Digital Photography

[xHaZxMaTx]

The moon also looks freakin' awesome tonight. Just a tiny sliver of it. Those are my favorite.

Ah, yeah, I noticed that. Got a photo of it, actually, right at sunset.



I believe the two 'stars' are actually Jupiter and Venus, but I'm not sure.

Edit:
Ah, did a bit of research and found that those are actually Mercury (bottom) and Jupiter. Venus would be up and to the left, out of frame.

[Stereo]

Did you use any editing in that one? Or was it really blue and yellow?

The only kind I get here in New England is either purple and yellow or orange and light blue... >_>

[Carcrazy]

New England sunset's always looked nice to me, but then again I have seen few. (In person, at least.)

I still think Sunset's at our beach are beautiful. I'm wanting to go for my birthday (since I've already got my gift,) just as a cheap, fun trip, so I may take some pictures for y'all.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Did you use any editing in that one? Or was it really blue and yellow?

The only kind I get here in New England is either purple and yellow or orange and light blue... >_>

I messed with the brightness and contrast (the original image was a tad too dark), but I didn't touch the colours. I think the colours have a lot to do with the air quality - there's so much crap in the air, a lot of light from the sun is being diffused in the lower part of the atmosphere, but higher up, where it's clear, there's almost no sunlight being reflected back to Earth, so it's pretty dark. A couple years ago, I remember hearing Bakersfield had the 3rd worst air quality in the country, after San Francisco and Los Angeles. We're right at the bottom of California's Central Valley and all the smog drifts down from everywhere else in California and settles here.

[Carcrazy]

..and you smile about that? Just imagine how bad it is for your health. Me being me, I probably couldn't live there, simply for the fact the smog would probably aggravate my (mild) asthma.

I do hear that it makes for a hell of a sunset, though.

[xHaZxMaTx]

That's a tongue smiley, not a... smiley smiley.

[Carcrazy]

It's still a, positive (?) smiley.

I do kinda get that though, the new smileys often display a different message that the old ones due to the more minor differences, such as eye positions. The fact that I care, however, is slightly disturbing.

[xHaZxMaTx]

What's disturbing is your tendency to throw threads off-course.

[xHaZxMaTx]

So I'm thinking of another lens to consider buying (I know, I need to make up my mind :B), but after having thought about it, the 100-400mm is pretty slow at f/4.5-5.6, and I realised, during the Holiday season, that I don't really have the equipment for indoor photography. 1/20, /5.6 and ISO 1600 doesn't really make for great shots. So I'm now looking at either Canon's 50mm or 85mm f/1.2 lenses, though I'm leaning pretty far towards the 50mm, seeing as I'd be getting for for indoor photography, so I'd want as wide an angle as possible, and it's about $500 cheaper. Though, even 50mm doesn't really seem wide enough.

As I'm typing this up, I'm doing a bit of research. Turns out Canon also has a 24mm f/1.4 lens, which is just about perfect. The difference between the Mk. I and II is $600, though (from $1,100 to $1,700).

/me continues research.

[Andre_online]

You could try the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens. It's meant to be the "24-70" for the crop-factor cameras, but with image stabilizer. It's the best lens money can buy for a general walk-around lens.

For prime, you should consider of getting a 50mm f/1.4. Though there's the f/1.2 L option available, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Firstly, you won't even be able to tell the difference in quality with the 1.2 and 1.4 with your naked eye, and it's almost 3 times the price of the 1.4!

Trust me, you won't go wrong with the 1.4 - you won't be compromising anything with the 1.4. In fact, if you ever happen to want to upgrade to a full-frame camera, all I can say is hallelujah! Heh! 50mm f/1.4 has served my brother well.

[xHaZxMaTx]

I looked at the 50mm 1.4, as well, but - as I said - 50mm really isn't wide enough for indoor photography. The 17-55 f/2.8 may work, but I was really looking for something even faster than that. I don't know, I want a fast lens to take good photos (hopefully 1/25 and faster) in low light with as low of an ISO speed as possible (100-200), but I suppose with the camera's high-ISO noise-reduction, an ISO of 400-800 wouldn't be the end of the world. What's f/2.8, anyway - 2 full-stops down from f/1.4? That's a quarter of the amount of light being let in, so I'd have to compensate by quadrupling the ISO or shutter speed or doubling the ISO and halving the shutter speed. Grr... probably putting too much thought into this.

Though a zoom lens would also be a definite plus, and the f/2.8 is wider...

