Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[OO7MIKE]

Not sure if I have posted this before, but I really find this series of Yu Aoi photos so inspiring.

Other than the subject being pretty cute (which can be inspiring on its own), what do you find so inspiring about the shots? Just curious.

 

[OO7MIKE]

It looks like I will be jumping ship soon. After spending some time with the Canon 5d mk2, 1dmk4, Nikon D700 and the D3s recently I have come to a few conclusions. I like what Nikon is doing!

I have to say that I prefer the Nikons. Don't get me wrong, my 7d is a great camera and I like my lenses. What I'm not getting from my camera are good dynamic range, excellent colors and low noise at high iso settings. Most of my paid work involves low light and usage of high iso settings. Even my clients have commented on my ISO 6400 files. They understand the technology issue once explained but its like a kick in the butt when you clients say something to you about it. It just gives me a wonderful excuse to upgrade.

Here is how they stack up against my Canon 7d at ISO 6400 in low light conditions:

5dmk2 - Nice resolution, but not that much higher than my 7d. Auto focus is temperamental and slow. Noise levels are only slightly better. Auto focus killed it for me. I'm not saying this is a bad camera, it just wasn't made for the kind of work that I do.

1dmk4 - Very nice camera. I was actually shocked at the low light performance. It wasn't much better than the 7d. About 1 stop difference. 6400 looked like 3200 on the 7d. Impressive but for $4000 more? Auto focus was very quick. Very impressed with the camera over all but the price premium is pretty high. My time was brief with this camera. I was only able to shoot off a few shots for testing purposes at a dance gig. Files where very sharp and looked pretty good. I felt right at home with the files but I wasn't as impressed with this camera as I was with the Nikons.

D700 - This camera produced much cleaner files at 6400 than the 7d, 5dmk2, but only a hair better than the 1dmk4. 14bit RAW files on the Nikon side are not the same as 14bit on the canon side. Just spend a min in ACR with them and you can tell there is something incredible about it. Much more detail in the shadow areas. Despite this camera being 2 years old I feel like its a much more worthy upgrade to my 7d than the 1dmk4. Only being 13mp doesn't bother me so much. Ok just a little bit. Having cleaner files are worth the drop in mp to me. Best thing is you can pick one of these bad boys up used for about $1700.

D3s - WOW! Yeah its a $4800 upgrade.. this is going to hurt a lot. ISO 6400 files look like the 7d's ISO 1600 files. I'm not kidding either. Even the ISO 12,800 files where clean. Eventually things started to break down around ISO 25,600. Funny thing is those ISO 25,600 files looked a lot like my 7d at ISO 6400 but where much easier to work with. A worthy upgrade indeed.

Final word: Jumping ship is expensive. Its going to cost a bit more because lenses are more expensive on the Nikon side. After doing a lot of research and spending some time with Nikon gear (thanks to my fellow photographers already on the dark side) One thing that really bugged me was that even the most expensive 70-200 lens ($2200) wasn't as sharp as my 70-200L at F2.8.($1200) It bugs me because that's where I leave it parked the entire time. Ok for portraits, not so good for dance, theater, and weddings. The tides turn once you stop it down to f4.

Damn Nikon and their Carrots.

I'm gonna have to do this jump ship thing before I get married... cause it isn't going to happen after LOL

 

[JohnDoe641]

Welcome to Nikon.

If you're going with the D700 the smaller image dimensions might slightly offset loss of sharpness at f2.8. Or you could just shoot at f4 instead.

If you ever need a good short tele prime, might I suggest the Nikon 105mm f/2.0D It has the ability to control bokeh and make some of the most pleasantly creamy smooth pictures I've ever seen. It's perfect for street portraits, it's probably great for studio as well.

 

[DarkED]

As JD said, welcome to Nikon I just prefer Nikon's menus over the Canon offerings I played with. Everything seems more easy to access.

You might want to take a look at the Nikkor 18-200mm VRII. According to every review I've read, it's an absolutely epic lens, and at a price point of ~$800 it's not prohibitively expensive either.

Also, don't get a D3x, whatever you do. It's just a less-capable D3 that costs twice as much. Seriously. It's Nikon's 'fancier name = higher price' rip-off policy at work. It's basically an $8,000 DSLR that is actually worth about $4,500. For the money, the D3s @ ~$5,200 is much better. You may even want to wait for the D4, which should be next year.

EDIT: Also, look into getting yourself a Nikon SB-400 flash. They run around $100 and they're simply awesome.

