Quake3World

Las Vegas valley from the desert.

duffman91 wrote:[img]

Las Vegas valley from the desert.

Nice duffman91

Camera/lens/settings?

duffman91 wrote:[img]

Las Vegas valley from the desert.

I find that picture massively calming...

here is a pic i took its nothing special in composition or subject content

i am just happy with the way a p&s resolved the foliage and the contrast

[quote="plained"]here is a pic i took its nothing special in composition or subject content

i am just happy with the way a p&s resolved the foliage and the contrast

Whiskey 7 wrote:

duffman91 wrote:[img]

Las Vegas valley from the desert.

Nice duffman91

Camera/lens/settings?

Canon 50D/28-135@28mm/ISO 400 f/5 1/8000 - Which actually came out too bright as I forgot to set my ISO setting when I took it. I had to lower the brightness and tweak the blacks in post. Would have came out fine with ISO 200 I reckon.

andyman wrote: [img]

Your boat andyman? Just passing by?

duffman91 Yes ISO;as important as all other settings I am reading about

not my boat, the pictures are actually for a 'for sale' ad that will be up soon (someone else is selling the boat). i like that picture a lot, but i almost fell in the water trying to get that one

Just wondering if sys0p's responsible for this one:



Wondering whether to buy China Miéville's "Railsea", I stumbled across that author's portrait and it reminded me of sys0p's style.

Just had some really great news..

About a year ago my business really took off, so I needed to get myself a studio space. Spaces in London were silly money, but I managed to find a 650sq ft space just outside London on a direct line from Waterloo. It was a new development, so I got a massive discount for moving in early, and had to put up with no heating, running water, internet, or toilet--Just electricity. A bit shit for clients, but I dropped my rates to reflect the conditions, and for larger or higher profile jobs I just hired studios in central London. It got a bit shit recently, because it was clear development had pretty much halted for whatever reason, and I was the only one on the plot that was essentially a 86 acres of farm land.

Well, I just got confirmation on a new space. It's 600sq ft, in central London, with wooden floors, a fully equipped kitchen, male and female toilets (la di da), wi fi, telephone, fully alarmed, swipe card access, with a freight elevator directly outside the studio door. It's also got free parking and a shitload of natural light (other studio didn't even have windows). As an added bonus, it comes with a 5 foot tall safe that weighs about 500kg which I can keep all of my gear in. Seriously, who has a 500kg safe in their studio? ONLY ME.

Doesn't get much better than this for a photographer.

Hey Mat, not mine mate, but nice light.

Great news on the studio mate
Whereabouts in Central London?
Soho?

The style in that shot reminded me of your work, but in hindsight, comparing and contrasting with some of the stuff on your site it's not as accomplished.
I particularly like the one of the bald dude with glasses against a blue background.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012 ... 12/100339/

Mat Linnett wrote:Wondering whether to buy China Miéville's "Railsea", I stumbled across that author's portrait and it reminded me of sys0p's style.

i've had the Embassytown e-book on my Amazon wish list for ages. kind of been putting off reading it because he reminds me a little bit too much of iain m banks, in his interest in the weird, the prose style (a little) and the sheer (and possibly unnecessary) length of his novels

i hate over-writing. the only excuse for writing 1,000 pages is epicness in the narrative dept, and even then shit should be kept tight

New studio:

Over the fucking moon about this.

ffs, you could put a little more effort on that picture...isn't that what you do for a living?

good luck btw.

Camera dudes, I'm looking to buy a DSLR and could use a few recommendations. Currently for personal use, I like using cameras and I take good photos with an interest in learning to improve my shots. I've used my cousin's Canon T2i and my brother's Minolta Maxxam 7D and enjoyed using them both.

I'm considering a Canon T4i (650D) since they've been recently updated and from what I read almost overlaps the 60D in capabilities. It's a little light and smallish compared to the 60D when I checked it out in the shop but still quite comfortable to handle. I don't know much about the Nikon line, but from what I've glanced at, I think the closest comparison is the D3200, also newly released. I'm wondering about anyone's personal thoughts between the two. I don't really have a preference for either, I just haven't used a Nikon myself but holding one at the store seems just as comfortable to me as the Canon.

