SRK Photographers Thread Vol. 1

hmm… i think the a570 from canon is a decent learning tool. youre not gonna get DSLR quality at all but you can mess with the manual settings. thatll run you for about 200 bux. its a greap toss around camera.

you can find a old 350D (rebel xt) new in some stores for about 500-550 nowadays. i was just at office depot and saw it for 550~ and that comes with the kit lens(which isnt as bad as most people would say it is).

but lets take this to the photographers thread instead of side tracking the subject of this one.

As the other thread was getting no participation, I merged it with this thread.

Thanks for the advice guys and I’m sorry if I posted on the wrong thread before.

good idea.

anyone familiar with ring lights and how much they run for? would it be easy to make one on your own?

Thanks alot for the break down Rei, im juggling between D300 and a 40D,
40D’s quite similar [identical even] to 400D so not sure wether to spend double the amount for it.

Here is something that you should keep in mind when you think about a ring light.

The angle of the light source determines the texture of an image.

It is kind of hard to describe, but if you are photographing suede, if the light source is pointing at the suede at a 90 degree angle in relation to the camera, then all the little textured pieces of suede are going to cast shadows, and make the image look ultra textured. However, if the light is coming from the lens of the camera, there are no shadows visible from the lens, and the suede will look like it has no texture at all.

In most situations, you are going to want texture. because that is how it appears to you in real life. To get images that look natural, you are going to have to detach flash from the camera and use the flash to create textures on objects.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have ringlights. Ringlights are used heavily in fashion because it removes texture. When you use a ringlight, pimples, pores, shadows under the eyes, and blemishes in general just disappear. Many times people think that a picture is airbrushed, when in reality, a ringlight was used to ‘even out’ the texture of the skin.

I don’t own a ringlight, but getting a ringlight effect is easy enough using a single strobe with a 44 inch umbrella. Check out this blog post for an idea of how I set up for a ringlight effect. I use an alienbee B800, but my backup system is a Nikon SB-26 and an umbrella stand adapter. Basically, any flash that can fire off camera and an umbrella w/stand will work.

I can’t justify purchasing a ringlight when I can set umbrellas up to work as ringlights, and since I use the umbrellas for other purposes, they don’t take up more space in the equipment bag.

Between the D300 and the 40D, I would pick the D300. The D300 can remote control nikon speedlights while the 40D requires you to buy the ST-e2 to get the same capability.

To put a different spin on it, if I were to wake up today with zero equipment and the budget that is able to buy a D300, here is what I would get.
Nikon N90s – ebay $100~150
Nikkor 28-85 f/3.5- 4.5 – ebay $75-150
Nikon D40 w/18-55 f/3.5-5.6 – $400
Nikon SB26 (x2) – ebay $75-100
Bogen 8’ Compact Light Stand (x2) $50~60
Westcott 43" Compact Umbrella - White (x2) --$20
Hotshoe Umbrella Stand Adapter (x2) – $20
1 - 15ft. PC Extension Cord – $10
Camera Bag – $50
Stand/Umbrella Bag – $50

All of the above will come out to $1210 (if you go with the maximum values listed), and I would be able to do all photography jobs that I can recall doing in the past 4 or 5 years with the above equipment.

…or I could buy a D300 body for $1800.

Of course, I’m classified as a level 3 photographer by Ken Rockwell, so take that for what it is worth.

Hey, guys. What’s going on in this thread? Also, I suck in photoshop.

The 400D can’t hold a candle to the 40D. I upgraded from an XT (really not that different from an XTi) and difference has been very noticeable. If you have any specific questions I can do my best to answer them, but to me the price jump from the XTi to the 40D is more than worth it. The increased viewfinder size, shooting speed, and noise control by themselves made it worth it to me.

Really, it depends on the shooter. It may have been the case that you finally got enough experience and education so that the features of a the 40D made it worth it for you, but for a lot of people, this isn’t the case. Last year, there was a discussion in GD where omni ended up getting a XTi, and I think that was the right choice for him.

From my point of view, the only difference between the XTi and the 40D is the metal body. Aside from that, there is nothing that the 40D could do that the XTi can not do. Sure, there are more dials and functions are laid out in a different way, but they both have manual mode, and they both have a hotshoe.

Of course, I’m still shooting all my digital stuff with a 300D, so maybe I’m not the best person to ask about the 40D, but I digress.

To make a more fair comparison, I have a Canon A2E and a Canon T2.

The Canon A2E is the EOS 5 with the addition of the Eye-Control focus system. For the DSLR users, it is like a 5D with a much better focusing system. It is heavy and built well, and feels like a tank in your hand.

The Canon T2 is most like a Rebel XT. It is plastic, and only has one control dial (vs. the A2E’s control dial and thumb dial).

However, I use the T2 more often than the A2E. Mainly because it is easier to carry around. Basically, a camera bag that has two T2s w/vertical grips is the same weight of a camera bag that has a single A2E. I’ve never been in a position where I absolutely had to have the features of the A2E because it did something that the T2 did not.

