Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[OO7MIKE]

Yeah, I hadn't even thought to mention that. Plastic bodied DX lenses may be weaker but they also weigh a lot less than metal bodied FF lenses. I don't plan on shooting in a war zone anytime soon so I think I can live without the pro-grade metal finish.

Nothing wrong with going with inexpensive gear. Had high ISO issues not been a problem I would stay with a crop camera. You get the sharpest results by using the best part of any lens out there. You also get that extra reach. I may pick up a D300 or a D7000 (D90 replacement) as a back up camera. Crop cameras are very useful.

Many bird watchers and sports photographers would rather use a crop camera than slap a 1.4x extender between a lens and a full frame body.

 

[DarkED]

Nothing wrong with going with inexpensive gear. Had high ISO issues not been a problem I would stay with a crop camera. You get the sharpest results by using the best part of any lens out there. You also get that extra reach. I may pick up a D300 or a D7000 (D90 replacement) as a back up camera. Crop cameras are very useful.

Yeah. I even want another D5000 as a back-up camera and a second dedicated body, when/if I need it. The ISO selection isn't a problem for me; this camera can do ISO200-3200 in regular shooting modes, and ISO100 and ISO6400 in Hi/Lo modes. It takes pretty good images up to ISO3200 in most circumstances, and that or lower should be sufficient for any photograph I'd ever need to take.

Many bird watchers and sports photographers would rather use a crop camera than slap a 1.4x extender between a lens and a full frame body.

I could see that. It just adds more weight when it's not actually necessary.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Yeah. I even want another D5000 as a back-up camera and a second dedicated body, when/if I need it. The ISO selection isn't a problem for me; this camera can do ISO200-3200 in regular shooting modes, and ISO100 and ISO6400 in Hi/Lo modes. It takes pretty good images up to ISO3200 in most circumstances, and that or lower should be sufficient for any photograph I'd ever need to take.

I could see that. It just adds more weight when it's not actually necessary.

Go for it! Having a back up camera is nice. Nothing worse than having a camera fail on you, especially if your getting paid.

Its not so much the weight of the 1.4x but the image degrading side effects of adding an extra lens in the equation. Id rather use a crop sensor camera or a camera with lots of megapixels and crop in post than degrade my images with a teleconverter.

 

[DarkED]

Go for it! Having a back up camera is nice. Nothing worse than having a camera fail on you, especially if your getting paid.

Yeah ... I try not to worry about it

If this camera can just get me by until I can get my studio into high gear I'll be golden.

 

[BillyBadAss]

A shot I took yesterday on the way to teach an English Lesson.

On A Friday Afternoon by Jason_Combs, on Flickr

 

[OO7MIKE]

Here is a photo from my weekend shoot. This is my 3rd bathing suit shoot. We were excited about this shoot until we reached the coast. The weather forecast said 65f but when we got there it was 60f with 15mph winds. COLD!! She was a trooper and stuck it out for about an hour before giving into the cold.

The winds where stronger than my lightstands ability to hold my softbox in place. This created a problem right away and made off camera lighting pointless. Packed everything back up and made the best of the situation. Sand is pretty good at reflecting light so I ended up using natural light. Unfortunately that meant overexposing the beach and the ocean in order to get good shots. Hello Abercrombie and Fitch style photography.

 

[shadow_dragon]

Nice photo. I've got a long way to go to get any where near matching your stuff.

How do you deal with sand though? I once took my camera to a beach BBQ with some friends. I tried really hard to keep it away from the sand but I still completely trashed it all so I only ever go to stone beaches now.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Nice photo. I've got a long way to go to get any where near matching your stuff.

How do you deal with sand though? I once took my camera to a beach BBQ with some friends. I tried really hard to keep it away from the sand but I still completely trashed it all so I only ever go to stone beaches now.

Sand is tough. I have a few personal rules of my own. If at all possible, don't ever change your lenses out in the open, don't ever put your camera down on the sand, and try not to get your hands moist or wet before handling the camera. If you have to, bring a large garbage bag and put your lenses and camera in it. You basically have to change it blind folded within the bag. Getting sand in your camera lenses can be expensive to fix. The 7d is weather sealed so I have less to worry about unless I want to change my lens.

