Some shots with my new toys

[Jaimecbr900]

These are far from perfect, but keep in mind that I got the lenses literally minutes before these were taken.

I have a 350D Canon that I recently bought. I got a 70-300 and 28-80 to go with the stocker 18-55. I also added the battery grip which I have to admit besides giving me more power it also makes the camera much more stable and badder looking.

I got the lenses this afternoon, so I figured I'd give them a quick run. Again, don't beat me up too bad because I know that I need to work with the camera for a while longer to get better results. I went outside and was gonna take some zoom-in zoom-out pics to see the difference when these two butterflies started doing their thing right in front of me, so I figured what the heck.

Any suggestions to make the shots better are welcomed.

[Repost Squintz]

damn nice pix

[A.P. Photography]

Nice setup man. Pics look good but I am in no position to give judgements cause I am just starting to learn. By the way, what did that set up run you? I am guessing with those lenes and camera body around $3k?

[Bishop]

Holy balls!! thats looks good!

[Jaimecbr900]

Nice setup man. Pics look good but I am in no position to give judgements cause I am just starting to learn. By the way, what did that set up run you? I am guessing with those lenes and camera body around $3k?

Thanks bud. I love photography and have had a bunch of different cams from time to time. I used to be a big Olympus fan from back in the 35mm days. I still have a pretty tricked out Maxxum series 35mm with a bunch of lenses for it in the closet. When I moved on to digital, obviusly I was Olympus biased. I had a few all the way up to the last one I had which was the C8080. I loved that camera, except it had no lenses obviously as it was the step below SLR's. I went with the 350d simply because of the price initially. A buddy of mine has a 20D so I thought about that one too (it's the step up from the 350D). I figured I'd play with the 350D and save the $500 difference for now, and then later step up if needed.

The stock 18-55 lens is honestly not all that great. It's plastic and the optics are OK, but nothing great. I never leave anything stock, so I went ahead and ordered the other two lenses to kinda fill in as wide a spectrum as possible. I still need a fixed 50 mm lens with a really low f1.8 for some good quality still shots, but I'll find one later. Those aint too expensive to get, so I'm in no hurry for it. I definetly needed the longer lens, especially to shoot some action shots like at my son's baseball games or my daughter's cheerleading stuff. I kept having to walk up to them really close to get some of the shots that I wanted and I looked really gay doing that.

Anyway, long ass story to finally get to your answer.....NO, I don't have anywhere near $3k in my setup yet. It's more closer to $2k because the lenses weren't terribly expensive.

[A.P. Photography]

Thats not too bad. The 350D from what I have seen is a nice camera. I am trying to get me a Nikon 8700 right now. It is basically one step below the DSLR's and has a long list of settings to play with so it should get me up to par to step up to the DSLR's in the future

[Jaimecbr900]

Thats not too bad. The 350D from what I have seen is a nice camera. I am trying to get me a Nikon 8700 right now. It is basically one step below the DSLR's and has a long list of settings to play with so it should get me up to par to step up to the DSLR's in the future

That's too funny. The one I was mentioning before, the Olympus C8080, is almost identical to that 8700 you want. I loved my 8080. It did everything really well, the only exception was the lack of accessories like I mentioned. But pic quality on my 8080 was outstanding. It was really easy to operate and work. It also accepted 2 different kinds of cards at the same time, which was cool. I had 2 512mb cards and you can toggle between them at the touch of a button.

I scanned over some of the specs of the 8700, and it sounded almost identical to my 8080. If so, you're gonna love that camera.

[aaronfelipe]

I wonder what the butterflies were thinking...

[A.P. Photography]

I scanned over some of the specs of the 8700, and it sounded almost identical to my 8080. If so, you're gonna love that camera.

I hope so, I am trying to pick it up for around $425 or so. Once I get it we will have to go out shooting sometime.

[Jaimecbr900]

Ready when you are.

[4dmin]

nic jamie, did you get a macro lens? i haven't got around to taking nature shots w/ my cam yet

[A.P. Photography]

Ready when you are.

Cool, I will let you know once I get it.

[A.P. Photography]

nic jamie, did you get a macro lens? i haven't got around to taking nature shots w/ my cam yet

Which one did you get Paul?

[Danny]

Not a bad setup at all. What lenses did u get? Them seem a hair soft, were they shot with the factory lense, becuase those 18-55 stockers suck. cool. i am up for a photography trip here soon. we should plan one.

[Danny]

heres a decent one from the cincinatti zoo. i didnt have my 300 2.8 with me to get good animal shots.

[Danny]

another random, not that great. but is slightly interesting to me at least. sry, i will stop whoring this thread now....

[Danny]

ok since i am on a random pic spure.....
this is some tests for my new tripod i did not so long ago.
1st picture is at 18mm focal length, gives u an idea of just how far away the capital is. 2nd pic, is 300mm focal length and is the complete frame. the 3rd pic is the same as the 2nd pic, just a 100 percent crop. not shabby for a heavy ass lense, and like a 11sec exposure. figured somone might find it interesting.

