pacman inkee

bay bridge


bay bridge, originally uploaded by hep.

why i left myself stopped at f/5 i dunno, but at least I got the focal length pretty spot on. You know how hard it is to focus on a rocking boat? oh right, thats why I was at f/5. lol.

so related to your first sentence, what's wrong with being stopped at f/5?. . . and related to the last bit, why is f/5 good for when you're on a boat?. . .
f5 is too big, so the depth of field is too small, meaning its a miracle that I got the city AND the bridge in focus. However on a boat you need to shoot with as fast a lens as you can since the boat is moving up and down, side to side, its basically the spin particle of shooting platforms. so you need a super fast lens opened up to make sure you catch everything in focus (i was shooting at 1/4000 shutter speed.) The conclusion of all of this is I had some aperture stop latitude and I was forgetful and missed it. I should have been shooting around f/11 for the right focus depth of field. But I got lucky :)
got it. . . i thought it was something along those lines but i wasn't sure. . . and i *still* haven't bought myself a dslr. . . hey, lemme ask you your opinion about something. . . i have this strategy for buying computers in that i always buy the cheapest mac tower or laptop (i alternate each year), but with the money i've saved, i get a new machine every year. . . i then retire the oldest machines by giving 'em to my parents, sisters, or friends - whoever needs a new used machine the most. . .

my logic was that the fastest machine will be slower than the slowest machine in two years, so this way i tend to not fall behind the curve like you might if you shelled out big bucks on a cutting-edge machine and waited a long time before buying a new one. . .

so my question is related to digital cameras. . . i was thinking of getting a decent dslr body (in the $2,500+ range) but thought that maybe instead i should get a couple of nice lenses and the cheapest body (nikon or canon). . . then maybe get another cheap body the following year or year after, and maybe start the cycle of handing off old bodies to my family or friends. . . does that logic make sense to you?. ..
once you invest in a body you will find little reason to switch up unless you decide to go into a different lens line or style. I always recommend people go with a baseline slr body in whichever brand they choose. usually I recommend nikon and olympus over canon. canon makes cheap light bodies so if you drop it (and you will many times) it will shatter. whereas i have dropped my nikon millions of times and thx to its titanium case it shows no worse for wear. i also prefer nikons glass over canon which is shitty chinese glass. olympus makes some decent glass too.

now for most people they will never ever harness the power of a top of the line dslr. these are aimed strictly at professionals. the reason is because, a pro can take the same image even on a point and shoot camera. its just that after doing photography for like 10yrs you are tired of doing shit that takes a million steps so you want gear that is so tricked out that it reduces the amount of prepwork you have to do. and pros need to print stuff HUGE like on billboards and posters for stupid ads so you have to keep pushing the MP size. Most people will never ever use this because the biggest they will print is 11 x 14 which any baseline dslr can handle. also the higher end dslrs are considerably heavier and you will find that weight becomes a huge factor as your lenses get bigger and faster. We use D300s at work and I would NEVER use something like that if I could help it. I use a D50 whenever I am shooting on my time.

You will basically want to spend all your money on lenses once you get a body. The longer you use any one body the more in tune with it you become and the more stuff goes back to the subconscious when you are working.
it's interesting 'cuz i've asked a bunch of my photographer friends about the nikon vs. canon dslr thing and while most of 'em have said, "eh, it doesn't really matter", there were two who had strong opinions on the matter. . . you in the nikon camp and this other blogger who was firmly in canon territory. . .

what's even more interesting is that both of you specifically mention build quality, saying nikon/canon is well-made and reliable while canon/nikon is cheap garbage. . .

but yeah, there are two reasons i want to go to dslr - i borrowed a d50 a while back and was amazed at how much easier it was to do things (like switch iso, aperture, and shutter speed), and how much better it was at low light compared to my old point-and-shoot. . .

so i've been kind of looking, going back and forth between getting canon or nikon, nice mid-line body or cheap-o bottom-rung body, which lenses (i'm thinking maybe a 50mm f1.4 prime to start with), and generally thinking i should just flip a coin and get something. . .

oh, and then those newer dlsrs just got announced that shoot video. . . i know lots of people think it sounds gimmicky, and maybe it is, but since i'm kind of into video, the d90 and its 24fps 720p ability sounded really awesome. . . but anyway, that's me being all indecisive as always. . .
i know i am right 100% on bodies. it's the only reason almost all pros shoot nikon if they shoot 35mm equiv dslrs (usually they end up graduating up to higher body systems like mamiya, if only for the full flexibility of being able to switch film to digi to polaroid all the time. tho they still shoot digi like 95% of the time) the only pro section that uses canons specifically is sports because the glass and bodies are cheap and they are probably going to be shattered on the sidelines anyway.

i think you are one of the few hobbiest photographer sets that would benefit from a higher end slr tho. because I think you would want to use still stuff for film stuff and I am not sure how the ratio stuff works out.

