Some pictures I just took:

[Svnla]

The one on the right is hot. More info/pics on her, pronto OP. You know the drill, young grasshopper.

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by highland145

lol 2nd

That girl on the left has one hell of a long arm

it's actually the hand of the one in the middle--the fiancee. but yeah, looks odd.

I totally want the one on the right, too. Guess I have to wait for 2nds or thirds

[highland145]

Originally Posted by ch33zw1z

look closer, left girl has her arm around middle, middle girl has her arm around right...

Originally Posted by highland145

NO, YOU........caps

Originally Posted by zinfamous

it's actually the hand of the one in the middle--the fiancee. but yeah, looks odd.

I totally want the one on the right, too. Guess I have to wait for 2nds or thirds

What is wrong with you guys today. So serious.

[RagingBITCH]

Originally Posted by Zeze

My old ass XTi which is about 5 generations old, and it's an entry level camera at that.

Definitely tripod required.

I was about to ask...those night shots - unless you have something with a high ISO...not going to get decent shots like that. Impressive with the XTi...I've owned that and a XSi. Love my Canons!

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by Baked

Girl on right looks like a hooker.

I would do her.

[Zeze]

Originally Posted by RagingBITCH

I was about to ask...those night shots - unless you have something with a high ISO...not going to get decent shots like that. Impressive with the XTi...I've owned that and a XSi. Love my Canons!

It's all about lenses, not so much the body.

[destrekor]

Originally Posted by Zeze

It's all about lenses, not so much the body.

That used to be true with Film - the only major differences were in the "automatic" features, be they autofocus and/or metering abilities/approaches, or in what auto-type modes, like the various "scene modes" were available, and how they computed aperture and/or exposure time.

If you did everything manually, any SLR body would do the trick - it all came down to lens choices, possibly lens manufacturer choice and ultimately lens mount of choice (top-end Nikon "Nikkor" lenses used to be godly - they might have challengers to that reign now, haven't paid any attention).

To get really into image control, film, both for specific purposes and art purposes, was a huge factor into the image. You sought out certain brands and sub-brands of film, chose film speed/ISO carefully, and could even step-up or step-down the film speed manually (called pushing/pulling), which could produce quite a trick/feat for the resulting imagery.

Now, all that remains true with Digital bodies, but you get a new complication: sensors.
Every sensor is different. Some are better with certain ISO settings compared to others, some are better than others with color reproduction accuracy in certain lighting conditions (or on all occasions). It's actually quite a bit like film shopping and, and even like finding the optimal ISO speed of any given film (not all 400 ISO film is actually best used at 400 - that's rather advanced photography considerations, however).
Except, sadly, it's also like buying a permanent contract to one brand, one specific type of film (albeit with somewhat of an open ISO range). When you buy a digital body, you are locked in to the nuances of that sensor, for better or worse.

I'm still waiting for an attractively priced Full-Frame (FX) Nikon body (I have F-mount lenses and I don't want to deal with the screwy results of lenses designed for the full 35mm exposure area on a cropped "DX" sensor size). Hopefully, when such a body drops on the market, it'll receive positive reviews for the sensor. (dpreview.com generally has some terrific in-depth sensor reviews, or at least used to - I rarely follow the market since the digital SLR body of my dreams is likely still a few years away).

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by destrekor

That used to be true with Film - the only major differences were in the "automatic" features, be they autofocus and/or metering abilities/approaches, or in what auto-type modes, like the various "scene modes" were available, and how they computed aperture and/or exposure time.

If you did everything manually, any SLR body would do the trick - it all came down to lens choices, possibly lens manufacturer choice and ultimately lens mount of choice (top-end Nikon "Nikkor" lenses used to be godly - they might have challengers to that reign now, haven't paid any attention).

To get really into image control, film, both for specific purposes and art purposes, was a huge factor into the image. You sought out certain brands and sub-brands of film, chose film speed/ISO carefully, and could even step-up or step-down the film speed manually (called pushing/pulling), which could produce quite a trick/feat for the resulting imagery.

Now, all that remains true with Digital bodies, but you get a new complication: sensors.
Every sensor is different. Some are better with certain ISO settings compared to others, some are better than others with color reproduction accuracy in certain lighting conditions (or on all occasions). It's actually quite a bit like film shopping and, and even like finding the optimal ISO speed of any given film (not all 400 ISO film is actually best used at 400 - that's rather advanced photography considerations, however).
Except, sadly, it's also like buying a permanent contract to one brand, one specific type of film (albeit with somewhat of an open ISO range). When you buy a digital body, you are locked in to the nuances of that sensor, for better or worse.

