Photography ERA |OT|

Jzeero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,269
California
My uni's gala party uploaded all the pics from both the room photographer as well as the photobooth photographer.
I can't understand how he was able to fuck up that much, pics taken from below, lighting all over the places, faces waay overexposed and the rest of the body underexposed, severe lens distortions, and bad focal distances. If they gave me a camera I could even do better. The room guy has plenty of creative and very good shots, in focus what's needed to be in focus, all while moving along and taking pics of dancing people with only a portable flash. The photobooth guy had plenty of time to set up things well and yet they turned out shite. Ugh.
Yea most people get gigs based on who they know not what they know.

Yeah he obiously didn't know a thing about taking proper pictures I feel. Felt like he was just a guy with a camera snapping pics of his family. I can PM you the link to the pictures if you want a good laugh/rage? :P
I wanna see too
 
Last edited:

Daedardus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
691
I got my first 'job' ever. Have to take some resumee photos for a couple of friends, nothing of a big deal. It's a good exercise and if done well I'll get more victims to take along photographing around the city. Not really asking anything of value for it, it's a favor in return for a favor. But this is how your career starts right? :P
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
I got my first 'job' ever. Have to take some resumee photos for a couple of friends, nothing of a big deal. It's a good exercise and if done well I'll get more victims to take along photographing around the city. Not really asking anything of value for it, it's a favor in return for a favor. But this is how your career starts right? :P
I looked at some examples of these. You don't have to go balls to the walls so to speak, but they still need to look good. What are you going to be using for these?
 

Daedardus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
691
I looked at some examples of these. You don't have to go balls to the walls so to speak, but they still need to look good. What are you going to be using for these?
For camera? I don't have much on me at the moment but my RX100M3 in manual mode will have to do. At 70mm and f/2.8 it still is able to produce a good portrait in favorable light conditions. As for setting we'll just do it at upstairs at the campus. It has a glass dome roof so light should be good and it has a white background (it's basically a Guggenheim copy). If that doesn't work well we'll just try a wall where they newly installed bright natural looking LED lighting.

The trick will be more in having them pose good, but I don't think it should be a big problem. Probably will take half an hour to get a good shot, but it's not that critical that you need the absolute best shot. Just has to give a good first impression on LinkedIn.
 

Menelaus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,628
My LinkedIn picture is a tight crop of an iPhone picture but on the site you’d never know. You’ll be fine.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
For camera? I don't have much on me at the moment but my RX100M3 in manual mode will have to do. At 70mm and f/2.8 it still is able to produce a good portrait in favorable light conditions. As for setting we'll just do it at upstairs at the campus. It has a glass dome roof so light should be good and it has a white background (it's basically a Guggenheim copy). If that doesn't work well we'll just try a wall where they newly installed bright natural looking LED lighting.

The trick will be more in having them pose good, but I don't think it should be a big problem. Probably will take half an hour to get a good shot, but it's not that critical that you need the absolute best shot. Just has to give a good first impression on LinkedIn.
I guess that's fine...don't pay attention to me, I do too many damn headshots.
 

Daedardus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
691
I guess that's fine...don't pay attention to me, I do too many damn headshots.
I know, I know, it's not a MILC with an F1.4 85mm, but I have to say it's still a fine piece of engineering. F2.8 at 70mm is still pretty fast for a thing that small, able to give modost background seperation taking into account the crop factor. But aside from lowlight performance, fiddly controls and unable to get shallow DOF this thing takes damn nice pictures. I have a couple of landscape shots at 24mm under good light and you'll have to look hard to see the difference with a midrange DSLR.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
I know, I know, it's not a MILC with an F1.4 85mm, but I have to say it's still a fine piece of engineering. F2.8 at 70mm is still pretty fast for a thing that small, able to give modost background seperation taking into account the crop factor. But aside from lowlight performance, fiddly controls and unable to get shallow DOF this thing takes damn nice pictures. I have a couple of landscape shots at 24mm under good light and you'll have to look hard to see the difference with a midrange DSLR.
With head shot stuff it's all in the lighting to be honest. You can dump enough light onto a sensor to the point where nobody even knows what the hell you shot it on, but this is you, not me and for my setup I'd show them some examples and charge them a couple of hundred bucks. Also I'm shocked at how fast I put my A7RII to work. Used it for an event where Kerry Washington and Sonia Sotomayor were giving a talk and just used it to shoot some pictures that could be used for my jobs quarterly magazine. Also used it to shoot some B-Roll for a video, only missing piece to this cameras puzzle is a 2.8 24-70.
 

