General Photography Banter Thread

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by csimpson, Dec 16, 2009.

  1. bubblegoose

    bubblegoose Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,508
    Location:
    Molesworth - Tasmania
    If I were shooting motorsports in the way you do (eg, not just a casual tog), I would be shooting jpegs too.
     
  2. Modafroman

    Modafroman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    10,057
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I know what the response is going to be (stop buying crap etc), but i'm thinking I want another lens.

    I'm tossing up between something in the 70-200mm range, a wide angle in the 10-20mm range or a prime in the 30mm range.

    What do you guys reckon? What would be more useful etc? I'm pretty keen on the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, for the wide angle maybe the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 or tokina 11-16mm/canon 10-22mm, or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

    I figured I could get either the 70-200mm, or both the wide angle and the 30mm, and then later on/later in the year get whatever I didn't get. and I figure i'll probably sell the 28-75mm if I get the 70-200mm :)

    So, what do you guys reckon? Stop buying more shit? Or which option? :p

    :)
     
  3. mr_wrxman

    mr_wrxman Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Sydney 2141
    Buy shit when you know what shit you want. If you don't, you'll always question your purchase and whether you should have got something else.
     
  4. mr_wrxman

    mr_wrxman Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Sydney 2141
    RAW's take processing power (and time) to convert/process, if you're confident in your in-camera JPEG conversion settings, why waste time (especially for sports were you'll be bursting at a high frame rate and end up with heaps of photos) waiting for the conversion when you can just cull and be done.

    Also, notice how much slower it is to load RAW images, especially with a large number.

    If you need tweakability, shoot RAW, if you want quick and dirty, go JPEG.

    (again, not a hard and fast rule).

    Probably should have multi-quoted, don't tase me =/
     
  5. Awesomesauce

    Awesomesauce (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    Location:
    Blue Mountains
    or just get a better computer and do everything in raw.

    or shoot something less boring than CARS.
     
  6. Awesomesauce

    Awesomesauce (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    Location:
    Blue Mountains
    I have a son who is 3.

    when he sees a car he goes "OOH CAR!"

    because he is 3.
     
  7. jumpy

    jumpy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,522
    Location:
    Brighton
    Stop buying shit till you've found deficincies in your current gear. What are you mainly intending to shoot, landscapes, portraits, sport? what light etc, these are the questions you need to ask yourself. Edit: you'll want to keep the 28-75 as a walkaround, 70-200mm's aren't small.

    Are you vindy's apprentice or something awesomesauce? Doing a good job, keep it up :thumbup:
     
  8. Modafroman

    Modafroman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    10,057
    Location:
    Brisbane
    This is true. I know I definitely want the Sigma 30mm, and i'm pretty keen on the Sigma 70-200mm (vs the canon f4l version, I think i'd prefer to have f/2.8 over getting the canon 'because its a canon L').

    The only one i'm unsure of is the ultra wide, not sure if I should get the sigma because its cheaper but has a smaller aperture vs the tokina for its f2.8 but noisy af or again, the canon 'because its a canon'

    *shrugs*

    Maybe I should just get the 30mm to start off with and then go from there o_O

    Yea true. Well I kinda have, in that I want a good lowlight hand held lens/for good bokeh, and the 50mm 1.8 is too tight, I want more reach (hence the 70-200mm, 75mm max reach in my current gear isnt that much) and the ultra wide for fun and for wider than 17mm... tho having said that 17mm is pretty wide.

    The 17-50mm is my current walk around lens, the 28-75mm is nice tho, but the af is a bit slow (but less noisy lol).

    I think I have this notion in my head that I wanna do portraits etc, hence the 70-200mm.... but yeaaaa maybe not?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2011
  9. connico

    connico Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,411
    Location:
    Sydney
    Don't know if I would use a 70-200mm for portraits..
     
  10. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,578
    Location:
    Sydney
    Please stop Moda

    You havent been shooting near long enough to know what you really want yet. Try everything you want with what you have.

    Use your 50mm and move you feet.

    85mm is considered a nice length for portraits, you pretty much have that when you consider 50 x 1.6

    So yeah, go the option of stop buying shit and actually using what you have until you find a legitimate reason to upgrade it.

    Alternatively if you have an obsessive compulsion to keep buying gear because its just what you do, go and buy everything you want and then sell it on here when you dont use it anymore. It's only money.
     
  11. Modafroman

    Modafroman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    10,057
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yea, I dunno, I just felt I kept reading about people using a 70-200mm for portraits etc? .... it would be useful for other stuff too tho.

    I'm doing a fun photoshoot with the girlfriend this weekend so i'll see how that goes with the 28-75mm, yea.

    I'm pretty keen on the 30mm 1.4, so I might get that in the next week or so.

    Yea, you're right. I dunno why, but lately i've been feeling like buying shit and spending money. Sigh. I really have to stop. Probably has something to do with the fact that now I actually have money to spend as opposed to not :p At least most of this has all been just talk and no actual buying. *bangs head against wall*

    Edit: also because sometimes I can be an ADD bastard. Bah!
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2011
  12. theSeekerr

    theSeekerr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,046
    Location:
    Prospect SA
    A 70-200 is fine for portraits - certainly my 70-200 f/4L has seen plenty of use in that capacity, but rather less so since I picked up an 85mm f/1.8.

    Moda - in your place, I'd hold off buying more gear for the moment. Your 50mm is perfectly adequate for portraits.

    To be honest, I'd consider flogging both your Tamron's, and putting that and the money you'd have spent on a 70-200 towards buying a single lens with the range you want and autofocus that doesn't suck.
     
  13. Modafroman

    Modafroman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    10,057
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yea. I think for what i'm doing the 17-50mm works pretty well, autofocus is actually pretty good (way better than the kit lens, but thats not really saying much haha), but yea, just a bit noisy :p The 28-75mm on the other hand was just a quick buy for cheap, autofocus is slightly slower but less noisy, but i've found some use for it. Will see how it goes.

    I think i'm going to follow deftones advice tho, gotta stop spending money and buying shit. Should just shoot with the gear I have.
     
  14. MrTanman

    MrTanman (Taking a Break)

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    100
    Doesn't it make the face look flat?
     
  15. vindicator

    vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,458
    I have no idea why 70-200s are so popular.
     
  16. vindicator

    vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,458
    FTR, AS is my BRO tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh
     
  17. HumbleBum

    HumbleBum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    16,771
    Location:
    United States
    Sharp as.. might be one. ;)
     
  18. vindicator

    vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,458
    Was referring to the focal lengths.
     
  19. Xang

    Xang Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,028
    The 10-20mm will be pretty good at shooting between 10 and 20 mm.

    The 30mm will be great for 30mm but not very good at 10-22mm.

    The 70-200 is longer.

    Btw, thinking of buying toothpaste or a TV, which will be more useful?

    OK OK but you get my point
     
  20. Awesomesauce

    Awesomesauce (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    Location:
    Blue Mountains
    Me neither tbh.

    Mate of mine called it 'the perfect walkaround lens'.

    I was like :sick:
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: