 

I’d like to get an EOS 1 for film so I can use my nice, modern L lenses.

 

[YChang 3430]

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

[Hornius Emeritus 12416]

If you are a Canon user, I have to say that the optics on these two lenses, which are not too expensive, are incredible.  The 100mm in particular is my new favorite lens. Unbelievable optics for such a low cost lens, fast, and lightweight.  I got a used 100mm on Ebay that is in perfect condition (looks like it was never used) for 305 dollars. I got the Samyang 14mm for 695 dollars from Amazon.  Super sharp and very little chromatic aberration, which has been a huge bugaboo for me with some lenses.


https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100mm-f2.htm

https://dustinabbott.net/2017/04/rokinon-samyang-sp-14mm-f2-4-review/

 

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

I have nothing to add other than these photos are amazing; YChang- that pic with the silhouette in the background is very cool.

 

Thanks for sharing them!

[Anton Chigurh 3318]

If you are a Canon user, I have to say that the optics on these two lenses, which are not too expensive, are incredible.  The 100mm in particular is my new favorite lens. Unbelievable optics for such a low cost lens, fast, and lightweight.  I got a used 100mm on Ebay that is in perfect condition (looks like it was never used) for 305 dollars. I got the Samyang 14mm for 695 dollars from Amazon.  Super sharp and very little chromatic aberration, which has been a huge bugaboo for me with some lenses. 

 

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100mm-f2.htm

 

https://dustinabbott.net/2017/04/rokinon-samyang-sp-14mm-f2-4-review/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have the old totally manual version of that Rokinon. Bought it used for like $195? Use it for Astro stuff.

 

 

I still haven’t been able to use my tracking mount in earnest yet. Excited to use my higher zoom stuff and eventually try for nebulae and other celestial objects.

 

[El Diablo 4232]

Just clicked the "buy now" button on a Nikon 85mm f1.8G AF-S lens. On my DX body it'll give me a medium magnification and be fairly fast. It's not a "DX" lens but it certainly fits the budget more like a DX consumer lens.  A 70-200mm f2.8 is next on the wish list but is a bit pricier than what I want to drop at this point.

[Anton Chigurh 3318]

I still haven’t bought a 70-200 2.8. I’ll probably get around to it this year.

Nearly found one for a steal of a deal on FB marketplace but I was too late.

[El Diablo 4232]

5 hours ago, Anton Chigurh said:

I still haven’t bought a 70-200 2.8. I’ll probably get around to it this year.

Nearly found one for a steal of a deal on FB marketplace but I was too late.

I've seen quite a few that were affordable but the D3500 that I have just doesn't play well with a good number of the older lenses and of course those are the ones that are affordable to me. If I'd have spent just a couple hundred dollars more on a body it would have opened up a lot more lens options. Rookie mistake. 

[DougO 5239]

I have a Nikon 70-200 f4, very sharp, half the weight, half the cost. I got tired of lugging the old 80-200 on the shoulder and it was an old screw type focus that wasn't that quick. There are times in low light when I wish I had a 2.8 but they jacked up the price on the newer models that I can't justify it, since it's almost always a secondary lens for my work.

[DougO 5239]

I recently purchased the AF-P 18-55mm kit lens refurb for $69 on a whim. I'll be dadgumed but the reviews I read are right, it's really sharp and focuses really quick with the new system. It's something I can keep in the bag that is small and light when I need a wide angle. It's sharper than the 24-120 that I paid a chunk for and gives me fits.

[nycHorn 2966]

On 8/2/2019 at 8:05 AM, El Diablo said:

Surly photogs, informal poll: What's your go-to camera/lens combo?

Digital: Canon 1DX MK2, 24-70, 70-200

Film:  Contax T2, Canon EOS 3.

Never use, but love:  Polaroid 195, Pentax 67

 

I'm a huge fan of B&H Photo, but I have to say, I bought my really expensive gear at BestBuy on their card.  You can request 24 month, zero APR on big purchases.  It also helped that when I was an assistant, I would rent my gear to photographers mostly as the backup gear and it helped pay for it.

Edited August 4, 2019 by nycHorn

[nycHorn 2966]

7 hours ago, DougO said:

I have a Nikon 70-200 f4, very sharp, half the weight, half the cost. I got tired of lugging the old 80-200 on the shoulder and it was an old screw type focus that wasn't that quick. There are times in low light when I wish I had a 2.8 but they jacked up the price on the newer models that I can't justify it, since it's almost always a secondary lens for my work.