 

[Rambowjo]

It looks funny because your camera lens has a bit of barrel distortion. I can tell because of the squiggly lines of the buildings edge. This is what tilt shift lenses are made for. Architectural photographers swear by them. Because they are so expensive, other photographers work around this by using wider angle macro lenses. Macro lenses have extremely low barrel distortion thus are the perfect alternative to tilt shift lenses.

What do you mean by squiggly lines? The edges of the tower are a little blurred, but I think that's because I was shooting at a relatively long shutter time.

I like how the tower sort of has an hourglass look/it gets bigger towards the ground, I think that looks great. Is that what you meant by distortion?

 

[OO7MIKE]

Welcome to Nikon.

If you're going with the D700 the smaller image dimensions might slightly offset loss of sharpness at f2.8. Or you could just shoot at f4 instead.

If you ever need a good short tele prime, might I suggest the Nikon 105mm f/2.0D It has the ability to control bokeh and make some of the most pleasantly creamy smooth pictures I've ever seen. It's perfect for street portraits, it's probably great for studio as well.

I've looked into the 105mm. People say great things about it and lens tests look pretty good. Right now I'm leaning more towards the 85mm 1.4. I wont know for sure till i get my hands on both of them.

As JD said, welcome to Nikon I just prefer Nikon's menus over the Canon offerings I played with. Everything seems more easy to access.

You might want to take a look at the Nikkor 18-200mm VRII. According to every review I've read, it's an absolutely epic lens, and at a price point of ~$800 it's not prohibitively expensive either.

Also, don't get a D3x, whatever you do. It's just a less-capable D3 that costs twice as much. Seriously. It's Nikon's 'fancier name = higher price' rip-off policy at work. It's basically an $8,000 DSLR that is actually worth about $4,500. For the money, the D3s @ ~$5,200 is much better. You may even want to wait for the D4, which should be next year.

EDIT: Also, look into getting yourself a Nikon SB-400 flash. They run around $100 and they're simply awesome.

No worries, I have looked at the D3x and while there are certain tempting aspects of having one, it doesn't fit the bill for what I need to do. Plus I cant justify the price! I would love to see what the D4 or the D800 will offer but I'm afraid even the rumor sites confirm your assumptions.

I don't think the 18-200mm VRII DX lens is going to work to well on an FX format camera. I think that would cut my mp down to 5mp if I remember correctly.

What do you mean by squiggly lines? The edges of the tower are a little blurred, but I think that's because I was shooting at a relatively long shutter time.

I like how the tower sort of has an hourglass look/it gets bigger towards the ground, I think that looks great. Is that what you meant by distortion?

I was just eye ball'n it and i noticed it was a little wavy. Take it into PS, use the line tool and you will see it. Then you will S*** bricks. LOL
Its more noticeable on the left than the right.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Pulled an all day and almost an all nighter to get caught up on photos. /me tired

Here is a shot I took at a wedding last weekend. One of the most rushed weddings I've ever done, but we still had plenty of fun. Natural light only. No flashes! I took this with my 11-16 F2.8 Tokina lens on my 7d. I'm not sure if I'm done editing it yet. I've been wracking my brain trying to find a way to make the photo pop some more. Maybe it will come to me after I sleep.

 

[Rambowjo]

I'm not sure what to think of the sky in that photo. I'm surprised you can get it to look like that without doing some kind of HDR process. Your camera must have a lot of range.
I think it's poppy enough.

About the wavy lines on my tower, I think it has more to do with Photoshop not being perfect at sewing pictures together, though you may be right. Keep in mind, that it was 8 photos or so, not just one photo.

 

[IronMonkey]

I'm not sure that I would be happy (were I the bride) with how the sky has come out on the wedding shot. It has a rather angry, end-of-the-world-is-nigh look. I assume that is largely an artefact of the conversion to B&W.

I'm gonna have to do this jump ship thing before I get married...

Are congratulations in order...?

Re: jumping ship, I could return the favour if you want...

I could arrange an unfortunate G3 accident. It would dramatically cut your sentence time down.

I can see the movie already - a remake of Strangers on a Train - The DSLR Edition.

 

[BillyBadAss]

Other than the subject being pretty cute (which can be inspiring on its own), what do you find so inspiring about the shots? Just curious.

I just like this kind of style of photography when shooting people. Natural light in every day simple places. The motel is old from the 60's/70's decor. It appears to be shot in the south west and has this feeling of remoteness. As if these little towns might only have 500 people. The photographer's style is pretty simple, but interesting I think. It makes me think of road trips from the past. That feeling of being on the road and not having to worry about anything else but where you are going. Also, it was a super idea to shot with a film that leans towards warm hues. I am guessing this is Kodak Porta 160 NC.