as for those dslrs that also do video, technically its been possible for awhile (its just a matter of leaving the mirror switched up and using the buffer to catch the video overspill) but i suspect you will not get nearly the quality of a real digital video camera. I am also not up to date on the lens alignment similarities between video cameras and still cameras so I dunno how that works out either. really i just know so very little about SHOOTING video, cuz I am always busy shooting still to pay much attn to that part. I know a bit about post-processing it tho cuz still post takes so much less work so I end up having free time to sit around and bug the video techs hehe.
what's cracking me up is that both you and my equally-fervent-but-for-canon friend said the same thing about all pros using a specific brand, except she said they use canon. . . she specifically mentioned being in those pro-photographer pens at events and checking out her competition's equipment. . . i doubt she's the type who'd go shoot sporting events too. ..

but what's cracking me up even more is that you're both saying virtually the same thing about the pros and cons of nikon and canon, only the brand names are switched around!. . . but yeah, i'm mainly looking at canon and nikon 'cuz i know people in both camps and nobody with an olympus dslr. . . one of my biggest concerns is with low-light photography since i'm never really awake during the daytime. . . nikon's noise at higher iso is a bit more attractive to me than canon's 'cuz the nikon noise is sort of monochromatic, while canon's looks sort of like mottled color. . .

btw, i just watched this sample of the new canon 5d ii's video and i think it's looks pretty damn nice:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086

i know real photographers kind of poohpooh the idea of video on an slr, but the ability to have interchangeable lenses on a camera that's great in low-light and, if it's the 5d ii, have a full-frame sensor and cost less than $3,000 is a pretty damn nifty feature to me. . .

ps, while i'm finding it amusing that you and the canon chick have identical-but-opposite opinions, i *do* appreciate you telling me your opinions. . . it's making me take a second (or actually more like a fifth) look at nikon. . .
what pens? i am talking pros on set in studios. I don't know one single pro studio that uses canon. The second reason you end up using nikon is most of us shoot direct to laptop these days (lcds are for looking at histograms and that's it) and canon's software for that is/was way more painful. I dunno about now, tho because the last time I really heard about anyone making the decision between them was like 5 years ago. It's a legacy thing again, all studios use nikon because all other studios use nikon and if you go the other way you end up with assistants, interns, production people that need to be retrained every time you hire a new one (assistants role over like every other month and interns every 3 months). The way it is now is everyone is expected to know the Nikon Capture software and how to use it on both Macs and PCs (tho more mac because a ton of people use Aperture now even tho it has ridiculous issues) I am sure a ton of freelance and other photojournalist type photographers use canons because they are relatively cheaper to get ahold of. You always see people doing spec work at every protest holding Canons which is probably why I think of them as the camera of amateurs hehe.

If you want lowlight I just read some article that Nikon was doing insane stuff like low-noise iso 16,000 and shit like that. The problem you are going to run into upfront tho won't be noise in low-light, but focusing. You aren't going to want to autofocus because in low-light autofocus loses it's mind and focusing in frame without a split prism is definitely an acquired skill (it's a bit akin to looking at a 100x100 thumbnail of an image to tell if the 3000x3000 size is in focus. in the dark). t12 just got a split prism for his camera and he said even then focusing in the dark is a pain cuz it's the dark. So I would recommend going down somewhere, holding all the cameras in your hand with a lens on them and trying to focus in the dark (calamut has a darker back area that you can try focusing into). See which one has the best thru the viewfinder feel and most openness to it. Really I think they should halve the size of LCDs on SLRs and triple the size of the viewfinder window.
(Anonymous)
pens as in those areas that they tend to stick photographers. . . or maybe they're just the best places to get a shot so that's why the photographers always group there. . . you occasionally see shots of 'em when a photographer turns the camera on themselves. . . i normally see 'em in shots of a sporting event, but you also see 'em at political rallies and whatnot. . .

but yeah, i guess my other blogging friend who works as a photographer tends to not work at a studio. . . or at least at the type of studio you're working at with assistants and interns and whatnot - i think she's more freelance with a small studio of her own. . . she's one of those typical blogging friends that i've never actually met in person and probably never will. ..

i was emailing her about this discussion you and i are having and she had this to say "It's possible that one brand is more popular in one variety of professional photography? I dunno. To this day I see most pros using the Canons. Here in LA, it's movie stills, paparazzi, models, magazine shoots etc. If your friend is a sports photographer, or in some very different field -- it's possible Nikon rules there.". . .

i thought it was funny that you both pointed out sports as that "other" type of photography. . . :^)

for a while there nikon had really impressive high-iso-with-low-noise (at least what i could tell from dpreview), but i did wonder about that autofocus thing. . . good to know that it wasn't just me being retarded with my camera and camcorder. . .