Daria

Member
Oct 25, 2017
687
Twilight Zone
Needing to pick up an extra body. I’m used to Canon but I just recently missed out on a pretty 5D classic.

So ERA, do I grab a 5D classic body only (7/10) for around $180 or do I jump over to Nikon and grab a clean D300 (55k clicks) for the same price?
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,660
Spain
Needing to pick up an extra body. I’m used to Canon but I just recently missed out on a pretty 5D classic.

So ERA, do I grab a 5D classic body only (7/10) for around $180 or do I jump over to Nikon and grab a clean D300 (55k clicks) for the same price?
If you like Canon, buy Canon. 5D always was a good camera. But it's true that the D300 has more functionality.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
Needing to pick up an extra body. I’m used to Canon but I just recently missed out on a pretty 5D classic.

So ERA, do I grab a 5D classic body only (7/10) for around $180 or do I jump over to Nikon and grab a clean D300 (55k clicks) for the same price?
How invested are you with Canon? I wouldn't even touch either camera, but that's just me. A D700 or D600 would be where I would start out unless you need specific things.
 

Menelaus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,628
Needing to pick up an extra body. I’m used to Canon but I just recently missed out on a pretty 5D classic.

So ERA, do I grab a 5D classic body only (7/10) for around $180 or do I jump over to Nikon and grab a clean D300 (55k clicks) for the same price?
The original 5D is in no way a viable second body these days. I know nothing about the Nikon.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
The original 5D is in no way a viable second body these days. I know nothing about the Nikon.
The D300 is what came before the D500, I think the D300 is when the D800 came out or something, it's a body I quite frankly wouldn't use depending on what he needs it for. I'd probably go for a D7100 honestly, but he seems very budget limited.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,660
Spain
The D300 is what came before the D500, I think the D300 is when the D800 came out or something, it's a body I quite frankly wouldn't use depending on what he needs it for. I'd probably go for a D7100 honestly, but he seems very budget limited.
It's from 2007. The D800 came out in 2012, so the current APS-C body was either the D7000 or D7100, I don't remember.
I think people have to understand others with limited budget. Older bodies do work, they were the bodies producing professional work in the past, sure there's much better now but those bodies are still capable of very good results and if you have a small budget, well, you do what it takes.
 

Menelaus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,628
I'm point blank not using compact flash in 2019. Doesn't matter what my budget it, that's a show stopper.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
It's from 2007. The D800 came out in 2012, so the current APS-C body was either the D7000 or D7100, I don't remember.
I think people have to understand others with limited budget. Older bodies do work, they were the bodies producing professional work in the past, sure there's much better now but those bodies are still capable of very good results and if you have a small budget, well, you do what it takes.
I'm not saying it's that bad of a camera, it's something I would get if I wanted to buy a camera I knew I wouldn't really care about, I'd personally get a D700 as that sort of camera because don't have crop sensor F mount lenses anymore. That camera is old and probably very hard to find in good condition but it's cheap. The camera predates the D3 and I believe the D300 is professional grade which means it's been through the hands of a ton of photojournalists. Also considering I use a D810 and D4 to work events I know older bodies work, I just wouldn't touch a crop sensor Nikon DSLR before they rolled out their 24mp sensor to be honest. Granted keep in mind I almost bought a Nikon D3 and I still see D3's being used by photojournalists. The D300 is very ISO limited and not something I'd work with if I'm only using the kit lens for example.
I'm point blank not using compact flash in 2019. Doesn't matter what my budget it, that's a show stopper.
This honestly doesn't bother me that much since my D810 uses a CF card, honestly I find SD cards to be my least favorite card.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,660
Spain
I'm not saying it's that bad of a camera, it's something I would get if I wanted to buy a camera I knew I wouldn't really care about, I'd personally get a D700 as that sort of camera because don't have crop sensor F mount lenses anymore. That camera is old and probably very hard to find in good condition but it's cheap. The camera predates the D3 and I believe the D300 is professional grade which means it's been through the hands of a ton of photojournalists. Also considering I use a D810 and D4 to work events I know older bodies work, I just wouldn't touch a crop sensor Nikon DSLR before they rolled out their 24mp sensor to be honest. Granted keep in mind I almost bought a Nikon D3 and I still see D3's being used by photojournalists. The D300 is very ISO limited and not something I'd work with if I'm only using the kit lens for example.