 

[OO7MIKE]

I'm not sure what to think of the sky in that photo. I'm surprised you can get it to look like that without doing some kind of HDR process. Your camera must have a lot of range.
I think it's poppy enough.

Haha, I would call it an old school HDR process. I photographed the subject knowing this is what I would be doing in post production. I only had 5 min to take her photos before the next part of the wedding and all the lighting gear was set up for the bride and groom first meet. I had to improvise. The subject was back lit so I exposed inbetween the sky and the subject. In post I underexposed for the sky and overexposed for the subject. Through some clever masking techniques I was able to balanced the two out.

It's a lot of work!

I'm not sure that I would be happy (were I the bride) with how the sky has come out on the wedding shot. It has a rather angry, end-of-the-world-is-nigh look. I assume that is largely an artefact of the conversion to B&W.

Are congratulations in order...?

She may like it, she may not. I haven't showed it to her yet. She may also like the color version more, which I am still working on. I think the bride is more likely to say "cool!" than "OMG Armageddon Wedding!!"

LOL Knowing the bride she might say both and still like it.

My wedding has been a long time coming. Some couples rush into it, we haven't. Likely early next year. We will be making it a destination wedding in Hawaii. Minimal amount of family and friends.. just how we like it

 

[Israphel]

..coming over to the dark side

Never yet found a single thing about my D3 that I don't like, and not yet been able to come up with a single reason why I would need another camera.

The megapixel count is a huge non-issue, designed to sell cameras to people who like simple numbers to decide how good a camera is. I know quite a few people who shoot with 5D2s, but very few of them who ever print bigger than 60cm, so there is absolutely no point in having all those pixels. It's like the guy who buys a car that goes 180mph but never ever has the opportunity to drive it above 70mph.
The ability to crop more out of an image is also a non issue. Buy a longer telephoto and learn to compose better.

I shoot landscapes and sell prints...and I've never had a problem with a lack of resolution. I've actually printed to above a meter before, and the image looks great. The files seem to uprez really well. Here's a 100% crop of a shot taken with the 80-400VR at 1/125 handheld at 400mm which has been uprezzed to 33mp http://andymumford.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1qez8o

If you're put off by the price of lenses, have a look at second hand older lenses. I use an old 80-200 f2.8 instead of the newer 70-200f2.8VR for weddings. OK, I don't have VR, but optically the lens is excellent, and it only cost me $300!

You might also want to look at Capture NX2 and View NX. Compared with Lightroom, it's slow, un-intuitive and buggy BUT I'll put up with all that because it converts NEF files so much better than anything else out there, and the ability to use Nik control points, and Color Efex Pro directly onto the RAW file (without converting to a PSD or TIFF) in localised areas makes up for the...uhm...idiosyncrasies of the software.

I'm pondering the D4, but as I'm happy with the D3, I'll more than likely wait for the D4S. It's nothing todo with rumour, Nikon (like Canon) has a very solid, very predictable release timetable for it's flagship models.

D1 June 99
D2h (first "2" series camera) July 03
D3 August 07

That's 4 years between each series (same time cycle as Canon's, but Canon's series 4 is generally 18 months infront) with the "S" upgrades pretty much right in the middle of the cycle. Summer 2011 will be 4 years from the D3, 2 years from the D3s, and is pretty much a certainty for the D4 around July, August.
As for it's specs...well, THAT'S speculation

Good luck with the change, you absolutely won't regret it.

As for me, haven't posted anything here recently. Been busy with lots of projects but I do drop by and there are constantly some wonderful images being submitted here. I particularly liked some athletic shots of yours a couple of months back Mike, I just didn't have time to comment.

I heard a couple of weeks ago that I've had a shot short-listed for Landscape Photographer of the Year award in the UK. I have zero expectation of winning, pretty much every pro in the UK enters (the first prize is £10 000) but it's nice to have made the shortlist.

 

[DarkED]

No worries, I have looked at the D3x and while there are certain tempting aspects of having one, it doesn't fit the bill for what I need to do. Plus I cant justify the price! I would love to see what the D4 or the D800 will offer but I'm afraid even the rumor sites confirm your assumptions.

Sure, sure. I think it's better to just go with what you can get now and focus more on getting better lenses. I am currently working on getting my DX Dream Team together:

*Nikkor DX 18-55mm zoom lens (already have it)
*Nikkor DX 55-200mm zoom lens
*Nikkor DX 35mm f/1.8 prime lens

After hitting that lens trifecta I should have every lens I will ever need for my D5000. Throw in some hoods, filters, and maybe a Nikkor DX 10-24mm if I need it for something insane, and I'll be all set. The best part is that those extra lenses will only cost me a total of about $400. DX Dream Team indeed

I don't think the 18-200mm VRII DX lens is going to work to well on an FX format camera. I think that would cut my mp down to 5mp if I remember correctly.

