Official Misc Photography Crew, Part V "Do you even shoot?"

[BlueSasquatch]

Switched to Flickr from 500px, more user friendly, I like the settings information that is posted with each image, not looking forward to giving names to 230 pictures and descriptions, may just leave them as numbers. Who all has Flickr? I need some Misc People to follow!

[Sandmang27]

Why am I just discovering this thread now.

Headed to Edmonton and then Jasper/Banff next week and excited to test out some new gear I got since I was there last.

Here's a few pictures from when I went to Banff 2 years ago. All of these were shot with my at that time brand new 80D and the kit 18-55mm and 75-300mm.

[BlueSasquatch]

Why am I just discovering this thread now.

Headed to Edmonton and then Jasper/Banff next week and excited to test out some new gear I got since I was there last.

Here's a few pictures from when I went to Banff 2 years ago. All of these were shot with my at that time brand new 80D and the kit 18-55mm and 75-300mm.

What gear are you taking this time? I've yet to go to Banff.

[Porridgemonster]

Purchased an A6000 at Xmas and headed down to Dorset UK during February. Really enjoyed the atmosphere there.

[Sandmang27]

What gear are you taking this time? I've yet to go to Banff.

Canon 80D (thinking of getting a 7D mark ii but not sure it's worth it if I already have the 80D plus the 90D/7D mark III should be coming out soon)
Sigma 150-600mm 5.6-6.5
Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 Art
Canon 55-250mm 4-5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 10-18mm 4.5-5.6

Also going to Elk Island National Park so should have a good chance to at least see Elk and Bison.

[BlueSasquatch]

Canon 80D (thinking of getting a 7D mark ii but not sure it's worth it if I already have the 80D plus the 90D/7D mark III should be coming out soon)
Sigma 150-600mm 5.6-6.5
Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 Art
Canon 55-250mm 4-5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 10-18mm 4.5-5.6

Also going to Elk Island National Park so should have a good chance to at least see Elk and Bison.

I liked the Tamron 150-600mm and they have a second gen one out now, that is compatible with a 2x tele, which really limits your shooting conditions, but will be hard to pass up for me. How is that 10-18mm? I've a 10-24mm Nikon that is great, distortion is real minimal, but obviously being that wide the compression practically goes the other direction, so I've found it's not the end-all for landscape shots.

Badlands Nat Park in South Dakota has a ton of Bison and Big horn, I've seen elk here and there but rarely anything impressive.

[Sandmang27]

I liked the Tamron 150-600mm and they have a second gen one out now, that is compatible with a 2x tele, which really limits your shooting conditions, but will be hard to pass up for me. How is that 10-18mm? I've a 10-24mm Nikon that is great, distortion is real minimal, but obviously being that wide the compression practically goes the other direction, so I've found it's not the end-all for landscape shots.

Badlands Nat Park in South Dakota has a ton of Bison and Big horn, I've seen elk here and there but rarely anything impressive.

I just bought the 10-18mm and 50mm 3 days ago. They are my first ultra wide angle lens and prime lens. So far from playing around with them I like them. The 50mm is very sharp and for the price I can't believe I didn't get it sooner. The 10-18mm will be used a lot on my trip so I'll let you know how I find it after. I don't do a lot of landscape photography so I'll be learning as I shoot so I don't have high hopes for getting a lot of good landscape photos this trip.

I should probably also invest in Lightroom/Photoshop. Currently I just use the Lightroom mobile app and it's decent but very limited.

[BlueSasquatch]

I just bought the 10-18mm and 50mm 3 days ago. They are my first ultra wide angle lens and prime lens. So far from playing around with them I like them. The 50mm is very sharp and for the price I can't believe I didn't get it sooner. The 10-18mm will be used a lot on my trip so I'll let you know how I find it after. I don't do a lot of landscape photography so I'll be learning as I shoot so I don't have high hopes for getting a lot of good landscape photos this trip.

I should probably also invest in Lightroom/Photoshop. Currently I just use the Lightroom mobile app and it's decent but very limited.

Primes are always sharp it seems, I got the 50mm first but with my Crop Sensor Camera, I ended up buying the 35mm Instead and now the 50 collects dust.

Posted on the DP photography review forums for some additional thoughts on what direction to take my gear and Panasonic as a 4/3s contender came up, now the number of choices are going up. Not sure why it's so hard to pick a route.

