Messages

211

Off Topic / Re: Half Life in 9 minutes 40 seconds

« on: July 26, 2012, 04:29:09 AM »

brilliant

212

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 26, 2012, 04:08:02 AM »

f/1.2 is for soccer moms, real pros shoot with f/0.33. (pic related it's my walk around lens)




But pro lenses are a much better investment overall. Midranged lenses have almost no resale value. I'm assuming it's not duke 838's own money he's spending, so the sad truth is he can waste as much of his dad's money on glass as long as he doesn't feel guilty about it. And if he does give up photography in a year he would be able to sell better lenses and get a good amount of money back. If he keeps doing photography, pro lenses will literally last him a lifetime.

That being said, you are right about him being a beginner and pro lenses are overkill for what he actually needs. (even though you actually need decent glass for the D5100's 16 MP sensor). Maybe the DX VR II 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G would be a good starter lens. It has mediocre optically quality, it is slow (at least it has VR), but it covers a large focal length range. Even if he does get nicer lenses down the road, it will still be a useful lens for the times he can only take one lens with him.

Not my money at all, and I have no guilt in spending tons of it. I want to make sure I get nice glass because sure it is an overkill for me now, but when I get more capable it will be nice to have that. Also I think this is something I am going to stick with, but lets say I do want to quit sometime down the road, good glass can always be sold. I really do plan on the overall investment more than the short term. I don't want to throw $400, $500 on a lens that I would never even want to touch again after I improved, and bought nice glass.

213

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 25, 2012, 07:34:45 PM »

Ya man, 50mm f/1.2 lenses going for $600.

Those really suck.

see this confuses me I get that less is in focus at lower apertures, but why are prime lenses so nice at f/1.4 and stuff, if they are truly sharp at f/2 why would you want the f/1.4, for just in case you need to take a picture in the dark, and don't care about focus? That seems a bit ridiculous.

214

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 25, 2012, 07:25:51 PM »

o god why are you getting a $500+ lens if you can't answer this question yourself.
-snip-

Sirrus, mostly reassuring myself. I wasn't a 100% sure, but I was quite sure. I'm not that new to this anymore, but I didn't think it would hurt to make sure.

215

Creativity / Re: 3 string guitar music.

« on: July 25, 2012, 04:51:10 AM »

get new stings, and learn to play it. I didn't hate what you did, it's just it wasn't that good.

216

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 25, 2012, 01:25:09 AM »

You use a Nikon, right?

They have pretty different layouts, although in my experience I've always preferred Canon... But I'm pretty bias haha

Same thing here except for nikon, not that I think they are the best, I just like them more, a lot more.

217

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 25, 2012, 01:03:22 AM »

Do you have a Nikon film camera or are you planning on upgrading to FX anytime soon? If so just avoid DX lens altogether and get the 24-70mm f/2.8.

If not, look at the metadata on all the pictures you took with your 18-55mm and see how many of them fall into the 18-24mm range. If you seem to use that range often, the 17-55mm will probably work better for you.

On a Nikon DX sensor 24-70mm has the angle of view of a 36-105mm on a full-frame camera, so it actually starts to go into the telephoto range. The 17-55mm is more like 26-83mm, which is still the "normal" range. Actually I'm not sure I'm going to be able to explain this well, just mess around with this:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

I don't use my 18-55 at all, I use my 35mm 
also I do plan on upgrading to a full frame camera eventually, so I want to invest in a quality lens system, that will work with it.

218

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 25, 2012, 12:14:48 AM »

The 35mm f/1.8 will still be very useful. Mostly just for low light and when you don't want to carry around the bulky 24-70mm f/2.8.

I don't know if you already have the 24-70mm f/2.8 ordered, but if not you should look at the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. It's around the same price and quality, but it's focal range makes a little more sense for a crop sensor.

I do not have it ordered yet, and I was unaware of that lens. The next lens I plan on getting after this one would be the 14-24 f/2.8 or the 70-200 f/2.8 So is it still better to get the 17-55?

219

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 25, 2012, 12:01:16 AM »

Both very helpful lenses, depending on your subject. What sort of stuff are you taking photos of? :)

Well currently tons of things, my favorite stuff is candids, and concerts. I do like to do a lot of other stuff though, I'd like to do some more landscape, and architecture though.

220

Creativity / Re: ░▒▓█ Photography Megathread V3 █▓▒░

« on: July 24, 2012, 11:28:28 PM »

Quick question when I get my 24-70mm f/2.8, it won't render my 35mm  f/1.8 useless correct? The larger aperture will still be useful, and the 35mm will still be worth taking with right?

221

Creativity / Re: Drawings Megathread

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:48:38 PM »

You're a terrible liar and you should just feel bad.

222

Off Topic / Re: Relationships Megathread - Ask questions, get answers, discuss love and romance

« on: July 24, 2012, 08:01:29 AM »

If you have plans to stay with them for a long period of time at one point in your life, I suppose that's solid.

that's the plan

223

Off Topic / Re: Relationships Megathread - Ask questions, get answers, discuss love and romance

« on: July 24, 2012, 07:26:41 AM »

did it start long distance or change into that?

started long distance

224

Off Topic / Re: Relationships Megathread - Ask questions, get answers, discuss love and romance

« on: July 24, 2012, 06:49:40 AM »

holy stuff that'd be horrible

not having a go, but how can you love someone and not go absolutely loving nuts not seeing them for that long? or does that appeal to you?

It actually really sucks, and every time we talk it gets more and more frustrating. I just really don't want to lose her just because of distance.

225

Off Topic / Re: Relationships Megathread - Ask questions, get answers, discuss love and romance

« on: July 24, 2012, 06:28:42 AM »

give me like a number

once a week, once a month, once a year? what

roughly 6 months, but it might not be for a year or so this time