I am completely ignorant about lenses, but I understand that I should invest in a decent lense (not the kit lense) since they will generally outlive my use of the camera as I progress to a more pro body in the future. I guess I'm looking for a good average use lense to start off with that I can still use acceptably well if I upgrade cameras in the future. I don't know what brand/model/focal length range, etc. to look for. I read 24-70mm or 28-135mm is acceptable for normal use.

I don't really have a set budget, though if I can get away with $1000-1500 Canadian/U.S. that would be perfect. Info/recommendations appreciated, thanks.

0psys wrote:

So jelly. What an incredible space, especially for the location.

obsidian wrote:Camera dudes, I'm looking to buy a DSLR and could use a few recommendations. Currently for personal use, I like using cameras and I take good photos with an interest in learning to improve my shots. I've used my cousin's Canon T2i and my brother's Minolta Maxxam 7D and enjoyed using them both.

I'm considering a Canon T4i (650D) since they've been recently updated and from what I read almost overlaps the 60D in capabilities. It's a little light and smallish compared to the 60D when I checked it out in the shop but still quite comfortable to handle. I don't know much about the Nikon line, but from what I've glanced at, I think the closest comparison is the D3200, also newly released. I'm wondering about anyone's personal thoughts between the two. I don't really have a preference for either, I just haven't used a Nikon myself but holding one at the store seems just as comfortable to me as the Canon.

I am completely ignorant about lenses, but I understand that I should invest in a decent lense (not the kit lense) since they will generally outlive my use of the camera as I progress to a more pro body in the future. I guess I'm looking for a good average use lense to start off with that I can still use acceptably well if I upgrade cameras in the future. I don't know what brand/model/focal length range, etc. to look for. I read 24-70mm or 28-135mm is acceptable for normal use.

I don't really have a set budget, though if I can get away with $1000-1500 Canadian/U.S. that would be perfect. Info/recommendations appreciated, thanks.

Huh. When unsure whether to go Nikon or Canon, I used to tell people to pick a camera body that felt best in their hands and a button configuration that made sense to them.

For most general senses, especially in the world of digital (not including backs and medium format), your camera is as good as the lens you have.

Get a camera with the most megapixels and a good lens will deliver and make the most of them.

My recommendation is as follows:

Canon 60D.

Because:

Environmental (weather) sealing.

The 60D will most likely outlast a Txi series camera.

Unless you have to have a touchscreen...

Regardless of what you get, get a good lens - like a Schneider with an adaptor. A standard 50 2.8 Kreuznach will go a long way. Ideal centre sharpness between F8 and F11 (as for most lenses) but also perfect for portraits at F4. You can get good deals on eBay.

The 28 - 135 is great for video though. Very versatile.

Personally, I like having a wide-angle zoom (I have the Canon 10-22 usm) for most of the time and fixed lenses for the interim or specific shots that I have in mind.

Remember the 1.6x sensor crop factor when selecting focal lengths.

Additional Thoughts:

I was never too impressed with the 24-70 unless you're thinking of getting an L series lens. But even then, my impressions of Canon lenses are that the images they produce are "softer" compared to many Nikon or other equivalents. I tend to use many adaptors for various lenses of varying focal lengths from a variety of makers. : )

Good luck!

lol

good points as always. I'd go with doombrain's suggestion.

TruthfulLiar wrote:
Huh. When unsure whether to go Nikon or Canon, I used to tell people to pick a camera body that felt best in their hands and a button configuration that made sense to them.

For most general senses, especially in the world of digital (not including backs and medium format), your camera is as good as the lens you have.

Get a camera with the most megapixels and a good lens will deliver and make the most of them.

My recommendation is as follows:

Canon 60D.

Because:

Environmental (weather) sealing.

The 60D will most likely outlast a Txi series camera.