Are you shooting sports most of the time?  I would think you'd be lugging the $$ long lenses on monopods all day.

[El Diablo 4232]

8 hours ago, DougO said:

I recently purchased the AF-P 18-55mm kit lens refurb for $69 on a whim. I'll be dadgumed but the reviews I read are right, it's really sharp and focuses really quick with the new system. It's something I can keep in the bag that is small and light when I need a wide angle. It's sharper than the 24-120 that I paid a chunk for and gives me fits.

That's one of the lenses that came with my kit. It's Nikon glass so you know it's not going to be absolute garbage, I think the knock on it is simply materials and build quality. It's just not built like some of the more expensive professional quality lenses with moisture proofing, metal barrels, fancier coatings, focus lock buttons, etc... It's a bit goofy with the way it retracts into a locked position but whatever, lol. 

[El Diablo 4232]

8 hours ago, DougO said:

I have a Nikon 70-200 f4, very sharp, half the weight, half the cost. I got tired of lugging the old 80-200 on the shoulder and it was an old screw type focus that wasn't that quick. There are times in low light when I wish I had a 2.8 but they jacked up the price on the newer models that I can't justify it, since it's almost always a secondary lens for my work.

I've looked at that f4 lens.  Some of the used prices make it a good bit more attractive than the f2.8 but I don't trust myself buying used from a place like Ebay where I'm seeing lower prices. I just know I'd buy a piece of shit and be stuck. Looking at the more reputable shops online the price is getting closer to $800 and up which is really a stretch on my budget. I've checked Adorama, B&H, this place https://www.districtcamera.com/ and a few others. I can see myself buying used from one of them but if buying used it seems for a few hundo more the f2.8 comes into play. Eh, can't buy any of it right now so just going to have to start stashing pennies.

[El Diablo 4232]

@DougO you might want to check out the Extraco today. It's a rodeo for seniors (ages 40-70+). It's a GILF fest, lol. 

[DougO 5239]

7 hours ago, El Diablo said:

I've looked at that f4 lens.  Some of the used prices make it a good bit more attractive than the f2.8 but I don't trust myself buying used from a place like Ebay where I'm seeing lower prices. I just know I'd buy a piece of shit and be stuck. Looking at the more reputable shops online the price is getting closer to $800 and up which is really a stretch on my budget. I've checked Adorama, B&H, this place https://www.districtcamera.com/ and a few others. I can see myself buying used from one of them but if buying used it seems for a few hundo more the f2.8 comes into play. Eh, can't buy any of it right now so just going to have to start stashing pennies.

I have bought a lot of used stuff from KEH.com in past years. With them or Adorama and B&H you can always return stuff you aren't happy with.

[DougO 5239]

7 hours ago, El Diablo said:

That's one of the lenses that came with my kit. It's Nikon glass so you know it's not going to be absolute garbage, I think the knock on it is simply materials and build quality. It's just not built like some of the more expensive professional quality lenses with moisture proofing, metal barrels, fancier coatings, focus lock buttons, etc... It's a bit goofy with the way it retracts into a locked position but whatever, lol. 

Yeah, it's a little weird, but the performance is impressive for  a sub-$100 lens. Not something I would use for a pro shoot, but something very portable for carrying around just in case.

 

[DougO 5239]

8 hours ago, nycHorn said:

Are you shooting sports most of the time?  I would think you'd be lugging the $$ long lenses on monopods all day.

The 70-200 is the small lens for football and other sports. I carry the 300 f2.8 on the monopod, with the 70-200 on a strap over the shoulder.

 

[El Diablo 4232]

One from the team roping today. Meh. I have no idea what I'm doing, lol. 

 

[El Diablo 4232]

I'm doing the math in my head re: that shot there ^^^. That was at 120mm, f4.8, 1/250 and ISO 6400. With that f1.8 I don't know what my depth of field would be but I could have shot it at ~1/400 (stopped the blur a little bit better) and dropped the ISO to 3200. Is that right? 85mm lens on a DX body. In anticipation of getting this lens I tried to pretty much shoot right around 120mm today. Fixed lens will be a bit different.

Anyway, next weekend there's gonna be a 2 day barrel racing event. It's going to be in this same arena with the shitty lighting so I guess I'll find out pretty quick if I'm a clueless clown with a bag full of glass and a light wallet. Fingers crossed.

[El Diablo 4232]

Another one from today.

