Quake3World

I thought it looked like i was opening the lid of a trunk ready to pull whoever was in there out and do them Joe Pesci style

Dave wrote:I thought it looked like i was opening the lid of a trunk ready to pull whoever was in them out and do them Joe Pesci style

hah you should get another guy and dress in fine cloth doing the scene standing next to each other one holding the lamp the other opening the "trunk"

dave, you ever get those pics?

nope, not yet. I'm sure the overseas thing + christmas probably just slowed everything up a little bit

true

If it's tube, they're probably scanning it to make sure you didn't stuff a bomb in there

i did. a sex bomb.

oh dear...

I'm bored off my ass at work because I'm the only one here with almost nothing to do... anyway, here's a photo I took and posted on Flickr that has become really popular.. I can't quite figure out why. I personally don't think it's anything marvelous. The only thing I did was get on a catwalk maybe 200 feet above the arena.



and the comments
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daev/305426951/

Doombrain wrote:dave, you ever get those pics?

Hey, it just came today. (nice touch with the )

There was a stamp on it that said postage due. No idea who paid it because I sure didnt

Nevertheless, the B&W quality out of that printer is impressive. What model did you use? What was the other photo of the girls you sent along?

i'd fuck her

She'd kick your ass

Do you get paid by the university to take the sports pics?

And how long have you done photography dave? Formal training or just learned it on your own?

They don't pay me.. I do it for fun. They offered to give me 25 bucks a game to shoot mens and womens basketball, but I think they only did that because they are trying to cut costs. The University photo service probably charges ten times what they offered me. I get more enjoyment doing it for free and getting reactions from parents and players. I think they thought I'd jump at the opportunity to get sideline access to games like any fan would, but I don't really care about the game.

I've only been doing it for a year. Up until last semester I was self taught. I took a class taught by this guy who is extremely good. I leared a lot about composition and thinking about what I was actually doing.

Dave wrote:They don't pay me.. I do it for fun. They offered to give me 25 bucks a game to shoot mens and womens basketball, but I think they only did that because they are trying to cut costs. The University photo service probably charges ten times what they offered me. I get more enjoyment doing it for free and getting reactions from parents and players. I think they thought I'd jump at the opportunity to get sideline access to games like any fan would, but I don't really care about the game.

I've only been doing it for a year. Up until last semester I was self taught. I took a class taught by this guy who is extremely good. I leared a lot about composition and thinking about what I was actually doing.

If someone wanted to get started in this could you give me a rough idea of what a 'starter's kid' would include - a good camera, lenses, etc? (specific brand names, models)

Dave wrote:

Doombrain wrote:dave, you ever get those pics?

Hey, it just came today. (nice touch with the )

There was a stamp on it that said postage due. No idea who paid it because I sure didnt

Nevertheless, the B&W quality out of that printer is impressive. What model did you use? What was the other photo of the girls you sent along?

i used the pro4800. oh, that was just some image from something we used last year, someones death

tnf wrote:

Dave wrote:They don't pay me.. I do it for fun. They offered to give me 25 bucks a game to shoot mens and womens basketball, but I think they only did that because they are trying to cut costs. The University photo service probably charges ten times what they offered me. I get more enjoyment doing it for free and getting reactions from parents and players. I think they thought I'd jump at the opportunity to get sideline access to games like any fan would, but I don't really care about the game.

I've only been doing it for a year. Up until last semester I was self taught. I took a class taught by this guy who is extremely good. I leared a lot about composition and thinking about what I was actually doing.

If someone wanted to get started in this could you give me a rough idea of what a 'starter's kid' would include - a good camera, lenses, etc? (specific brand names, models)

You can go with nikon and get a D50 or D80 (I wouldn't get the new D40 because it looks neutered) or go with Canon and an XTi or 30D. The XTi is kind of small but is a lot cheaper than the 30D. Then just get the kit that comes with a lens until you get tired of it... By then you'll know what you should have bought.

tnf, I suggest that you go with Canon. Like Dave said, the XTi is great to start with and you'll have a lot of fun with the kit lens. When you will want to get better quality pics, we'll help you choose the right lenses.

You can go with nikon and get a D50 or D80 (I wouldn't get the new D40 because it looks neutered) or go with Canon and an XTi or 30D. The XTi is kind of small but is a lot cheaper than the 30D. Then just get the kit that comes with a lens until you get tired of it... By then you'll know what you should have bought.

I wouldn't say that the Nikon D40's 'neutered'. It's a DSLR that's great for people coming from point-and-shoot cams. It comes with a better kitlens than Canon does. The fact that it doesn't autofocus with non-AF-S lenses isn't a concern for people that don't own a stack of older lenses.

P.S. not everybody needs an expensive body Though I'd love to have a D200 ;-)

tnf wrote: If someone wanted to get started in this could you give me a rough idea of what a 'starter's kid' would include - a good camera, lenses, etc? (specific brand names, models)

Toxicbag doesn't tell you why you should choose Canon, or maybe Nikon.

The digital SLR market is booming and there are more players on the market.

Nikon and Canon are the two largest companies with a long history. Reliable products and a great collection of lenses.
Other companies with DSLR models at this moment are:
Olympus, Pentax, Samsung, Fujifilm, Sony (they bought Konica Minolta), Panasonic, Leica.

