I've always been a Canon or Nikon guy, but I've fallen head over heels for this one. Low light exposures, natural flesh tones, and flash balance are all better than most pro level SLR cameras I've shot with with. It's a little slow, but the pictures are near perfect. It's a fixed lens, so no zoom, and you have to know a little about cameras to really appreciate all its features.
Copped the White body Canon K-50 w/ the DA 18-55mm and a DA 50mm Prime.
I've got my sights set on a 50/60 - 200/300 Telephoto and maybe a 70mm or Wide Angle 15-21 type Prime.
Need a tripod and might get Photoshop Lightroom.
I really need to take a fuckin' photography course. Lookin' into F.I.T.s two session intro to Digital Photography.
I really need to take a fuckin' photography course. Lookin' into F.I.T.s two session intro to Digital Photography.
BITD I took some b&w darkroom courses at ICP. I think it's more expensive than FIT, but if you become a member the discounts you get on the classes more than make up for what you spend on the membership. Plus you get free admission to their museum.
I really need to take a fuckin' photography course. Lookin' into F.I.T.s two session intro to Digital Photography.
BITD I took some b&w darkroom courses at ICP. I think it's more expensive than FIT, but if you become a member the discounts you get on the classes more than make up for what you spend on the membership. Plus you get free admission to their museum.
Ill look into their programs. Im not trying to be up in a class for an entire season.
And I already get into all museums for free for working in one.
Copped the White body Canon K-50 w/ the DA 18-55mm and a DA 50mm Prime.
I've got my sights set on a 50/60 - 200/300 Telephoto and maybe a 70mm or Wide Angle 15-21 type Prime.
Need a tripod and might get Photoshop Lightroom.
I really need to take a fuckin' photography course. Lookin' into F.I.T.s two session intro to Digital Photography.
I have a an 18-55mm, a 50mm and just copped a 55-300mm.
I'd like an 85mm.
any of yall shoot at like 10 thru 35 or Macro, Fisheye?
Exposure two posts up is pretty spot on. You retained detail in the sky/highlights without it blowing out, and you don't have any shadows gone to black that have lost detail, but you still have good contrast. That's essentially what make a good exposure. Personally I'd like to see just a little more detail and color in the park. Composition is good. Content is interesting.
I love wide angle lenses. When I shoot events professionally, I usually have a 14mm or 17-35mm on one shoulder and a 70-200 on the other shoulder, with a 35-70mm, 24mm 1.4, and an 85mm 1.2 (for low light without flash) in the bag. When I shoot for personal, I usually just have a 50mm 1.4 on. But, I'm a bit of an old-schooler from the film days and appreciate constraints and sharpness. Macros are really fun. I usually use them as a microscope to see things I can't see with the naked eye. Bug parts, etc. Especially with todays large MegaPixel cameras. You can take a photo with a macro and then go to the computer and really zoom in farther.
People are struck by photos that don't look like all other photos (ones taken with a point and shoot). That means using a wide lens or one with a really wide aperture that can throw the background out of focus.
A couple macro shots:
The following dragon/damsel fly emerged out of the bug shell it's sitting on which came out of my pond. The process was about 24 hours.
What's your ideal Portrait Lens size? 35...50...85....higher?
Im checking that new Sigma 35mm A....but im not big on a 35mm right now....but sheeeit.
For portraits, you want long and wide. An 85mm with at least 2.8 or faster aperture would be nice. I use the 85mm f1.2 or 70-200 f2.8 on the full frame bodies for portraits as long as you have room to get far enough away from them. On my body that magnifies the lenses 1.5x, I use a the 50mm f1.4. You want the fast apertures to throw everything but the face out of focus.
Sigmas are cheap, but not always the best lenses. I'm pretty picky about sharpness and bokeh though. I had a few tamrons when I was starting out that worked fine.
Comments
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/751784-REG/Fujifilm_16128244_Finepix_X100_12_MP.html
I've always been a Canon or Nikon guy, but I've fallen head over heels for this one. Low light exposures, natural flesh tones, and flash balance are all better than most pro level SLR cameras I've shot with with. It's a little slow, but the pictures are near perfect. It's a fixed lens, so no zoom, and you have to know a little about cameras to really appreciate all its features.
Plus, it's good shoulder candy.
I've got my sights set on a 50/60 - 200/300 Telephoto and maybe a 70mm or Wide Angle 15-21 type Prime.
Need a tripod and might get Photoshop Lightroom.
I really need to take a fuckin' photography course. Lookin' into F.I.T.s two session intro to Digital Photography.
BITD I took some b&w darkroom courses at ICP. I think it's more expensive than FIT, but if you become a member the discounts you get on the classes more than make up for what you spend on the membership. Plus you get free admission to their museum.
Ill look into their programs. Im not trying to be up in a class for an entire season.
And I already get into all museums for free for working in one.
Critique Pleez....
Exposure...blah...blah...
I have a an 18-55mm, a 50mm and just copped a 55-300mm.
I'd like an 85mm.
any of yall shoot at like 10 thru 35 or Macro, Fisheye?
I love wide angle lenses. When I shoot events professionally, I usually have a 14mm or 17-35mm on one shoulder and a 70-200 on the other shoulder, with a 35-70mm, 24mm 1.4, and an 85mm 1.2 (for low light without flash) in the bag. When I shoot for personal, I usually just have a 50mm 1.4 on. But, I'm a bit of an old-schooler from the film days and appreciate constraints and sharpness. Macros are really fun. I usually use them as a microscope to see things I can't see with the naked eye. Bug parts, etc. Especially with todays large MegaPixel cameras. You can take a photo with a macro and then go to the computer and really zoom in farther.
People are struck by photos that don't look like all other photos (ones taken with a point and shoot). That means using a wide lens or one with a really wide aperture that can throw the background out of focus.
A couple macro shots:
The following dragon/damsel fly emerged out of the bug shell it's sitting on which came out of my pond. The process was about 24 hours.
Edge of a dime:
What's your ideal Portrait Lens size? 35...50...85....higher?
Im checking that new Sigma 35mm A....but im not big on a 35mm right now....but sheeeit.
For portraits, you want long and wide. An 85mm with at least 2.8 or faster aperture would be nice. I use the 85mm f1.2 or 70-200 f2.8 on the full frame bodies for portraits as long as you have room to get far enough away from them. On my body that magnifies the lenses 1.5x, I use a the 50mm f1.4. You want the fast apertures to throw everything but the face out of focus.
Sigmas are cheap, but not always the best lenses. I'm pretty picky about sharpness and bokeh though. I had a few tamrons when I was starting out that worked fine.