I'm still waiting for an attractively priced Full-Frame (FX) Nikon body (I have F-mount lenses and I don't want to deal with the screwy results of lenses designed for the full 35mm exposure area on a cropped "DX" sensor size). Hopefully, when such a body drops on the market, it'll receive positive reviews for the sensor. (dpreview.com generally has some terrific in-depth sensor reviews, or at least used to - I rarely follow the market since the digital SLR body of my dreams is likely still a few years away).

With digital comes the ability to manipulate color balance and reduce noise and a whole lot more. If you have a great lens then you have the means to get good results. If your lens sucks then you aren't going to be able to photoshop yourself out of it. I have a Canon 20D. Old model granted, but when I hook up the 200mm F/1.8 you're going to have a tough time beating it.

[Zeze]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

With digital comes the ability to manipulate color balance and reduce noise and a whole lot more. If you have a great lens then you have the means to get good results. If your lens sucks then you aren't going to be able to photoshop yourself out of it. I have a Canon 20D. Old model granted, but when I hook up the 200mm F/1.8 you're going to have a tough time beating it.

Pretty much.

You can compensate a lot for a bad body. But you can't with bad lenses.

[destrekor]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

With digital comes the ability to manipulate color balance and reduce noise and a whole lot more. If you have a great lens then you have the means to get good results. If your lens sucks then you aren't going to be able to photoshop yourself out of it. I have a Canon 20D. Old model granted, but when I hook up the 200mm F/1.8 you're going to have a tough time beating it.

Originally Posted by Zeze

Pretty much.

You can compensate a lot for a bad body. But you can't with bad lenses.

I never would have ever stated otherwise in regard to lenses. They will always be the most important decision for image quality.

But some things you just cannot edit out of the raw image data. You can do some trickery and hide some of it, but why would you want to commit to a whole ton of digital editing, for every single image (granted, you can create an automatic batch filter, if so desired), when the image of a certain censor, stock, may wield the image quality you actually desire?

There's always a certain character to each sensor, in some instances you can leverage that for a certain art direction.

It's just depressing that film grain/"noise" is entirely absent.
Yes, I realize the noise is very much there in digital work, some aspects of it being entirely artificial, some aspects of it being entirely the produced result of forcing super high sensitivity on the sensor (high ISO).
Some sensors handle ISO's like 1600-3200 much better, whereas others produce such a deplorable image you honestly could never edit it, after the face, to match a superior sensor.

But for my film grain comment - sometimes, the grain was a necessary part of the art direction, especially for B&W darkroom prints. Pushing a quality-grained 800ISO film to 1600, 3200 (or between) could create a beautiful grain. There was some magic to work using film, and digital will just never produce the same results.

That said, I definitely want a digital 35mm SLR (none of this cropped sensor shit).
But, if I seriously pick up photography again, and end up having the money to do so, I think I'll definitely have to pick up a film medium format body and some good lenses. Digital for that could be neat too, but holy hell digital backs for medium format, at least at this time, are insanely expensive.
I'd definitely want a hobby darkroom too.

[disappoint]

Originally Posted by RagingBITCH

I was about to ask...those night shots - unless you have something with a high ISO...not going to get decent shots like that. Impressive with the XTi...I've owned that and a XSi. Love my Canons!

You can take night shots like that without high ISO. Use a tripod and slow shutter speed like the OP. Smooth looking water is one of the benefits of that. Some do that in the daytime to smooth effect waterfalls. They up the f-stop to like F16 or 22 or whatever to lower the light getting in, then slow the shutter down and use a tripod.

[destrekor]

Originally Posted by Zeze

Pretty much.

You can compensate a lot for a bad body. But you can't with bad lenses.

Originally Posted by disappoint

You can take night shots like that without high ISO. Use a tripod and slow shutter speed like the OP. Smooth looking water is one of the benefits of that. Some do that in the daytime to smooth effect waterfalls. They up the f-stop to like F16 or 22 or whatever to lower the light getting in, then slow the shutter down and use a tripod.

Whatever the method, there really isn't a good route to taking amazing looking night shots of a highly-lit city under an overcast sky. You really need a clear low-humidity sky for the most impressive nighttime cityscapes.
The only other approach for overcast, is going with B&W. Narrow aperture, long shutter, B&W shots of an overcast city can look wonderful. The sky will end up being fairly bright, but with any luck, individual cloud patches may pop out and the city will have impressive detail.