[Sandmang27]

Primes are always sharp it seems, I got the 50mm first but with my Crop Sensor Camera, I ended up buying the 35mm Instead and now the 50 collects dust.

Posted on the DP photography review forums for some additional thoughts on what direction to take my gear and Panasonic as a 4/3s contender came up, now the number of choices are going up. Not sure why it's so hard to pick a route.

My Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 is very sharp so it will be hard for me to justify a 35mm prime unless there's a cheap one like the ~$130 50mm.

It's getting really tough with mirror-less cameras being as good as they are. Hopefully Canon and Nikon don't try to chase that market at the expense of their DSLR's.

[BlueSasquatch]

My Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 is very sharp so it will be hard for me to justify a 35mm prime unless there's a cheap one like the ~$130 50mm.

It's getting really tough with mirror-less cameras being as good as they are. Hopefully Canon and Nikon don't try to chase that market at the expense of their DSLR's.

Maybe at the expense of Crop Sensors but not Full Frame, thats their bread and butter.

[Sandmang27]

Maybe at the expense of Crop Sensors but not Full Frame, thats their bread and butter.

Hopefully not. I enjoy photography but don't want to be pushed into completely switching my platform or not being able to upgrade anything.

I also realized over the weekend I've been messing up for months. I shoot RAW because I was under the assumption that I'm able to edit my RAW files on Lightroom Mobile. But not only does the free mobile version of Lightroom not accept RAW files, I'm pretty sure the 80D only transfers a JPEG version of the picture to my phone via NFC.

I always wondered why my pictures looked like crap on bigger screens.

[BlueSasquatch]

Hopefully not. I enjoy photography but don't want to be pushed into completely switching my platform or not being able to upgrade anything.

I also realized over the weekend I've been messing up for months. I shoot RAW because I was under the assumption that I'm able to edit my RAW files on Lightroom Mobile. But not only does the free mobile version of Lightroom not accept RAW files, I'm pretty sure the 80D only transfers a JPEG version of the picture to my phone via NFC.

I always wondered why my pictures looked like crap on bigger screens.

Yes, I would suggest RAW with desktop Lightroom, unless you are good enough with your settings to capture what you want and are unlikely to modify much in post processing. I know a couple photographers who do, but most always go RAW. You should be able to get a cracked version of Lightroom pretty easy. I think I paid $60 for mine back before they went subscription based.

Also think I've solved my camera dilemma, since I like the reach that crop-sensors give, and the overall smaller size and lower cost, I think I will just stay in the middle and upgrade from D7100 to D500, which from what I've read, is "the best crop sensor yet" and uses the same focus system as the full frame line up. Also with it having built in wifi and bluetooth, it will make product photography or social media photography much easier. Bit pricey however, about $1,200 used it seems. Also allows me to keep using the excellent 10-24mm.

While I've been wanting the 150-600mm G2 Tamron and maybe a Tele, enough reviews suggest going with the Nikon 200-500mm instead, which when cropped to the same level as the Tamron, yields a better result. I've heard mixed things on how well it accepts a tele, but may try a 1.4x. .. Will most likely buy the body this fall, rent the lens and a tele over Christmas for the Badlands, and then decide after that which super tele to go after.

[Sandmang27]

Yes, I would suggest RAW with desktop Lightroom, unless you are good enough with your settings to capture what you want and are unlikely to modify much in post processing. I know a couple photographers who do, but most always go RAW. You should be able to get a cracked version of Lightroom pretty easy. I think I paid $60 for mine back before they went subscription based.

Also think I've solved my camera dilemma, since I like the reach that crop-sensors give, and the overall smaller size and lower cost, I think I will just stay in the middle and upgrade from D7100 to D500, which from what I've read, is "the best crop sensor yet" and uses the same focus system as the full frame line up. Also with it having built in wifi and bluetooth, it will make product photography or social media photography much easier. Bit pricey however, about $1,200 used it seems. Also allows me to keep using the excellent 10-24mm.

While I've been wanting the 150-600mm G2 Tamron and maybe a Tele, enough reviews suggest going with the Nikon 200-500mm instead, which when cropped to the same level as the Tamron, yields a better result. I've heard mixed things on how well it accepts a tele, but may try a 1.4x. .. Will most likely buy the body this fall, rent the lens and a tele over Christmas for the Badlands, and then decide after that which super tele to go after.