Unless you have to have a touchscreen...

Regardless of what you get, get a good lens - like a Schneider with an adaptor. A standard 50 2.8 Kreuznach will go a long way. Ideal centre sharpness between F8 and F11 (as for most lenses) but also perfect for portraits at F4. You can get good deals on eBay.

The 28 - 135 is great for video though. Very versatile.

Personally, I like having a wide-angle zoom (I have the Canon 10-22 usm) for most of the time and fixed lenses for the interim or specific shots that I have in mind.

Remember the 1.6x sensor crop factor when selecting focal lengths.

Additional Thoughts:

I was never too impressed with the 24-70 unless you're thinking of getting an L series lens. But even then, my impressions of Canon lenses are that the images they produce are "softer" compared to many Nikon or other equivalents. I tend to use many adaptors for various lenses of varying focal lengths from a variety of makers. : )

Good luck!

Christ, what are you talking about?

The guy is-as he clearly states-a relative beginner, so Canon lenses will be just fine for him. Schneider? Do you really think he's going to be concerned with optimum sharpness that absolutely cannot be seen at anything other than 100%? No matter what, the sensor still has an AA filter, so it'll be soft regardless.

I've shot ad campaigns for some of the biggest clients on the planet, and I've done almost every one of them with a Canon 24-70, and never have I had sharpness issues.

Your advice screams of someone who is trying to show how much he knows about cameras.

phantasmagoria wrote:
So jelly. What an incredible space, especially for the location.

Cheers man, I'm loving it. It's a bike ride from my house as well. No downsides!

You're an interesting person.

0psys wrote:

TruthfulLiar wrote:
Huh. When unsure whether to go Nikon or Canon, I used to tell people to pick a camera body that felt best in their hands and a button configuration that made sense to them.

For most general senses, especially in the world of digital (not including backs and medium format), your camera is as good as the lens you have.

Get a camera with the most megapixels and a good lens will deliver and make the most of them.

My recommendation is as follows:

Canon 60D.

Because:

Environmental (weather) sealing.

The 60D will most likely outlast a Txi series camera.

Unless you have to have a touchscreen...

Regardless of what you get, get a good lens - like a Schneider with an adaptor. A standard 50 2.8 Kreuznach will go a long way. Ideal centre sharpness between F8 and F11 (as for most lenses) but also perfect for portraits at F4. You can get good deals on eBay.

The 28 - 135 is great for video though. Very versatile.

Personally, I like having a wide-angle zoom (I have the Canon 10-22 usm) for most of the time and fixed lenses for the interim or specific shots that I have in mind.

Remember the 1.6x sensor crop factor when selecting focal lengths.

Additional Thoughts:

I was never too impressed with the 24-70 unless you're thinking of getting an L series lens. But even then, my impressions of Canon lenses are that the images they produce are "softer" compared to many Nikon or other equivalents. I tend to use many adaptors for various lenses of varying focal lengths from a variety of makers. : )

Good luck!

Christ, what are you talking about?

The guy is-as he clearly states-a relative beginner, so Canon lenses will be just fine for him. Schneider? Do you really think he's going to be concerned with optimum sharpness that absolutely cannot be seen at anything other than 100%? No matter what, the sensor still has an AA filter, so it'll be soft regardless.

I've shot ad campaigns for some of the biggest clients on the planet, and I've done almost every one of them with a Canon 24-70, and never have I had sharpness issues.

Your advice screams of someone who is trying to show how much he knows about cameras.

Just my opinions. You're welcome to provide yours.

I think quality is good. You know, for images and stuff.

AA filter, true - but there is a difference when you go to 100% crop regardless, which is my concern and why I recommended what I recommended.

Not sure why you so mad but it is my experience with Canon 24-70L that was not as positive as with other better manufactured lenses. And why would I spend $2,000 on a lens that doesn't impress me? I much prefer to go with a used Schneider 50mm 2.8 for $164.00.

Like I said, my opinions.

Peace be with you.