This honestly doesn't bother me that much since my D810 uses a CF card, honestly I find SD cards to be my least favorite card.
Well, that's what sucks about APS-C DSLR, it's a dead format unless you use it for telephoto. (In which case a D300 is a good cheap body) That's why, If anything, I'd lean towards the 5D.
In any case, personally, I think if your really want to get into older high end cameras, the best one to buy is the Fujifilm X-t1. It's incredibly cheap, has good image quality, and whatever lens you get will be relevant going forward, all while you enjoy the benefits of a relatively new camera. Of course the AF isn't exactly great.
I think in any case, the lesson here is that all cameras that are so cheap will have some big limitation, so it's all about what you prioritize. And you can still produce great work with very cheap cameras.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
Well, that's what sucks about APS-C DSLR, it's a dead format unless you use it for telephoto. (In which case a D300 is a good cheap body) That's why, If anything, I'd lean towards the 5D.
In any case, personally, I think if your really want to get into older high end cameras, the best one to buy is the Fujifilm X-t1. It's incredibly cheap, has good image quality, and whatever lens you get will be relevant going forward, all while you enjoy the benefits of a relatively new camera. Of course the AF isn't exactly great.
I think in any case, the lesson here is that all cameras that are so cheap will have some big limitation, so it's all about what you prioritize. And you can still produce great work with very cheap cameras.
If I ever got an X-T1 it would be in silver. I read and saw some stuff regarding how they did the paint on the Silver X-T3's and it's a no go. The coating isn't s good as the older ones and wears off quicker. I don't mind a good cheap camera, I just prioritize way too many things at this point and will go a little above what I should if I have to.
 

nitewulf

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,210
Ah...figured out the issue with my vintage lens. The aperture was stuck open! I had to come up with a creative method of fixing it...letting it dry out now.

Besides that I'm being a tourist in my own damn city:

Looming threat:

DSCF2095E by TIKI, on Flickr

Existence is pain:
DSCF2100E by TIKI, on Flickr

Fat cat:
DSCF2101E by TIKI, on Flickr

DSCF2102E by TIKI, on Flickr

The view is nice up here:
DSCF2103E by TIKI, on Flickr

Out for a stroll:
DSCF2083E by TIKI, on Flickr

DSCF2075E by TIKI, on Flickr

Avanti!
DSCF2069E by TIKI, on Flickr

DSCF2037E by TIKI, on Flickr

Mood Indigo:
DSCF1874E2 by TIKI, on Flickr
 

Daria

Member
Oct 25, 2017
687
Twilight Zone
The D300 is what came before the D500, I think the D300 is when the D800 came out or something, it's a body I quite frankly wouldn't use depending on what he needs it for. I'd probably go for a D7100 honestly, but he seems very budget limited.
Budget limited in the sense that I do not *need* an extra body but I’d like one. Was leaning toward the 5D because it’s a cheap FX body I can throw a decent 50 on it for a weekend shooter, family events, etc. But I am open to changing my mind. No professional work with this.