Again, linking to Ken Rockwell, but he sums up the differences pretty well.
[

](http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm)
1: 40D has a thumb dial AND a control dial. 400D only has a control dial.
2: 40D has a metal body, and 400D has a plastic body
3: Custom functions on the 40D
4: The 40D doesn’t make sense for everyone, even though it is technically superior.

Speaking of camera bags…

What are you guys using?

I have to travel some for work and last week I was in San Francisco really wishing I had a bag that carried a laptop and my XTi. Anyone have a good suggestion?

Derek

Thanks alot Rei and the T1AN, as far as i know [by reading] BESIDES the extra iso setting, 40D and 400D are pretty alike, in my eyes, i really dont see the point in paying almost double for a metal body.

saying that i love dim lighted pictures with no flash so iso may come in handy for me.
You seem like a nikon person yourself :slight_smile: im gonna order it next week, if i go for a 40D i get nightmares about wasting money and secondthought abouts 400D.

then theres Nikon D300. would this be a superior camera to the 40D?

Depends on what else needs to go in the bag. Also, it depends on what your budget is. Also, do you prefer messenger/briefcase style or backpack style

My go-to camera bag is a Tamrac Adventure 8. Of course, it doesn’t carry a laptop.

When I need to carry a laptop and my 300D, I just use my REI laptop bag and use a d-ring to attach my Tamrac Digital Zoom 3 to it. I like this solution a lot for day-to-day, as it keeps the camera handy and isn’t as bulky or expensive as the combo computer/camera bags.

I will post pics of my bags later.

Now, if money isn’t as much of an issue, and you want to get a nice bag that will last for a decade, if not longer, there are two bags that lots of the other professional photographers that I know use and swear by.
Backpack style: Tamrac Cyberpack 9
Messenger style: Crumpler Brazilian Dollar Home

I’m a whore. I’m not partial to Nikon or Canon. It just so happens that I use both for work, and it turns out that the Nikons are easier to use with multi-light setups and manual mode. The Canons are better at doing the automagic modes and on-camera ttl flash. But in the end, you are taking the picture with the camera. The camera doesn’t do anything more than what you tell it to, and anyone that tells you that a camera will make you take better photos is wrong. A camera may give you more tools to use, but it is up to you to use those tools.

If I were you, I would have already pulled the trigger on the 400D. Don’t worry so much about ISO and the body. If you are wanting to shoot in lower light, then spend as little as you can on the body, and get a few 1.8 prime lenses and go to town. Stop fretting about the camera and start taking pictures.

As for the Nikon D300, yes, it is a superior camera to the 40D. The silly thing is that if you buy the D300, you can’t spend as much money on quality glass or light. So, the opportunity costs of the the D300 and the 40D make them poor choices for someone that may have a hard time getting the value out of the extra money spent.

The rule on cameras is that you spend more money on lenses than you do on bodies, because you will only use the bodies a few years, but you use the lenses for decades.

Click on the images to get a full description of what’s in the bags and why.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2063/2214336851_853773f58d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/2214336849_d47174ea12_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/2214336841_cc01617889_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2393/2215125188_2c58cb8ef7_o.jpg

Damn! Thank you sir!

Nuts and Honey along with the black GBA for the win.

I still need to soak it all in - i’ll prolly post up a question later.

Derek

When I found out that I had missed out on playing Zelda: The Minish Cap, Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Zelda: Oracle of Seasons, I made it my life’s mission to complete those games.

Check out this link:
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/01/homemade_ring_flash.html

FYI, ISO 3200 (H) on the 40D actually has less noise and is superior in image quality to the 400Ds ISO 1600. The other biggie is the 40Ds 6.5 FPS versus the 400Ds 3 FPS. There are a ton of other small things but there helpfulness really depends on what you shoot.

I have to agree with Rei, that getting the 400D might be the best decision, so that you can spend more money on lenses. I can still get good shots with my 17-40 F4L when its with my old Rebel, but if I had to use a lame kit lens with a 40D it would drive me insane.

Depending on the price, the new Canon XSi might be worth considering too…

EDIT: As for bags, I use a Domke camera bag. I like it because it holds a ton of stuff, is tough as hell, is comfortable to shoulder, is really inconspicuous, and is closed with latches that would be impossible for someone to try and secretly open and take my stuff, even in a large crowd.

Before that I used an Adorama slinger, which I absolutely despised.

I’ll replace the picture later…

random ish…pics could have come out better but i was rushing/didn’t have much time, etc. so it is what it is. recent road trip. guess the city:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa107/debscampaign/dc3x.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa107/debscampaign/dc4x.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa107/debscampaign/dc5x.jpg

motherfucking bump!

debs: my guess is somewhere in jersey?

here is something I took last week:

Derek Daniels


I’m a photography n00b and am looking at an entry-level DSLR to start off with. I’m deliberating between the Nikon D40 and the Rebel XTi. And where can I get the best prices for these cameras?