 

[DougO 5239]

I would say you are progressing very well in difficult circumstances. Good stuff to learn with. It's a good thing to learn to get away with the slowest speed possible and get a feel for what those shots are going to look like. You can get some cool effects with a little blur in the right ways. You will also find that you can stop action better at slower speeds at certain points, like turns or when a subject is moving towards you rather than side to side. Then you do the best you can panning smoothly and steadily and making something look really fast.

[El Diablo 4232]

Yeah, just trying to get a good exposure I've messed with the shutter speed quite a bit. Talking to the photographer at one of the horse shows helped a good bit when they told me they were shooting at 1/250 albeit with their flash rig. Some of what the horses are doing isn't really all that fast so you can get away with that speed and even slower. The barrel racers really are hauling butt though so as you said the only way for me to get a decent shot under those lights and with the gear that I've been using was to get them coming straight towards me. 

Quick joke... I was wondering why the Frisbee looked like it was getting bigger, and then it hit me.

That's sort of a problem for me when shooting these riders coming towards me. They're darker than the off white walls in the place so as they get closer the frame gets fuller and fuller of dark object - kinda like the Frisbee. I'm not sure how to adjust for that change. I know I can pick a spot and just shoot when the horse/rider gets there but even then sometimes it's a black horse, sometimes it's a white horse etc... It's never the exact same exposure needed. One thing that really bugs me is that they're all wearing freaking hats so faces are almost always in shadow no matter how good I get the exposure on the rest of the shot. Would be nice if the horses didn't freak out over flashes but they do so that's out.

ETA: Everything I shot yesterday and Saturday was in shutter priority mode. The camera seems to do a better job of setting the f stop than it does with setting the ISO, which I've tried also. 

I also messed around some with the viewfinder last night. As I've mentioned previously with my blindness just being able to see what I'm looking at has been an issue. I think I've found something that might work but it's going to mean carrying a second pair of glasses with me. I'll be able to see thru the viewfinder a lot better but it will mean having to switch back and forth between 2 pairs of glasses and no glasses at all depending on whether I'm looking thru the viewfinder, looking at the back of the camera for some reason or just looking to see where I am/what's going on around me. fml, lol. I'm gonna give it a try though. I kind of do this all the time already but it means keeping track of 2 pairs of glasses and which pair is where (grabbing the wrong pair and then being wtf?). Plus the constantly shifting back and forth between glasses tends to lead to some dizziness. 

EDIT TO THE EDIT: The Nikon magnifying eyepiece is shit in my opinion. At least the thing they sell for this camera is. It just slips over the eyepiece and seems to work about as well as a plastic magnifying glass out of a box of Cracker Jacks. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by El Diablo

[DougO 5239]

I think I have one of those Nikon magnifiers somewhere that I tried for a while long ago. Never did me asy good, unfortunately. I think it's the same one they have sold for a long time. At least it didn't cost that much.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

This is a random observation and only coming from having to take pics at athletic events: you mentioned the hat shading the face of the riders? One thing that worked for me was getting down low or sitting on the ground for some shots so that the camera was directed upwards. I obviously do not have the acumen that all of the folks here do, but that was something that worked for me. In an arena, you may not be able to secure that kind of vantage point, but it is something you might try if there is some downtime between the events. It didn't always work, I had some spectacular nostril shots, but for photos that were zoomed out a little, the face was framed by the helmet/hat instead of just seeing brim and a shadow.

[El Diablo 4232]

31 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is a random observation and only coming from having to take pics at athletic events: you mentioned the hat shading the face of the riders? One thing that worked for me was getting down low or sitting on the ground for some shots so that the camera was directed upwards. I obviously do not have the acumen that all of the folks here do, but that was something that worked for me. In an arena, you may not be able to secure that kind of vantage point, but it is something you might try if there is some downtime between the events. It didn't always work, I had some spectacular nostril shots, but for photos that were zoomed out a little, the face was framed by the helmet/hat instead of just seeing brim and a shadow.

It kinda depends on the event as to what sort of access is available. There's been a couple where I could get "back stage" and floor level but most of it is from some elevated position. Imagine a grassy knoll if you will.

[El Diablo 4232]

2 hours ago, DougO said:

I think I have one of those Nikon magnifiers somewhere that I tried for a while long ago. Never did me asy good, unfortunately. I think it's the same one they have sold for a long time. At least it didn't cost that much.

I think maybe on one of the more expensive camera bodies they might be okay because the entire eyepiece is removed and replaced with the magnifier. On mine (the rectangular variety eyepiece) it just slips over it. Horrible design, worse execution. But yeah, it was cheap so whatever. Back to the way it was.