[civic99shaved]

pics look good man, but i agree, they do look a little soft. not sure if those were the stock lense or not, but ditch that, for your own good. i shot the 20d now, with the 17-40 2.8 L lense instead and i highly recommend it. it costs some money, but your pics will be light years sharper. I wanted the 16-35, but that was just a little too much money for me. great job at keeping the eyes sharp, my only pet-peeve is when there is foreground out of focus, recommend against that, but all and all, they look really good

[civic99shaved]

ok since i am on a random pic spure.....
this is some tests for my new tripod i did not so long ago.
1st picture is at 18mm focal length, gives u an idea of just how far away the capital is. 2nd pic, is 300mm focal length and is the complete frame. the 3rd pic is the same as the 2nd pic, just a 100 percent crop. not shabby for a heavy ass lense, and like a 11sec exposure. figured somone might find it interesting.

what lense did you use, those look really good, not soft at all, i'm impressed, you barely notice the lense flare in the wide angle

[Danny]

the wide angles were on a 18-70 3.5 4.5 Nikkor, and the zoom shots were on a Sigma 120-300 2.8 fixed. My setup:

Nikon D70
Nikkor 18-70 3.4-4.5
Sigma Pro 120-300 2.8 fixed
SB-800 with 15min charger and 12 batteries
28-200 Backup lense/ lightweigth
Lowepro AWII backpack
Manfrotto mono-pod
Carbon Fiber Tripod
3 1gb 80x Lexar Pro Cards
105mm Polilizer for 120-300 (dam things is 150 bucks, lol)
And some other various crap here and there.
Sony Vaio, 4.1 lbs, fits nicly in pack.

[Jaimecbr900]

pics look good man, but i agree, they do look a little soft. not sure if those were the stock lense or not, but ditch that, for your own good. i shot the 20d now, with the 17-40 2.8 L lense instead and i highly recommend it. it costs some money, but your pics will be light years sharper. I wanted the 16-35, but that was just a little too much money for me. great job at keeping the eyes sharp, my only pet-peeve is when there is foreground out of focus, recommend against that, but all and all, they look really good

How do I sharpen them up?

They're not the stock lenses. One is a Tamron and the othe is a Sigma. One's a DG and the other is an EF or EG (can't remember). Like I said, they're not the fastest lenses in the world, one is 3.5 and the other is 4, but I liked their construction and number of elements each had, plus the price was more than right. The stocker 18-55 does suck. It will do for a couple of shots, but it's really only good because of the wide angle part. I may never use it again now though.

I want a fixed 50 that goes to 1.8 for portrait type shots. I may go with something like that 17-40 you have which may be a little more flexible and I may be able to get away with only one lens instead of two.

You're right. Like I said, I find something wrong in every single pic. I was having a hard time because my viewfinder is so small, that it was getting difficult for me to predict where the butterflies would land just using the viewfinder. That's why I was saying that I was rushing a lot of the shots and some of them I'm sure I didn't have to. I just kept thinking that if I didn't take it quick, they'd move on me again. I probably should of also shot them with a longer f stop too, to give them a little more depth. I personally like shallow pics when you are shooting a single subject, but you're right the flowers could of benefited from a longer stop.

[Jaimecbr900]

That reminds me:

Does anybody know where I can go buy a backpack type of cam bag LOCALLY???? I need one today and just wanna drive in there and pick it up.

I had a friend that said he'd sell me one, but he never came thru so I need to move and do it myself.

[Cliff]

geeze jamie those are insane...awesome pictures

[Jaimecbr900]

geeze jamie those are insane...awesome pictures

Thanks Cliff.

[A.P. Photography]

man I am going to feel out of place on this photo outing. I have no idea what you all are talking about with F stop and all this. I hope you all don't mind me asking a lot of questions while we are out shooting.

[Danny]

^^ cool with me.
Jamie, u shot those butterflys wide ope huh? F4-F5.6 probably? F8-F10 might be a little better, but u might not have enough light and then u will get camera shake badly. U can sharpen them in photoshop. The might be soft just cause its a cannon, dam auto noise reduction that cannons have that u cant turn off. In the menu on the camera, should have sharpness adjustments, put it one above normal maybe. Also, if its only 300-500 dollar lense, chances are it wont be as sharp.

50 1.8, is only 105 bucks. dime a dozen. i love them, i will order one soon.

[Danny]

GA Teg, what do u shoot on?

[A.P. Photography]

I am getting a Nikon 8700. I know it is not a DSLR but from what I have read it has quite a few options but I have no idea about shooting conditions or anything. That is where I will need all the help I can get.

[Danny]

thats cool. whats the price out the door on those?

[Jordan_W]

My cell phone takes better pics than that....2G's omfg wtf...

[Danny]

^^really now...???

[A.P. Photography]

thats cool. whats the price out the door on those?

I am bidding on a couple right now that are factory demos with a 1 yr warranty and they are going between $400 and $475

[Danny]

yea, thats a big diffrence from DSLR. but ull have lots of fun on it and thats what counts!!!! we all need to go somwhere, anyone go some sugestions. Jordan W can bring his camera phone, ha jk!

[A.P. Photography]

Well this is a stepping stone for me so I can get comfortable and learn how to take better pics and basically build up to a DSLR.

I will let you and Jaimie know when I get it so we can set something up. Jordans camera phone might out do us all