■ The Photography Megathread ■

[Sirrus]

I suppose it's subjective, because I don't like the way that photo looks.

[Ad Bot]

[Kniaz]

Just like any form of art, it comes down to your personal taste.

[duke 838]

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?

[Kniaz]

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

[Brickman]

Starworks by TophatCarot, on Flickr
(Full size here(more stars): http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8009/7638773346_468ad09e93_k.jpg )

[duke 838]

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.

[suburb]

You all better be jelly of my digital camera skills.  I wish I had a fancy SLR camera but it's very expensive taste on my end if I happened to get one.

I visited the James J Hill house in the St. Paul area of Minnesota tonight with my family from TN and my brother and such not, and I snapped some pictures outside the house and the cathedral that owns the house at this point in time.

Click for full size images looks the best



















If anyone is wondering the camera I used to snap these photos is a Sony Cybershot DSC-S950, has 10.1 megapixels.  I have had it for 4 years now and only paid 130 dollars for it when I got it as my first own digital camera.  Turns out to be one great deal even after 4 years.

[Tammy]

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?

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.

[duke 838]

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?

[Kniaz]

-snip-

Cool astro photography!
I've got some star streams somewhere on my hard drive, I might post them. I do a lot of stuff with my shutter release :)

Also, suburb, nicely done for a digital camera. That's a pretty cool looking manor building thingo. Reminds me of Rocky Horror Picture Show  

[suburb]

Also, suburb, nicely done for a digital camera. That's a pretty cool looking manor building thingo. Reminds me of Rocky Horror Picture Show  

It's a 42 room mansion, if only it was haunted now.  I would love it if it was haunted it has a marble hallway in the basement with pipes in the ceiling going to a boiler room sooo eerie.

[Kniaz]

Wow, that sounds fantastic!

[Tammy]

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?

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/

[duke 838]

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.

[Tammy]

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.

Well in that case the choice is easy.

I don't think I ever plan on upgrading to FX, but Nikon's DX offerings are really limited.