Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Whoa! cool down boss. I didn't realise you would take this much offense. I thought it was obvious, since it isn't, let me expalin. I was cribbing about noise at high ISO, not being able to use higher F-Stop for better DOF, not being able to auto-focus and lack of IS. |
Well first of all. No, I wasn't offended at all. Maybe my reply sounded a bit harsh. I'm sorry if I sounded like that. About high ISO performance. That's not the forte of P&S & entry level DSLR's at all so why complain about them at all when one has those the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai I gave you the example of a pair of Buffaloes racing towards me in the night and you are replying with a unmoving landscape. How does it compare? |
Well that example was given after I had posted the photograph of the landscape. I didn't have the slightest clue of the buffaloes. The photograph which you had previously posted was of you standing next to the car in the low light. And well that could be taken care off by many of the standard lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Actually, many Nikon fans hate Ken Rockwell.  They don't take him seriously at all. Also, Nikon doesn't ask Ken Rockwell to test anything, I thought it was well known. About KenRockwell.com |
Well as I had stated before too. I'm not a Nikon fanboy and frankly speaking don't have much idea about their bodies or lenses since I don't indulge into them much. But, on almost all the serious photography forums ppl generally swear by Ken Rockwell. That's the reason I took to that belief. Maybe I was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaushik_s So equipments sometimes does matter but depending on situations. And having used both cheapo lenses and so called pro lenses, I must tell that there is a huge difference in the image quality of the photographs. But are the cheap lenses that bad? Absolutely not. They are absolute value for money for a person who has just started photography and they'll definitely have many many usable photographs. I have many such photographs and still have them on my album.
But as you keep going forward and as you are no longer satisfied with your photographs(technically) and wants to do something much better(technically) then it's time for change. And trust me, you'll know when you've to change. For some it takes times and for some it may happen earlier. As of now, for me a good glass matters most irrespective of the price. |
Well I very well understood that point before too. That's the reason I've myself graduated from a 70-300 to a 100-400 and from 400D to 50D. Yes equipment does play a serious role.
But, that's only when the person behind the equipment is capable of handling the equipment as well as the equipment is meant to perform. I also agree to the point that the quality of the glass matters a lot and specific lenses are made for specific purpose. That's the reason I was asking around a few days ago for 85mm f/1.8.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post1215917 And that's for a simple reason and that's the 50mm 1.8 which I have got is fantastic but not long enough. While using that lens you usually tend to disturb the person and loose out on the natural expressions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extreme_torque P.S. I have seen plenty of people doing bird photography with the 70-200 F4 L and the glass takes supreme quality shots. Its one of the sharpest lens from Canon till date and the cheapest L lens at that. Why do you go and have a look at some of the bird shots people have posted on the non auto image thread using the same 70-200 lens? |
I totally agree with the sharpness of the 70-200mm F/4 or any of the series with different F-stops. But, it's
NOT a birding lens whatsoever. For past 3yrs I've been a regular at Bharatpur bird sanctuary. And frankly speaking I've
NEVER seen anyone sport a 70-200 of whatsoever make or F-stop over there. Infact the most common lenses we get to see there 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4. Yes if you speak about normal wildlife mammalian photography then 70-200 is sometimes seen. But, then you see more of 100-400 or 80-400's over there. Now, let me clear this up. I'm
NOT talking about regular photographers or fashion photographers going there for a shoot. But, I'm talking about serious birders. If you go and ask any serious wildlife photographer, they'll seldom be carrying a 70-200. Almost none of the ones I personally know own a single one of them. You can check serious wildlife photography sites like
India Nature Watch and check the profiles of photographers over there and their equipment base and you'll find not even 5% of them might have a 70-200. So, boss it was a totally out of question when it comes to bird photography.
Recently a friend of mine Anirban Brahma who's a fashion photographer. Many of you might know his name. He accompanied me to Bharatpur, He was so happy going there totting a 300mm f/4. Till he got the horror of seeing everyone over there carrying a 500/600mm bazooka. I guess the guys who posted the shots of birds in here might have been from the similar genre of fashion or general photography and not serious wildlife photography. IMHO wildlife and action sports photography demands the top level glass and bodies. And most of these photographers hardly use a 70-200 ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven @Nomad:
whereas the picture of the bumble bee is good. a better one could have been taken with a Macro lense (100mm or 180mm). that would have ensured that the flower on the bottom right is out of focus. |
Firstly it's not a Bumble Bee. It's a Hover Fly. A Bumble bee is yellow and black striped and quite fat.
Secondly, Yes I agree a macro lens would've done much more justice to the shot. Sadly, I don't yet own a macro lens. Looking towards getting a 180mm f/3.5 soon when my pocket allows it.
Thirdly, No matter which lens I'd have used the flower on the bottom right would've not gone out of focus as it was on the same focal plane. When you use a lens it usually see's an object in a slice of light which is horizontal to the center of the lens. Thus anything within that slice will be visible. That's the reason the leaves and flowers in the rest of the plane are out of focus. So, a macro lens even if it was a 2.8, yes it'd have minimized a bit of the flower but couldn't have taken it out completely. Until I digitally cloned it out. Which I prefer not to do and keep the frame untouched. One more thing...macro is usually shot at lower F-stops. Usually around F-7/8 to get maximum sharpness. That'd have ruled out the question of the blurring anyway.
Water Spider on Flickr - Photo Sharing! This was shot using a macro lens I borrowed from a friend of mine. And I had to stop it down to f/16 to get a decent DOF to get the entire spider. This little fellow was no more larger than a 50 Paisa coin. And still I've lost out a bit of it's legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhokritesh Am getting the Canon EOS 50D and a 24-105 F4 L series lens in a few days. |
Congrats in advance. I recently got my hands on a 50D myself. But, I should warn you the noise performance of the 50D above ISO 400 is not as good as that of the older 40D. But, otherwise it's a fantastic camera and I'm totally loving it.
Regards,
Anirban.