[NWBuck 8547]

I'm not anywhere near as talented as most of the folks on this thread, but was pretty pleased at how this one turned out.

From Mt. Baker wilderness up near the Canadian border.

[naija 2854]

I'm a big proponent of buying a prime and sticking with it.

Got the Nikon Z6 and the 24-70 f/4. While great optically, can't say I'm really feeling it. So for digital, I would say my Fuji X series camera would be the go to. If I had to pick one camera, it would be the Fuji X100F or whatever comes next in that iteration. (sold my X100S a while ago and regret it. just waiting for the new model to pop up).

For analog, one camera to keep would be the Fuji GF670. Portable medium format can't be beat. Best picture quality though goes to the Mamiya RZ67

[El Diablo 4232]

13 hours ago, naija said:

I'm a big proponent of buying a prime and sticking with it.

Got the Nikon Z6 and the 24-70 f/4. While great optically, can't say I'm really feeling it. So for digital, I would say my Fuji X series camera would be the go to. If I had to pick one camera, it would be the Fuji X100F or whatever comes next in that iteration. (sold my X100S a while ago and regret it. just waiting for the new model to pop up).

For analog, one camera to keep would be the Fuji GF670. Portable medium format can't be beat. Best picture quality though goes to the Mamiya RZ67

I now have 2 prime lenses in my bag, a 35mm f1.8 made for the Nikon DX sensor and an 85mm f1.8 full frame so effectively a 123mm on my Nikon D3500. My plan is to work real hard to use just those two lenses for a while and leave the kit zoomies at home.

[naija 2854]

I now have 2 prime lenses in my bag, a 35mm f1.8 made for the Nikon DX sensor and an 85mm f1.8 full frame so effectively a 123mm on my Nikon D3500. My plan is to work real hard to use just those two lenses for a while and leave the kit zoomies at home.

That 35mm is also giving you a different FOV on your DX. ~ 50mm. Made for the DX sensor just means it covers less but the equivalency values still apply.

Most people find out for primes that they are either 35mm or 50mm people and go from there

[DougO 5239]

That little 18-55mm zoom is so small and light, and sharp, there's not much reason you shouldn't take it along. Just treat it like an 18mm f3.5 and have a wide angle.

Edited August 6, 2019 by DougO

[El Diablo 4232]

1 hour ago, naija said:

 

 

That 35mm is also giving you a different FOV on your DX. ~ 50mm. Made for the DX sensor just means it covers less but the equivalency values still apply.

Most people find out for primes that they are either 35mm or 50mm people and go from there

 

That's what I thought re: projecting 50mm equivalent initially but then read something yesterday somewhere that made me think that was wrong/confused me. Thanks for clearing that up!

[El Diablo 4232]

37 minutes ago, DougO said:

That little 18-55mm zoom is so small and light, and sharp, there's not much reason you shouldn't take it along. Just treat it like an 18mm f3.5 and have a wide angle.

Good point. I'll leave the 70-300 at the house and roll with the others.

[naija 2854]

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

That's what I thought re: projecting 50mm equivalent initially but then read something yesterday somewhere that made me think that was wrong/confused me. Thanks for clearing that up!

It does give you a field of view of 50mm full frame (FX) equivalent. DX lenses are cheaper and made just for DX, because they cover a smaller portion of a sensor (i.e, a crop sensor). That's where the money is saved. If you put that DX lens on a FX camera you could still use it, you'd just get really bad vignetting. Nikon knows this, and as such most of the FX cameras will automatically go into a crop mode if you attach a DX lens to it.

If you want a 35mm FF FOV on your DX camera, you have to get a 23mm or 24mm lens.

Nikon DX and FX explained

This has been the historical problems with Nikon as far as DX is concerned. They don't have enough lenses designed for the smaller format, so in order to get some of those focal lengths you would have to buy FX lenses to use on your DX camera. You are paying for it in weight and cost for features you don't use.

That's why today Fuji is King of the crop sensor format (ASPC), all those lenses are designed for DX/ASPC format and with the conversion/equivalencies in mind. So you have 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm etc equivalent primes

[El Diablo 4232]

20 minutes ago, naija said:

It does give you a field of view of 50mm full frame (FX) equivalent. DX lenses are cheaper and made just for DX, because they cover a smaller portion of a sensor (i.e, a crop sensor). That's where the money is saved. If you put that DX lens on a FX camera you could still use it, you'd just get really bad vignetting. Nikon knows this, and as such most of the FX cameras will automatically go into a crop mode if you attach a DX lens to it.

