The *Official Photography Thread*

www.dgrin.com

or

www.thephotoforum.com

 

don't get fired for sexual harassment.

 

+1

 

I took this today. I don't know how much I like not seeing the entirety of the boots. Thoughts?

 

fixed

 

Checkout SmugMug's Facebook .

They're giving away a backpack with some awesome goodies in it. Andy Biggs has created a line of gear bags that look awesome and he's blogging about light--worth a read.

A chance to win free stuff is pretty good too!

 

entered

I still need to make a SmugMug account

 

They've got a good thing going. Reasonable price for unlimited storage, lots of good pro level features and so on.

 

How do you enter the contest?

Edit: nvm I think I figured it out.

 

I know, I've just been procrastinating about it

 

definitely interested!

 

Shot this today with my iPhone... Not bad considering

Mammoth Mountain by They|Design, on Flickr

 

Love your editing style man, [borat]very nice![/borat].

As for that sensitive Canon and Nikon question.... I am completely unbiased and only care about which company offers the right camera for my needs.

The reason why I switched to Canon was because of a few reasons. To be honest, though, personal preference affected my decision the most. I never really felt at home with Nikon's ergonomics but that does not mean they aren't good...because they are! When I played with my friend's 5d2, I just felt more at home with everything. So, other than personal preference, I also wanted to take my photography in the direction towards landscape/portraits/nature/strobist stuff but also start working towards some video. I also wanted to be able to make large prints and unfortunately 12mp wasn't enough for what I had in mind. I started showing some of my prints at a local gallery where they do first friday art shows every month and I needed more mp's for the prints.

This decision took a loooooong time to make. I started getting GAS and I spent endless nights researching on the internet. Also, another huge reason why I switched was because of what I am studying in school which is engineering. Not sure if you have heard the quote before but something along the lines of "Canon was designed by engineers and Nikon was designed by photographers". Anyways, the more I started looking at Canon's decisions with their products, it made more sense to me from an engineering point of view versus Nikon's. Don't take that comment to the extreme though, it's hard to explain but long story short, I just feel more at home with Canon.

Anyways, after handling both the D700 and the 5d2, it showed me how competition is necessary to keep products evolving. So whenever a company comes out with the best dslr of the year, that will push everyone else to do better!

 

So I got a question guys. I am really torn about my next lens purchase. I would really REALLY like to get some L glass. But I don't really have the coin for it. About the only L I could shoot for is the 17-40L f/4. I have seen some in the range of $550 and ^ used. But the thing is...I know its good quality glass and its an L which would be great. Or should I go cheaper and get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which I can get for about $350 used. I know it may sound like a silly question, but I'm torn between the two. The Tamron would be great with having the f/2.8 but then again it would be great to have an L lens.

The main purpose of this is to replace the kit lens and let my mother have the kit lens full time with her camera. Im just torn between the two. I just can't see paying $200+ more dollars for a lens that only has f/4, but at the same time I hear nothing but great things from L glass. I personally have never seen/felt an L. Thats why Im torn cause I feel it might be worth it to have it, but I don't really know

 

You will have lenses longer than any body so it pays to invest in them in the longer term. Whether they're L or not, depends on the lens. Better quality glass, construction quality, and smoother & quieter focus motors are just a couple of the advantages L glass offers and each of them contribute to better pictures.

You should have fast glass but not every lens needs to be f/2.8 or f/1.2. However, if you plan on shooting indoors, you will need speed.

My advice is to buy the best glass you can afford but do not buy a crap lens to get by-like most things, buying lower quality/cost just means spending more later.

 

I would go with the L glass over a cheap lens. The lens will stay with you no matter what body you go with. The f4 on a L glass really has no effect on the image, the lower F stops are more for indoor photography without a flash... like the 50 1.4. Dont be torn over a lens solely on that. I am more than happy with my L f4. My 200mm L will also be the f4

 

I'm usually not a big selective color guy, its a little over played, but I decided to process these both ways, and I think they POP a little better that way. What do you guys think.

 

Good points Ian thanks. I have a wedding upcoming in May. The thing is, I dunno if I will do any more weddings after this one. And this one is for a girl in class that is a good friend. She is happy and content with the photos I took for her engagement. And I used the kit lens sucked using it, but the places we went I had little room so I couldnt use my 50mm.

Everything you say makes really good sense. In the long run the L would be better cause when I use I most likely won't be inside. So in your opinion if I get the L f/4 will I be ok with it for the wedding? I guess it pends on lighting in the church and all. She doesn't want me all in her face during the ceremony so there is a chance I might be using my Sigma 70-200. Not sure yet but you think I could suffice with the 17-40 L?

 

The f/2.8 was what I was worried about for the wedding. But from what you and Ian have just said I am now leaning towards the L.

 

Either way esp after the wedding, the receptions are usually dark. Going to need a flash.