notre dame by Corinne
le louvre by Corinne
seattle by Corinne
new orleans by Corinne
oakland by Corinne
san francisco by Corinne
Love the colours with all of these.
Wait that's not a duck...
Appreciate it, got lucky that chipper decided to sit in the one shaft of light under that tree lol
Look into a fixed lens camera like the Sony RX100 MK 3 or 4 used. Cellphone photography can certainly be very good, but if you want more control over the exposure. You can also look into a micro four thirds camera like the Olympus with the 20mm 1.7 pancake lens. Both I mentioned are tiny cameras that you can carry anywhere.I find myself using my phone more and more just because it's easier to get a nice photo out of it (and plus it's alywas on me). I feel like I should upgrade my a6000 finally to someting like the A7iii but I wont be able to afford any lenses soon
Good shots. The 50-100 not having stabilization was the reason I didn't even bother getting it. As big as that thing is the reach isn't as much as I'd want and no stabilization with low light is a bit limiting. It's a great, but at the same time very limited lens to me.I've finally had a chance to take both the Nikkor 20mm 1.8 and the Sigma 50-100 1.8 out for a spin on my D7500. My family and I went to Rocky Mountain National Park to go camping so it was the perfect opportunity for me to get some landscapes and wildlife photos as well as some portraits. The lighting wasn't the greatest as there were lots of clouds and there was still snow on the ground in places but I'm still extremely impressed by the performance on both. The 20mm is EXTREMELY sharp and I can pick out some of the most minute details in some of my photos.
The 50-100 is more challenging to use because it doesn't have VR but using it makes me think through my technique so I really appreciate that. It also allows me to have really nice looking bokeh.
Some shots off of the 20mm.
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
A couple off of the 50-100.
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Some other test shots I took with both
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
BOKEH!!
Untitled by Ben Krupka, on Flickr
Good shots. The 50-100 not having stabilization was the reason I didn't even bother getting it. As big as that thing is the reach isn't as much as I'd want and no stabilization with low light is a bit limiting. It's a great, but at the same time very limited lens to me.
The 50-100 screams portrait lens to me, but you made it work for landscape just fine. Are these pics straight out of camera?
I use a 100-400 for landscapes so I'm right there with you. I was referring more to the 1.8 aperture which is fairly pointless in the field (until something like that deer shot, if you can get close enough).I really like using "portrait" lenses for landscapes because I'm often photographing gigantic expanses that that are quite far away. It's something that I like to keep in the bag at least.
Yeah I see that thing as a podium speaker nightmare to be honest. I'd honestly rather just have a 70-200 at that point on a crop body. With those things you can only get but so close because you can't always get on the stage.Yeah. The 2X zoom is useful but you have to be pretty close to get shots to fill up the frame. I was standing like 10 feet away from some Elk to photograph them. The one I shared was on the roadside. I don't have a tripod that can handle that beast but when I do, I think I'll be even more impressed with the results.
Yeah I see that thing as a podium speaker nightmare to be honest. I'd honestly rather just have a 70-200 at that point on a crop body. With those things you can only get but so close because you can't always get on the stage.
That's perfectly fine then. I honestly wish someone would make a 70-300 2.8, but the physics of this monstrosity would be fucking daunting.I'll literally never use this lens that way so it's all good for me haha
That's one of the best things about the alphas!I was surprised to see that bridge shot was taken at 20000 ISO!
Yeah, this is great. The wider angles are great for cities. You can get the landscapes as well as environmental portraits.
Yeah, this is great. The wider angles are great for cities. You can get the landscapes as well as environmental portraits.
This might be a "Me" thing but the color in this pic is distracting. It's either a white balancing issue or a tinting issue, but the cat is pink and I know it's supposed to be white. Unless you're cat really is that color and it's not tied to your overall editing style.
This might be a "Me" thing but the color in this pic is distracting. It's either a white balancing issue or a tinting issue, but the cat is pink and I know it's supposed to be white. Unless you're cat really is that color and it's not tied to your overall editing style.
He has a consistency with stuff looking a bit purple in his shots whether it's indoors or not.
This might be a "Me" thing but the color in this pic is distracting. It's either a white balancing issue or a tinting issue, but the cat is pink and I know it's supposed to be white. Unless you're cat really is that color and it's not tied to your overall editing style.
Sun light was reflecting in a pink wall.
I didn't notice it before, but I guess you are right. I'm still trying to undestand what works and what doesn't.He has a consistency with stuff looking a bit purple in his shots whether it's indoors or not.
That's a bit better.Thank you!
Sun light was reflecting in a pink wall.
I thought it was cool and didn't fixed it. Here is a version where I toned down the pink on the white balance slider.
[/url]IMG_7362[/IMG]
I didn't notice it before, but I guess you are right. I'm still trying to undestand what works and what doesn't.
Posting one more photo of my cat because why not.
by Renato Custódio Pereira, no Flickr
Also, today was my first time using my speedlite off-camera with an umbrella. To try it I eliminated ambient light, set the fstop to f/8 and tried some self portraits until I've got one that I was happy with. My first thought after looking it on the computer was "Wow, this is so sharp!". My second thought was "Ew, this is too sharp" lol. I guess there's a reason people like to shoot portraits wide open.
1:1 crop:
by Renato Custódio Pereira, no Flickr
That's a great photo of your cat. Is that the 135? And I actually like the pink, I'll tell you why. We know there aren't pink cats, but there it is. It's surreal. Secondly, mostly for portraits I like a bit softer, it's flattering to most people, plus beautiful people look even more beautiful. I like very sharp portraits when the subject's face has a lot of character....and this is typically truer for older folks maybe, lines on their faces etc. That's when I love sharpness.
Based on the shutter speed I'm quite sure he used a tripod for this.This is cool! We're you just pressing the camera to the ground, or did you do something else to stabilize it?
Based on the shutter speed I'm quite sure he used a tripod for this.
Thanks!This is cool! We're you just pressing the camera to the ground, or did you do something else to stabilize it?
Thanks!
I have a table top tripod for this. It also enables you to take these low to the ground shots, which are sometimes really great for portraits.
That's what they call a gorilla pod.Very cool. I should get one. Is it one of those tiny twisty ball-joint things?
Yep exactly, just ensure it's rated for the camera+lens combo you'd likely to be using. The one I have is called Ultra Pod 2.Very cool. I should get one. Is it one of those tiny twisty ball-joint things?
After taking one of those to the Smokies, I'm not sure I'll use it again. Really can't support the weight of the body and the 24-105.Very cool. I should get one. Is it one of those tiny twisty ball-joint things?
Gorilla pod? I thought those were rated for fairly heafty weights? That's a bummer as they look perfect for camping and hiking.After taking one of those to the Smokies, I'm not sure I'll use it again. Really can't support the weight of the body and the 24-105.
That was my hope. I do know you can replace the ball heads on them, that might be part of the consideration. The mount it comes with is fairly atrocious plastic. I got the Joby 3K which isn't the highest rated of their models. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/joby-g...od-black-red-charcoal/6065901.p?skuId=6065901Gorilla pod? I thought those were rated for fairly heafty weights? That's a bummer as they look perfect for camping and hiking.