I'm not saying it's that bad of a camera, it's something I would get if I wanted to buy a camera I knew I wouldn't really care about, I'd personally get a D700 as that sort of camera because don't have crop sensor F mount lenses anymore. That camera is old and probably very hard to find in good condition but it's cheap. The camera predates the D3 and I believe the D300 is professional grade which means it's been through the hands of a ton of photojournalists. Also considering I use a D810 and D4 to work events I know older bodies work, I just wouldn't touch a crop sensor Nikon DSLR before they rolled out their 24mp sensor to be honest. Granted keep in mind I almost bought a Nikon D3 and I still see D3's being used by photojournalists. The D300 is very ISO limited and not something I'd work with if I'm only using the kit lens for example.
FWIW, I’ve only ever used professional bodies and don’t plan to stop. 1D’s, 40D’s, etc. There is one thing you mentioned though that I was looking at: the D3. Is that a more viable option nowadays you think? As mentioned in the above response, it’s only for weekend shooting, family events, maybe some local soccer matches once in a while. So with that said, I’m not too sure on the Nikon equivalent for primes and telephotos. Are Sigma lenses still on par with Canon’s L glass and so on? I know the 35 and 50 were usually pretty decent buys a while back but it’s been a few years since I’ve been in the market. Other than that, I really did enjoy my 200-400 when I had it and I’d like something to cover that length as well. can stretch the budget, it’s not an issue, as I’m in no real rush to buy a backup.

I mean, it's still at least $300 used. I'm more interested in the logic of pinching pennies and buying a totally depreciated 5D when you still need EF lenses on it.
Cheapest body to have a FX backup and Magic Latern still works on it if I ever wanted to Frankenstein it
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
Budget limited in the sense that I do not *need* an extra body but I’d like one. Was leaning toward the 5D because it’s a cheap FX body I can throw a decent 50 on it for a weekend shooter, family events, etc. But I am open to changing my mind. No professional work with this.



FWIW, I’ve only ever used professional bodies and don’t plan to stop. 1D’s, 40D’s, etc. There is one thing you mentioned though that I was looking at: the D3. Is that a more viable option nowadays you think? As mentioned in the above response, it’s only for weekend shooting, family events, maybe some local soccer matches once in a while. So with that said, I’m not too sure on the Nikon equivalent for primes and telephotos. Are Sigma lenses still on par with Canon’s L glass and so on? I know the 35 and 50 were usually pretty decent buys a while back but it’s been a few years since I’ve been in the market. Other than that, I really did enjoy my 200-400 when I had it and I’d like something to cover that length as well. can stretch the budget, it’s not an issue, as I’m in no real rush to buy a backup.



Cheapest body to have a FX backup and Magic Latern still works on it if I ever wanted to Frankenstein it
The Nikon D3 would actually be a very good sports camera. I normally don't view secondary bodies as something that needs to be heavily compromised performance wise, I just view them as something capable enough to handle whatever event work that they need to be used for. My D4 is paired with my D810 and my X-T2 is paired with my X-T3...no idea what's going to be paired with my A7RII yet. I honestly think what you get is determined by what glass you already have. Sigma Art glass is fine for the most part, just weird AF at times. The most recent Art stuff is better AF than some of their earlier lenses...I remember hating the AF on the 18-35.
 

Panic Freak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,701
The Nikon D3 would actually be a very good sports camera. I normally don't view secondary bodies as something that needs to be heavily compromised performance wise, I just view them as something capable enough to handle whatever event work that they need to be used for. My D4 is paired with my D810 and my X-T2 is paired with my X-T3...no idea what's going to be paired with my A7RII yet. I honestly think what you get is determined by what glass you already have. Sigma Art glass is fine for the most part, just weird AF at times. The most recent Art stuff is better AF than some of their earlier lenses...I remember hating the AF on the 18-35.
A9!
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
My next Sony camera is either an A9 or an A7R3, though at some point I'd like to own both. I still have some lens purchases before I decide on a second body. I would like to get a 24-70 before I get a secondary body, though in theory I could just use the 35 1.4 I have as my wide and just keep my 70-200 on my other camera...unless I want to completely disregard the idea of a 24-70 and get the 16-35GM instead. There's also the matter of I want that 135GM. I'm trying to be as native as humanely possible with my Sony cameras.
 
