Author Topic: ■ The Photography Megathread ■  (Read 242883 times)

Going to revive this, and oh Fluff, when I go to Tennesee this summer, my cousin got a 40,000 dollar telescope from Rhodes College and it has a CCD attachment type thing for cameras and I'll take pictures from it where you can see the rings of jupiter :3
Awesome!

I managed to get one of jupiter, a bit blurry though:


And I got a much better one of the moon!

Damn son, I love that.

Going out to the lake house tomorrow 45 minutes up north, hope to get some cool pictures with the fresh snow we are getting tonight.


Shot around a bit with my D700 on Friday afternoon when I got it, I had to work Friday night/ Saturday morning/Saturday late night (in 25 minutes, lol) so I won't have a chance to take it out proper until Sunday afternoon (going out to the mountains to do some portraits with my friends, should be great), but yeah, this things performs like a beaut. Check it out, this jank was shot at 6,400 ISO:



FULL FRAME BOKEHHHHHH (shot under or around 1k ISO, I forget where exactly):



But yeah, considering before on my D5100 I was really skeptical at shooting at or above 1,200 ISO, I'm quite happy with this body's performance so far.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 11:20:41 PM by Sirrus »

what the forget you shot that at 1000+ iso and there is almost no noise? Is my camera that bad? :|
Here is a quick random shot at 1k iso from my camera: http://i.imgur.com/fLvLXMP.jpg

I try to always have my camera on 100 ISO.

Edit: Can you post the exif data?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 11:24:47 AM by Soukuw »

It's not that your camera is bad, it's just that my camera is full frame (and therefore expensive. I dropped $1,600 on this body). Even on my D5100, an $800 camera and entry level cropped frame DSLR, I wouldn't allow myself to go above 800 ISO for paid work. If you're shooting on an entry level DSLR or PaS camera you're not going to get good ISO performance, period.

Plus it helped that the light was good already in my shots. ISO will never fully compensate for terrible light. If something is dark to the naked eye, there's a good chance that it'll be grainy if you're trying to use ISO to get a decent exposure.

Edit: will post exit later. On phone.

Also I dig that B&W. Could've gone deeper on the blacks but the foundation is there.

Edit2: Okay, so the one I thought was shot at ~1k was actually 320, but the first one was definitely 6,400. At 100% crop:




I think the camera's biggest strength is that it doesn't have discolored noise. The noise still manifests itself as grain at 6,400 (albeit not as bad) it just doesn't produce nasty looking banding/random coloration and whatnot.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 12:14:27 PM by Sirrus »

yeah that noise is beautiful compared to the noise on my d3000 ;-; i really need to upgrade, i bought it 3 years ago.


i stopped by an abandoned church today but only had my phone with me
took a bunch of photos that looked good in person but ended up stuffty on my phone
this is probably the only semi-acceptable photo from the bunch


New telescope arrived. This thing is beastly!





jesus you could see into the future with that thing


psh only f/10.

Fun fact, in order for that lens to be f/2.8, the aperture opening would need to be 84cm in diameter. In order for it to be f/1.8, it would need to be 1.3 meters.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 08:20:39 PM by Sirrus »