Edit:
Ooh, fixed aperture throughout the focal length, very nice. Though I suppose that should have been a give, seeing as it's a 17-55mm f/2.8 (and not f/2.8-whatever).

Edit:
Hm. Didn't realise it, before, but the 17-55mm f/2.8 would pretty much replace my current 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. This is looking more and more promising.

At all overlapping focal lengths and apertures, the 17-55 is sharper than my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens.

All for a considerably smaller price-tag (especially considering it's currently got an instant rebate in the US!). This just might be my next lens.

[Andre_online]

If 50mm isn't wide enough, maybe the EF 20mm f/2.8 would be good? Aperture has to be compromised, of course. I'm not sure if it's still in production though.

Grr... probably putting too much thought into this.

You think?! LOL!!

Though I suppose that should have been a give, seeing as it's a 17-55mm f/2.8 (and not f/2.8-whatever).

Again. What?

Hm. Didn't realise it, before, but the 17-55mm f/2.8 would pretty much replace my current 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. This is looking more and more promising.

All for a considerably smaller price-tag (especially considering it's currently got an instant rebate in the US!). This just might be my next lens.

It's not exactly cheap, if you're comparing it with your current 18-55. The 17-55 will feel very similar to an L lens. It's sturdy, zoom ring feels excellent, and not forgetting the image quality (after all, it is an L glass inside). If you're really considering of buying this, buying the hood is extremely recommended.

Glad I could help.

[xHaZxMaTx]

I meant for a considerably smaller price-tag compared to the lenses I was already looking at (the cheapest of which was $1,100). Also, it's fairly cheap for what it is, having L-quality.

[Stereo]

You guys seem brainwashed by that little L and its red stripe... Why not buy a non-L lens and save yourself a lot of money? It's not like your 00berskillz will improve tremendously when you get it. L-glass, L-quality, L-this, L-that. I don't see THAT much of a difference with the L lenses. Sure, they feel like a pro lens and all that, but it doesn't really matter. The quality matters and I don't see a huge difference apart from the wide angle black corners being removed and a little less chromatic aberration.

¿Por que?

[xHaZxMaTx]

I'm interested in the L lenses because they're what I want, not because they're L lenses. The reason I was looking at the 100-400mm L is the only lenses that exceed 300mm are L lenses. The reason I was looking at the 24mm f/1.4 L and 50/85mm f/1.2 L is because I wanted a fast and wide lens, and they are the fastest lenses Canon makes at those focal lengths. The 17-55mm f/2.8, which is fast, wide and has a very useful focal range and which I'm seriously considering buying, isn't an L lens, but it does have L lens quality. Granted, I don't know if L lenses are actually better quality, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet, especially considering all the reviews I've read. Besides all that, I never once considered not buying a lens just because it wasn't an L lens.

[Stereo]

Meh...

Pentax made a beginner DSLR (much like the XSi or whatev Canon's new X-series ultrabeginner dslr is) some time ago, the K2000. Now they've made a white one? Looks FUGLY in my opinion... Weird thing is it comes with two lenses that are also white, a beginner 18-55 and 50-200 in the kit. They're downgraded/lighter versions of the original 18-55 and 50-200.
http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K2000_-_White/

[Andre_online]

Now they've made a white one? Looks FUGLY in my opinion...

Did someone just spray painted that to white? At least Canon's 450D in silver is much more appealing. I have to concur - it's horrendous!

[xHaZxMaTx]

It looks like a toy.

[GT3x24x7]

lol, help button.

[powerof1000]

obviously a noob camera made by noobs for noobs etc etc

[Stereo]

Made by noobs?

Pentax is the shiznit. The white looks like a toy, though. The camera IS for noobs. Hence the help button and the limited features, and a low price tag.

I can laugh at canon's pricetags for everything they make. Not really worth THAT amount of money IMO.

[powerof1000]

I was just kidding

[xHaZxMaTx]

Pentax is the shiznit.

I can laugh at canon's pricetags for everything they make. Not really worth THAT amount of money IMO.

'Kay.

When did this become a pissing contest?

[Stereo]

When powerof1000 started it. :O

HE STARTED IT!

Idk, when? But I still think that Canon can be a ripoff at times.

[Andre_online]

As much as I love Canon DSLRs, Nikon is clearly the winner with the 24.5MP D3X.. One of the best DSLR cameras you can ever own. Even Canon's 1Ds Mark III is nowhere close in terms of features.