If you want a 35mm FF FOV on your DX camera, you have to get a 23mm or 24mm lens.

Nikon DX and FX explained

This has been the historical problems with Nikon as far as DX is concerned. They don't have enough lenses designed for the smaller format, so in order to get some of those focal lengths you would have to buy FX lenses to use on your DX camera. You are paying for it in weight and cost for features you don't use.

That's why today Fuji is King of the crop sensor format (ASPC), all those lenses are designed for DX/ASPC format and with the conversion/equivalencies in mind. So you have 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm etc equivalent primes

I hadn't really thought about it but this then also applies to the DX kit lenses supplied. So my 18-55mm gives the equivalent of a 24-80mm and the 70-300mm is 105-450mm, if those were lenses on a FX? Is that right? Plum goofy. Is the given aperture affected similarly? Sorry if that's a dumb question, my overall understanding of optics ain't stellar.

[naija 2854]

2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

I hadn't really thought about it but this then also applies to the DX kit lenses supplied. So my 18-55mm gives the equivalent of a 24-80mm and the 70-300mm is 105-450mm, if those were lenses on a FX? Is that right? Plum goofy. Is the given aperture affected similarly? Sorry if that's a dumb question, my overall understanding of optics ain't stellar.

Your 18-55mm gives a field of view (FOV) of 27-83mm on a DX camera. The crop factor is ~ 1.5. On an FX camera, it would give a 18-55mm FOV if you could make it shoot like an FX, but on most Nikons, the camera will automatically shot in DX mode if you put a DX lens on it, getting you back to 27-83mm.

The above is for a DX lens.

If you used an FX lens; say the 35mm 1.4. On the DX camera you would get ~50mm FOV. On the FX camera you would get 35mm FOV. FX lenses can cover DX sensors. The reverse is not true. DX lenses can't cover FX sensors.

With regards to aperture, you have to separate out two separate things; light gathering ability and depth of field. For light gathering, it's easy. A lens with aperture of 1.2, is 1.2 on any sensor. i.e, if you take a meter reading and it gives an F stop of 1.2, shutter speed of 1/250th and ISO of 200, it doesn't matter what camera you have, those numbers will hold true.

What will be different is the depth of field. The smaller the sensor, the less ability to have a shallow depth of field if you are trying to maintain the same FOV. So 1.2 lens on a FX sensor will have a much shallower DOF than if shot on an APS-C sensor which in turn is shallower than a Micro Four-Thirds sensor.

So is there any point when a smaller sensor has an advantage? yes; consider wildlife photography. For those people, you can never have enough reach. So a camera like the D500 becomes a better buy than a D850 for example. Because that 70-300mm lenses can get you closer to the deer or whatever animal you are trying to shoot than if you put on a D850 lens. Bear in mind, this is sort of an optical illusion. In reality, the sensor is just doing the work of cropping for you. The optical qualities of a lens never change despite what camera they are placed on. It can get complicated when you add perspective and compression in there. 

Advantages of bigger sensor? If you are a bokeh whore, then it's a must. To get the DOF a 1.2 lens on an FX camera can give you, on an APS-C/DX sensor, you'd have to find a lens with an aperture of 0.8. They don't exist. But to me bokeh can be overrated. Shooting something where the eyelash is in focus and the pupil is out of focus tends to be ridiculous. It can also be a crutch for bad composition. You can't arrange everything in the frame and so you make all of the background go out of focus. Much harder to shoot at f/8 and learn to compose properly. 

Another advantage of the bigger sensor is you tend to get better noise performance. Noise creeps in at higher ISOs. It varies widely by camera, but generally by ISO 800 and above, you can start to notice noise affecting your picture. This less of an issue for full frame cameras. And as you can imagine, even less so for medium format.

3rd benefit of full frame: dynamic range. Which is best described as imagine shooting a picture with dark objects in it. How much can you recover those objects in post-processing. Full frame sensors will give you more latitude here as well

Edited August 6, 2019 by naija

[naija 2854]

El Diablo, when shopping for DX lenses, the manufacturers or websites usually list what FOV you are actually getting in Full Frame (also known as 35mm by convention).

I looked up the 18-55mm DX Nikon  on BHPhoto for example. As you can see under "Key Features" it lists the FOV in 35mm/FF terms too.