Right. I thought they made a FF version, but apparently the 18-200 only comes in DX. Sorry

... View NX. Compared with Lightroom, it's slow, un-intuitive and buggy BUT I'll put up with all that because it converts NEF files so much better than anything else out there, and the ability to use Nik control points, and Color Efex Pro directly onto the RAW file (without converting to a PSD or TIFF) in localised areas makes up for the...uhm...idiosyncrasies of the software.

This.

Despite ViewNX's flaws, and the fact that it crashes regularly for me, it does a damn good job and is generally easy to use.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Israphel: Thanks for the input. I am thrown off by the prices but only because it cost so much more than Canon to get the same or better image quality in the range I need. I don't like the 80-200 f2.8 because its so soft at 2.8 and the bokeh is so nervous looking. You are right, the quality is excellent for the price.

Right now I'm looking at:

14-24 f2.8 G
70-200 f2.8 G
85mm f1.4 G

Only having 3 lenses will be a change for me but the range is fairly complete for the work that I do. I'm fairly certain I'll be happy with these lenses.

I do like the Nikon product cycle. It makes your purchase feel more like an investment instead of a technology chase.

Well congrats on making the short list! I hope something becomes of it. Investment $$ you can use

 

[DarkED]

Only having 3 lenses will be a change for me but the range is fairly complete for the work that I do. I'm fairly certain I'll be happy with these lenses.

Less is more, as they say. Learn to do what you need with less lenses, or even only one. Who wants to carry a ton of lenses around all day? I definitely don't. I think it's better to take one lens, maybe two non-overlapping lenses with you and just shoot. It's better than spending time wondering if the lens you have attached is the right one for the job, you end up carrying less, and your photography gets better because you move around more to get the shot you need to get.

 

[JohnDoe641]

I've looked into the 105mm. People say great things about it and lens tests look pretty good. Right now I'm leaning more towards the 85mm 1.4. I wont know for sure till i get my hands on both of them.

I have the 105 and the 85mm 1.8 which is almost identical to the 85 1.4. I love both lenses and 90% of the stuff I've posted here have been taken with the 85. I even prefer it over the 105 for most things since it weighs almost nothing and it's just as sharp, if not sharper than my 1200$ 105.

I don't think the 18-200mm VRII DX lens is going to work to well on an FX format camera. I think that would cut my mp down to 5mp if I remember correctly.

You can't use a DX lens on a full frame/FX camera. Well you can, but you'll only get a small cropped image. DX is only 45% coverage compared to full frame iirc. That's how small the DX sensor/lens is compared to full frame, sad but true.

I can definitely recommend the three primes that I have for full frame cameras since all my lenses are made for full frame/fx.

50mm 1.8 or 1.4 (some argue that my 1.8 is actually sharper than the 1.4)
85mm 1.8 or 1.4 (there's another argument that the 1.4 has more pleasant bokeh)
105mm f2 (smoothest bokeh I have ever seen and you can control it!)
135mm f2 (ditto from 105mm)

I have the 50, 85, and 105, I've used plenty of other lenses, I have a 70-300 VR which is a fantastic lens and is sharper than most others but nothing can touch these primes for sharpness, contrast, bokeh or low light performance.

Sure, sure. I think it's better to just go with what you can get now and focus more on getting better lenses. I am currently working on getting my DX Dream Team together:

*Nikkor DX 18-55mm zoom lens (already have it)
*Nikkor DX 55-200mm zoom lens
*Nikkor DX 35mm f/1.8 prime lens

After hitting that lens trifecta I should have every lens I will ever need for my D5000. Throw in some hoods, filters, and maybe a Nikkor DX 10-24mm if I need it for something insane, and I'll be all set. The best part is that those extra lenses will only cost me a total of about $400. DX Dream Team indeed

I know I sound like I'm preaching but you really should invest in full frame lenses and not DX lenses. It's to future-proof yourself for the inevitable move to a new camera because cameras don't last but lenses do. DX is a dead end format, once you move to full frame, your DX lenses will be useless and you won't be able to use them. The silly thing is that even a not so good full frame/fx lens can appear to be just as sharp or sharper than a really good DX lens due to a DX cameras sensor only using the middle of an FX lens. So you get the absolute sharpest part of the lens where as if you're using a DX lens you still have to deal with falloff and other lens aberrations of the entire lens. Plus you get a free boost in magnification! You can turn an 50mm or 85mm full frame lens into a nice mid distance tele lens for street photography. 50 goes to 75mm and 85 turns into 130mm iirc. That's what I do.