There are basically 3 levels of DSLR bodies: entry level, enthusiast and pro.
Lots of models and prices. Entry level starts around 500$ with a kitlens, Enthusiast is around 800-1400 with or without lens. Professional bodies have professional prices and weight

The strongest contenders IMO are Canon and Nikon. You won't go wrong with Olympus, Pentax, Sony, etc but Canon and Nikon just have the best products.
Note: this is about DSLR and 35 mm cameras and not medium, large-format cameras.

The choice for Canon or Nikon comes down to the fact that they use different lens mounts. Incompatible with eachother. Often people will stick with that brand because they've built a collection of lenses. I've been thinking and reconsidering for months till I decided to go with Nikon. When you try to sum it you can say they're equally good. I just loved the handling and grip of Nikon more.

My recommendations for tnf or any other beginner would be:
Nikon D40 or D50 with 18-55mm kitlens
Canon Rebel XT or XTi with 18-55mm kitlens

Great cameras, good price/quality ratio. Try them out in the store, feel the grip, play with the controls, shoot a few photos. And don't believe the megapixel myth. 6 MP is enough.

saturn wrote:

You can go with nikon and get a D50 or D80 (I wouldn't get the new D40 because it looks neutered) or go with Canon and an XTi or 30D. The XTi is kind of small but is a lot cheaper than the 30D. Then just get the kit that comes with a lens until you get tired of it... By then you'll know what you should have bought.

I wouldn't say that the Nikon D40's 'neutered'. It's a DSLR that's great for people coming from point-and-shoot cams. It comes with a better kitlens than Canon does. The fact that it doesn't autofocus with non-AF-S lenses isn't a concern for people that don't own a stack of older lenses.

P.S. not everybody needs an expensive body Though I'd love to have a D200 ;-)

A D50 isn't expensive and isn't limited in the kinds of lenses it's capable of using like the D40. The D40 also seems to have some white balance issues, doesn't bracket, and comes with shit software (according to everyone I've ever known whose used it). That's why it's neutered.

The only reason I mention a 30D is size... I assume tnf isn't a tiny man, so a tiny camera like the XTi might not be the best choice.

If I were going to recommend an expensive one, I would mention a 5D or 1D

Personally I wouldn't touch another SLR brand because none of them can compete with Canon or Nikon's IQ and lens selection

Dave wrote:

saturn wrote:

You can go with nikon and get a D50 or D80 (I wouldn't get the new D40 because it looks neutered) or go with Canon and an XTi or 30D. The XTi is kind of small but is a lot cheaper than the 30D. Then just get the kit that comes with a lens until you get tired of it... By then you'll know what you should have bought.

I wouldn't say that the Nikon D40's 'neutered'. It's a DSLR that's great for people coming from point-and-shoot cams. It comes with a better kitlens than Canon does. The fact that it doesn't autofocus with non-AF-S lenses isn't a concern for people that don't own a stack of older lenses.

P.S. not everybody needs an expensive body Though I'd love to have a D200 ;-)

A D50 isn't expensive and isn't limited in the kinds of lenses it's capable of using like the D40. The D40 also seems to have some white balance issues, doesn't bracket, and comes with shit software (according to everyone I've ever known whose used it). That's why it's neutered.

The only reason I mention a 30D is size... I assume tnf isn't a tiny man, so a tiny camera like the XTi might not be the best choice.

If I were going to recommend an expensive one, I would mention a 5D or 1D

Personally I wouldn't touch another SLR brand because none of them can compete with Canon or Nikon's IQ and lens selection

Still, the D40 is perfect for people coming from PS cams. The reviews are pretty good so far. It's not for us, agreed. I don't use the Nikon software because it crashed so often on my Mac like a POS Windows program, hahaha.

You're spot on about XT(i) grip, I didn't like the feel at all and I have regular sized hands. Seems a regular complaint that Canon doesn't address.

Here's a funny comparison of Ken Rockwell where he compares a bunch of Nikons and Canons. He loves his Nikon D200, says the 5D has the best technical image quality, but uses the D40 the most because it weighs nothing and does great with auto-everything.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/d200-d8 ... 5d-xti.htm

Btw, the reason that I love Canon is that the interface is MUCH more intuitive than Nikon's and Canon is more popular than Nikon, so technically there are more ressources for Canon products than Nikon ones. Also, you can get white lenses. I know that its an option for Nikons, too, but those are grey, not really white. They're like wannabe white lenses.

What do you mean the interface is MUCH more intuitive? Can you give me any example because I fail to notice that since I use both Nikon and Canon setups on a regular basis.

If one wants to be excessively picky in the DSLR realm, from experience I'd say Nikon bodies have better ergonomics and control layout than Canon bodies, while Canon lenses have an edge on Nikon lenses on the mechanical side(plus they look better with the red ring). Another advantage Canon has is that their sensors are more refined with better noise handling ability, however this doesn't always translate to higher quality images since it's a subjective matter.

For some one starting out it boils down to how the camera feels in their hands more than having to worry about which company can provide more or better resources for their respective products. I've never had any problems getting technical help or service from all the different brand names I've come to use or own.

Hey, but you can get white lenses for Canon.