• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

I got to thinking after reading rcad1's post on zoom lenses being poor on point-and-shoot cameras. It would be interesting to see how the quality of a $300 P&S camera @ 140mm (or whatever they top out at) and an entry-level DSLR with a cheapo kit lens (ie. 55-200mm). I am guessing the difference would be drastic, both due to the DSLR sensor and the glass.
 
VeloceMoto said:
I got to thinking after reading rcad1's post on zoom lenses being poor on point-and-shoot cameras. It would be interesting to see how the quality of a $300 P&S camera @ 140mm (or whatever they top out at) and an entry-level DSLR with a cheapo kit lens (ie. 55-200mm). I am guessing the difference would be drastic, both due to the DSLR sensor and the glass.
Click to expand...

id still go for that entry level dslr...:nerd:nerd
 
but i want a g11 on my camera bag. hehe easy handy lil camera...

I can't wait to shoot the warriors game tonight!..wohooo...
 
I had my first full shoot with the 5DMKII today. The full frame sensor took a bit to get used to. I never would have thought that my 70-200 would turn into my 'go to' lens for studio shoots. :thumbup
 
wannabe said:
I had my first full shoot with the 5DMKII today. The full frame sensor took a bit to get used to. I never would have thought that my 70-200 would turn into my 'go to' lens for studio shoots. :thumbup
Click to expand...

lovely combo...have you tried it with a 85 1.8? or 1.2?
 
zypher said:
lovely combo...have you tried it with a 85 1.8? or 1.2?
Click to expand...


Nope. Not yet.

Here's a quick sampling from today's shoot:

22763_224261567482_605697482_3637648_3146558_n.jpg


22763_224261557482_605697482_3637646_900785_n.jpg


22763_224261562482_605697482_3637647_4676905_n.jpg
 
nice composition, Aris. but i would shoot a lil loose so when you print 8x10 you won't have any problems. Great model and lighting is perfect!..good job!..

my NBA shoot today was fun and tiring
 
Open ended question about camera bodies... what do you consider to be the acceptable minimum for shooting events or weddings (for profit)?
 
zypher said:
nice composition, Aris. but i would shoot a lil loose so when you print 8x10 you won't have any problems. Great model and lighting is perfect!..good job!..

my NBA shoot today was fun and tiring
Click to expand...




Thanks, but I actually think that the lighting is a bit flat. I defaulted to this lighting setup because I knew it would help the makeup really pop. (I worked with a new makeup artist, and I wanted to feature her work for her website.) But, I'm still trying to work on adding more depth and separation with the lighting. I didn't have time to experiment today.

I'm planning to play with the lighting more in the next shoot.
 
cycle61 said:
This. I'd get a cheaper body and a better lens, rather than a D90 and 18-55 / 55-200. But yeah, the D3000 is probably going to be a disappointment in terms of image quality, ISO, etc. Better than a point & shoot, but not by very much.
Click to expand...

So what would you consider to be a "cheaper body" that costs less than a D90 but is better than a D3000? I just picked up a Canon SX20 IS and I love it because it's small and I'll take it with me everywhere, but I also got bit by the DSLR bug and will probably buy one even though I know it won't be nearly as convenient to take on all my outdoors adventures.

Nikon D40 sounds interesting but Consumer Reports has it at the bottom of their list. D90 is at the top but I don't want to burn that much money for a toy I won't use nearly as often as my Canon SX20... Then the Canon 40D also looks good but now I'm back in the $1k range.

Decisions, decisions... :teeth
 
just a bump of exposure and it pops out...
 

Attachments

  • 22763_224261557482_605697482_3637646_900785_n.jpg
    22763_224261557482_605697482_3637646_900785_n.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 77
  • 22763_224261562482_605697482_3637647_4676905_n.jpg
    22763_224261562482_605697482_3637647_4676905_n.jpg
    154.5 KB · Views: 70
got some honeycomb grids for my lights. did a quick test in my room to see how they looked. Light is about 3-4 feet away from subject, as am i. using the plain silver reflector. Camera settings and light power stayed constant.

no grid
4220837512_07af997260.jpg


40° grid
4220837950_ce413acf6c.jpg


30° grid
4220074319_1e7cba96ef.jpg


20° grid
4220074653_2baa19c5aa.jpg


10° grid
4220074865_e833f0b342.jpg
 
zypher said:
just a bump of exposure and it pops out...
Click to expand...


Thanks, but that wasn't what I was talking about. It still looks flat to me. I have to do it with the lighting not with the post production. I know the exact look that I want. The hard part is trying to figure out the lighting setup to get it.
 
wannabe said:
Thanks, but that wasn't what I was talking about. It still looks flat to me. I have to do it with the lighting not with the post production. I know the exact look that I want. The hard part is trying to figure out the lighting setup to get it.
Click to expand...

with a high key photo and a stong fill light, it will look flat cause there's no shadows that shows in the face. white background with a portrait lighting should do you well...main light on the side and one fill light right above you to get nice soft shadow...
 
zypher said:
with a high key photo and a stong fill light, it will look flat cause there's no shadows that shows in the face. white background with a portrait lighting should do you well...main light on the side and one fill light right above you to get nice soft shadow...
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'll try that next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top