I always clean my lenses before I step out of the vehicle. Its impossible to avoid but I usually end up with lots of sand mist or some kind of beach residue on my lens. Because of this I have to stick to shallow depth of fields, or risk scratching my lens while cleaning them. When your done with your beach visit, use a can of air and a tooth pick to clean your camera's exterior.

Here is an example of an unprocessed photo which was ruined because of the filthy sand build up.

This shot was taken at F13. Notice the spots that show up around the sun. Thats the crap on my lens. It only took 10 min before that showed up on my lens. I didn't notice it until post. Completely ruins my shots. You wont see that kind of effect at F2.8 or F4. But then again you wont be able to see the beach as well at F2.8.

 

[shadow_dragon]

Wow! I don't think i'll be changing my habits anytime soon unless I have an offer I can't refuse ofcourse. Hats fof to you again sir for braving the wilds of sands to get such sweet images.

Luckily last time I sent my camera back on warranty and, whilst not covered by my stupidity, they did clean it out of good faith.

 

[DarkED]

That looks so surreal. Even with the sand I don't think the shot is ruined. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Zxanphorian]

That looks so surreal. Even with the sand I don't think the shot is ruined. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree. I think the speckles of sand tells me that it is actually breezy in the shot.

 

[Festering Anus]

I think if you photoshopped all the lens flaring out of her face it would be a solid shot

 

[Rambowjo]

It's a good shot, but I agree that the spots ruin it, and I really doubt it can be fixed. In my opinion it looks pretty unproffesional.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Since there seems to be some interest in a rescue job, I'll let you guys take a stab at it.

Here is the 7D RAW file.

 

[DarkED]

In my opinion it looks pretty unproffesional.

So what?

Professional value != artistic value.

Don't expect the client to buy the shot. But keep it for artistic value nonetheless.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

He probably takes thousands of pictures of random people over a short time, I doubt he'd want one messed up photo out of all those for artistic value.

If he could get it fixed for the client though it would probably be helpful.

 

[JohnDoe641]

It's a good shot, but I agree that the spots ruin it, and I really doubt it can be fixed. In my opinion it looks pretty unproffesional.

lol

The shot looks fine dude, no professional is in control of 100% of everything all the time. He probably takes hundreds to thousands of shots on some sets and only keeps a few that are close to perfect as possible. Do you have any idea how much the average work and hours most people put in before their final shot is ready to be published?

 

[Rambowjo]

lol

The shot looks fine dude, no professional is in control of 100% of everything all the time. He probably takes hundreds to thousands of shots on some sets and only keeps a few that are close to perfect as possible. Do you have any idea how much the average work and hours most people put in before their final shot is ready to be published?

I know. That's why I said that one isn't good enough.

 

[Festering Anus]

poop

 

[OO7MIKE]

D7000 has been officially announced! Its the D90 successor. Yeah, they ran out of numbers.

http://dpreview.com/previews/NikonD7000/

Nikon D7000 Key Features

* 16.2MP CMOS sensor
* 1080p HD video recording with mic jack for external microphone
* ISO 100-6400 (plus H1 and H2 equivalent to ISO 12,800/25,600)
* 39-point AF system with 3D tracking
* 2016 pixel metering sensor
* Scene Recognition System (see 2016 pixel sensor, above) aids metering + focus accuracy
* Twin SD card slots
* 3.0 inch 921k dot LCD screen
* New Live View/movie shooting switch
* Full-time AF in Live View/movie modes
* Up to 6fps continuous shooting
* Lockable shooting mode dial
* Built-in intervalometer
* Electronic virtual horizon
* Shutter tested to 300k actuations

Pretty impressive feature set. It almost looks on par with the D300s. Many features are better, some are pretty close. Its a worthy upgrade. Based on this info I think we will be seeing a D800 soon instead of a D700s. Its what I'm holding out for.