Last edited:

Menelaus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,628
This is not what you recommend people if they're on a budget please follow the tone of the discussion at hand before you chime in. If you're budget concerned and actually have some FX glass lying around then a Nikon D3 is actually a very good camera still for sports shooting...reread post...my next Sony camera is either an A9 or an A7R3, though at some point I'd like to own both. I still have some lens purchases before I decide on a second body. I would like to get a 24-70 before I get a secondary body, though in theory I could just use the 35 1.4 I have as my wide and just keep my 70-200 on my other camera...unless I want to completely disregard the idea of a 24-70 and get the 16-35GM instead. There's also the matter of I want that 135GM. I'm trying to be as native as humanely possible with my Sony cameras.
He was saying your next camera should be in an A9, don’t be so defensive. See the quoted bold.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
He was saying your next camera should be in an A9, don’t be so defensive. See the quoted bold.
I caught that in the middle of me typing that post. I'm very stream of consciousness when I post and just yeah that's what happened. I thought that was clear after the part where I say "reread post." I'll just edit out the first part then to make it easier for people to read it.
 

JadedWriter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,900
Some more stuff with the A7R3/Sony 100-400 combo...check out that flower one full size for a secret bug, lol

The B-17 flyover was just a lucky happenstance while at the lake shooting the other stuff, I've seen FiFi fly over my office enough to know the sound of one of these monsters from miles away.

Nine O Nine B-17 by Scott Tucker, on Flickr

Spring Blooms by Scott Tucker, on Flickr

Cormorant Moon by Scott Tucker, on Flickr
These are great, I love that flying museum piece and I love the moon in the background of the Cormorant shot.
 

Menelaus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,628
These are great, I love that flying museum piece and I love the moon in the background of the Cormorant shot.
Thanks! That bomber pic was so bittersweet because I’d send any B-17/B-29/B-52 photos I took to my granddad who passed away last fall. He was a maintenance crew chief for B-52s, so he loved seeing the old birds still up and flying.
 

kvetcha

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,660
I have a single wheelhouse, which is standing in front of people and taking their picture head on.

I find the resulting awkwardness illuminating.
 
Last edited:

Vern

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,087
This one I misjudged unfortunately, should've been in color. The kid throwing rocks almost blends into the background in B/W.
I think it's not just that it is BW, but also the position of the kid in the frame, the messiness of the rocks, and the huge amount of empty space. Generally for people they'll be a lot more interesting if you are a lot closer.




A few shots from Japan. Kyushu only.

Miyazaki Street by Eric, on Flickr

Kagoshima Fishermen by Eric, on Flickr

Man on the Train by Eric, on Flickr

Nagasaki Light Trails by Eric, on Flickr

Mount Aso Pano by Eric, on Flickr
 

kvetcha

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,660
I think it's not just that it is BW, but also the position of the kid in the frame, the messiness of the rocks, and the huge amount of empty space. Generally for people they'll be a lot more interesting if you are a lot closer.




A few shots from Japan. Kyushu only.

Miyazaki Street by Eric, on Flickr

Kagoshima Fishermen by Eric, on Flickr

Man on the Train by Eric, on Flickr

Nagasaki Light Trails by Eric, on Flickr

Mount Aso Pano by Eric, on Flickr
That Kagoshima shot is great.
 
Nov 13, 2017
243
I think it's not just that it is BW, but also the position of the kid in the frame, the messiness of the rocks, and the huge amount of empty space. Generally for people they'll be a lot more interesting if you are a lot closer.




A few shots from Japan. Kyushu only.


Nagasaki Light Trails by Eric, on Flickr

Mount Aso Pano by Eric, on Flickr
Man, that pano is amazing, light trails always fun.
 

Vern

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,087
Man, that pano is amazing, light trails always fun.
Mt Aso was gorgeous! Windy as hell thought I’m surprised the drone managed to pull that pano off.

I liked the curve of the road there on the light trails shot but the stoplights weren’t timed in a way that I could get the shot I actually wanted. Would have needed an nd filter or something to shoot a longer exposure. Ah well.
 

nitewulf

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,210
I think it's not just that it is BW, but also the position of the kid in the frame, the messiness of the rocks, and the huge amount of empty space. Generally for people they'll be a lot more interesting if you are a lot closer.
Yeah this is where a longer reach would've been better for me, as I wasn't too comfortable walking up to other people's kids, but yeah the a 135mm eq would've been perfect to frame it tighter from where I was. Though I do think the 24 to 35mm lengths are also great for portraits if you can get closer.

Wonderful shots by the way.