 

[Israphel]

Right. I thought they made a FF version, but apparently the 18-200 only comes in DX. Sorry
.

There is an FF version, the new 28-300VR http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10081912nikon28300mm.asp but to be honest, like the 18-200, it's a consumer lens which does most things quite well but isn't excellent at anything. I had the first version of the 18-200VR on my old D80, but didn't use it much....there are just so many better lenses out there, all it gave was convenience.

You're right, View NX IS pretty easy to use...I particularly like the the upgrade (View NX2), and it's great for sorting out keepers, grading, tagging and trashing images, but for proper editing, you really need Capture NX2. It's this software I was referring to when I talked about it being buggy and slow (and I'm running it on an i7 quad core with 8gb of RAM). Like I said though, building a workflow around View NX2 for first and second pass editing, and then Capture NX2 for processing of keepers makes up for it's issues.

 

[DarkED]

I know I sound like I'm preaching but you really should ...

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't plan on ever going full-frame unless I went totally pro, and even then there's almost no need. It's not about the camera -- it's about the photographer. Better cameras just make the job easier, they don't automagically make better images. DX is fine for the semi-pro stuff I will be doing. Also, FF lenses cost hundreds if not thousands more than their comparable DX counterparts, and I'm not nearly ready to spend thousands on lenses yet.

Lenses are usually current for a decade or more, DX included. If/When I do make the migration to FF, I can just sell all of my DX gear for a great price, providing they are still in good condition.

And I'm sorry, but DX is NOT a dead-end path. It can get the job done just as well as full-frame in the right hands. Just because it's not the most expensive path out there doesn't mean it's bad.

You're right, View NX IS pretty easy to use...I particularly like the the upgrade (View NX2), and it's great for sorting out keepers, grading, tagging and trashing images, but for proper editing, you really need Capture NX2. It's this software I was referring to when I talked about it being buggy and slow (and I'm running it on an i7 quad core with 8gb of RAM). Like I said though, building a workflow around View NX2 for first and second pass editing, and then Capture NX2 for processing of keepers makes up for it's issues.

Ah. But yes, ViewNX is an awesome first stop in the processing line. I tend to use Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5 for the heavier stuff.

 

[Israphel]

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't plan on ever going full-frame unless I went totally pro, and even then there's almost no need. It's not about the camera -- it's about the photographer. Better cameras just make the job easier, they don't automagically make better images. DX is fine for the semi-pro stuff I will be doing. Also, FF lenses cost hundreds if not thousands more than their comparable DX counterparts, and I'm not nearly ready to spend thousands on lenses yet.

Lenses are usually current for a decade or more, DX included. If/When I do make the migration to FF, I can just sell all of my DX gear for a great price, providing they are still in good condition.

And I'm sorry, but DX is NOT a dead-end path. It can get the job done just as well as full-frame in the right hands. Just because it's not the most expensive path out there doesn't mean it's bad.

I tend to agree with you here (despite the fact that I mostly shoot FF). The D300 is a fantastically capable camera, and there's every reason to expect the D400 or whatever follows to be even better. Besides, in a couple of years we'll see Nikon put high MP sensors like the 24mp D3X sensor in smaller bodies like the D700....so you could use your DX lenses on a camera like that and STILL be able to shoot 10mp images, which is pretty respectable. Also, in addition to the point you make about DX lenses being cheaper, they are also smaller and lighter - something which I've wished for when I've hiked up mountains in the dark before dawn with a D3, the 17-35f2.8 and my 80-400VR weighing down my backpack.
I kept some of my DX lenses, which I use now on my wedding back up camera (a D300) and fully expect to use in the future when FF camera MPs are up at 30+.

Ah. But yes, ViewNX is an awesome first stop in the processing line. I tend to use Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5 for the heavier stuff.

I've said this before, so apologies for repeating myself, but Lightroom 3 and CS5 will not give you the results that NX2 will give you on NEFs, and while it isn't as user friendly as LR, it's certainly a lot faster and easier to use than messing about with layers and masks in PS.

 

[DarkED]

Also, in addition to the point you make about DX lenses being cheaper, they are also smaller and lighter - something which I've wished for when I've hiked up mountains in the dark before dawn with a D3, the 17-35f2.8 and my 80-400VR weighing down my backpack.

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.

I've said this before, so apologies for repeating myself, but Lightroom 3 and CS5 will not give you the results that NX2 will give you on NEFs, and while it isn't as user friendly as LR, it's certainly a lot faster and easier to use than messing about with layers and masks in PS.

Sorry, I seemed to have missed that. I will certainly try CaptureNX2 on your reco. Thanks!