• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are there any photographers in this forum?

A

Arkitech

Diamond Member
I've just recently got into photography as a hobby. So far it's been a lot of fun, I'm using the Canon Rebel 2000 and I'm experimenting with a variety of different films and settings. So far I've been shooting a lot of outside shots but I think I'm going to begin concentrate on inside images.
 
I'm strictly amateur, but I have some really nice gear, and I take lots of pics when I am out and about.

I have a Nikon N60(so-so)
Nikkor 28-105 (great)
Nikkor 80-200 2.8 (totally awesome, my favorite lens ever)
Sigma 170-500

I just got back from Yellowstone last weekend, and took 4 rolls.
It was the first time I shot with the Sigma, and I decided it's a keeper.
Won't use it a lot, but it's good for when the need comes up.


I'm still struggling with flash photography, though.
I acquired a nice monostrobe(?) unit for studio type stuff, and I have had some pretty fair luck getting my pics to turn out good.


Fun hobby!
 
Do you have any of your pictures online? I like to compare my work with people more experienced than myself, that way maybe I can learn a few things.
 
Wow, SirFshAlot, I was thinking of getting alot of those same pieces.

I have a Nikon N8008s (fairly old but very nice) with a Nikkor 35-70 f2.8 lens. Eventually I want to get a digital SLR camera, but right now they are quite pricey.

I was thinking of getting the 80-200 f2.8, but saw that there are two different versions, one being $500 more than the other. Which one did you go for, and what exactly is the difference? Here are the sites to the two lenses: One and two. The Sigma is what I was thinking of for longer ranges as well. How does it compare in quality to the Nikkor lenses?

Additionally, I was looking at this for some interesting shots. It would see fairly little use, but would make for some creative pictures.
 
I just got a Casio QV8000SX digital camera. I plan to play arond with it. It is in the $500 retail range, so it isn't the best camera out there, but it does have 8x optical zoom and 4X digital zoom which is a great feature. I'll have pictures up on my webpage when I have some decent ones...

 


<< I just bought an olympus 460 Zoom to take pics of us drunk, does that count? >>



I just bought the same cam, takes awesome pics, I love it!
 
I wouldn't call myself a professional, but I do enjoy taking pictures.

I've got a Digital Camera PDC640. Recently been taking pictures of nature with it.

Might also someday take pictures of women (as long as they don't kill me if I take pictures of them hehehe)
 
Maryt,

I was thinking of getting the 80-200 f2.8, but saw that there are two different versions, one being $500 more than the other. Which one did you go for, and what exactly is the difference? Here are the sites to the two lenses: One and two. The Sigma is what I was thinking of for longer ranges as well. How does it compare in quality to the Nikkor lenses?


I got this one, here

the more expensive one has a quieter motor

The Sigma doesn't thrill me like the Nikkors, but it has it's role. I only paid 500 for it, and if you are interested, PM me and I'll get you a link for where.
The lens doesn't focus and zoom anywhere near as smoothly as the Nikkors.
In fact, the zoom motion is rather stiff.
But I'm not able to spend a few K for a Nikkor equivalent, especially since I don't need that focal length that much.
 
Of course there are photographers lurking in this forum. I don't do it as a profession though.
I have the following equipment:
Nikon F5
Nikon N90s
Nikon AFS 28-70mm f2.8
Nikon AFS 80-200mm f2.8
Nikon 24mm AFD
Nikon sb28
achiever 760 flash
 


<< My dad is about to get a Sony CyberShot DSC-S75 digicam. Is that a good choice? >>



Sony makes great digicams
 
if he's happy with it, yeah 🙂

i love photography, but can't ever find anything really interestin to take pictures of. I pretty much would like to go w/ a Canon pro90is, cause i like digital. Film has it benefits as well, much wider range in lenses and low light is usually better.... but i prolly couldn't keep up w/ the film costs 🙁
 
I am also in your boat. I have been shooting photos for about a year now. I think it is such a great hobby and I would love to do if as a job/profession some day. I do have some stuff on-line ...
Philly Photo Boy

It's a lot of my old stuff from when I first started...
I will update soon...

let me know what you think!

-Yos

Equipment:
Nikon N70
Sigma 28-105
Minolta xg-1
Vivitar Manual focus 135mm-200mm, 200mm, and 28mm
 
okay i can post!

I passed the test. 😀

Anyhow, I've got a N80 with 28-105 nikkor lens. Absolutely love the thing. I'll post some pics once i get them back from the shop. 🙁
-M.T.O
 
I was into photography for a few years, but just sold my Nikon SLR outfit. I found it's just too hard to get output you really, really like. I started off with prints, but hated the fact that the lab (or its machine) would make color/contrast/etc decisions on its own and the actual prints did not equate to my original artistic vision. Despite using a heavy tripod and good lenses, my images rarely had that &quot;snap&quot; I wanted - I blamed the film processors.

Reading the advice of others on some online forums, I decided to switched to slides. It's a big payoff to use something like Velvia and seeing all that contrast and color saturation and 3D quality. Since a slide is merely a conversion of the original film stock, slides don't lie and don't alter your vision. The problem is that a slide is pretty useless - I want prints. So I got some prints from slides and while they looked pretty good, they still weren't good enough. And then people told me &quot;to get GOOD prints from slides, go here.&quot; Then I started to realized it could cost $100 just to make a nice print from a slide and I threw in the towel. Photography is just too expensive for my tastes. Especially when you are ALSO interested in PCs and stereo equipment and bikes and cars.......

Go here to photo.net for an excellent online resource on photography.
 
I posted some of my pics yesterday here give them a look if you want. I am going through and scanning some old photos of mine. I'll probably be posting more. Wish I had a slide scanner. I have hundreds of old slides taken everywhere from 150' deep off Gantanamo Bay to St Peters in Rome. I have some info about my current equipment on the linked thread.
 
I absolutely love my camera equipment, and my mom is a photo refinisher for ohio state university so i get free film and development and enlargements!

My equipment includes:
Canon Rebel 2000 Body
Canon Battery Pack
Canon Remote Shutter Release
Canon 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 Ultrasonic Lens
Slik U-9000 Tripod
Array of Tiffen filters

I mostly do landscapes with my Tripod and Polarizer with lens closed all the way down.
 
You know for some reason I hgave picked up all the most expensive hobbies in my life: Computers, Cars, Cameras, and Girls! Go figure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top