I like shooting wildlife so it's very hard to get my setting correct every time. I usually do some editing but after seeing the difference of editing RAW files in Lightroom on my laptop I will do a lot more editing. I signed up for the free trial and will do at least 1 month of it especially after my trip this week to Jasper/Banff.

The D500 looks like a good camera and since it's Nikon's version of the 7D Mark ii I think it would be excellent.

I've seen several videos that say that the native zoom lenses from Canon and Nikon are sharper when you zoom in then the 3rd party ones. I've also heard that the pictures come out better when you crop over adding a tele converter especially since the crop sensor already "crops" the image to begin with. So you'll probably be better off with the Nikon 200-500mm and just crop the pictures after.

[StackingPlates]

I've seen several videos that say that the native zoom lenses from Canon and Nikon are sharper when you zoom in then the 3rd party ones.

Just be careful and don't indefinitely chase the sharpness dragon. Unless you are in the business of printing large format, most won't be able to tell the difference between lenses when posting to places such as the web.

I've also heard that the pictures come out better when you crop over adding a tele converter especially since the crop sensor already "crops" the image to begin with. So you'll probably be better off with the Nikon 200-500mm and just crop the pictures after.

Agreed, and full frame cameras often have "crop sensor mode" so you can enable it for extra reach when needed (e.g. wildlife). You essentially are doing the crop in camera...

[Dominik]

Also think I've solved my camera dilemma, since I like the reach that crop-sensors give, and the overall smaller size and lower cost, I think I will just stay in the middle and upgrade from D7100 to D500, which from what I've read, is "the best crop sensor yet" and uses the same focus system as the full frame line up. Also with it having built in wifi and bluetooth, it will make product photography or social media photography much easier. Bit pricey however, about $1,200 used it seems. Also allows me to keep using the excellent 10-24mm.

Sasquatch I don't want to be that guy but it's a myth that crop sensors give you more "reach." The only thing the crop sensor format does is, you guessed it, crop away more of the image circle so you're actually giving up FOV.

It can appear you're getting "more reach" due to pixel density when a crop sensor is more densely packed than a full frame sensor so there's more detail when you pixel peep/enlarge it. However compared to the top end of full frame there's no longer a pixel density advantage with crop. Nikon cameras give you a crop mode where it's easy to see this. For example my now ancient D800E in 1.5x/DX crop mode spits out 15.4mp files and compared to the old 16mp D7000 it's pretty much line ball.

Today's crop sensors max out around 24mp so compared to the new 61mp Sony a7R IV which can do 26mp crop there's no pixel density "reach" advantage there.

So the key reasons to go with crop would be cost, speed (fps), and being able to use your DX lenses but even the fps gap is closing with FF if you can afford it. Focus points also cover the whole frame compared to full frame plus you're cropping out the corners where most lenses look a little soft.

I've been saying this for a long time but with crop if you like the bokeh of fast lenses wide open but you lose FOV with crop then with a static subject shoot a bokeh pano. It doesn't need to be anything extreme either. A 3-5 shot vertical pano with 35-50% overlap can do the trick with a subject that isn't moving like a portrait. You'll get the same look of full frame. You're just filling in the cropped areas with extra frames. Microsoft ICE is free and does a better job than software I paid hundreds for. Just my 2 cents.

[BlueSasquatch]

Sasquatch I don't want to be that guy but it's a myth that crop sensors give you more "reach." The only thing the crop sensor format does is, you guessed it, crop away more of the image circle so you're actually giving up FOV.

It can appear you're getting "more reach" due to pixel density when a crop sensor is more densely packed than a full frame sensor so there's more detail when you pixel peep/enlarge it. However compared to the top end of full frame there's no longer a pixel density advantage with crop. Nikon cameras give you a crop mode where it's easy to see this. For example my now ancient D800E in 1.5x/DX crop mode spits out 15.4mp files and compared to the old 16mp D7000 it's pretty much line ball.

Today's crop sensors max out around 24mp so compared to the new 61mp Sony a7R IV which can do 26mp crop there's no pixel density "reach" advantage there.

So the key reasons to go with crop would be cost, speed (fps), and being able to use your DX lenses but even the fps gap is closing with FF if you can afford it. Focus points also cover the whole frame compared to full frame plus you're cropping out the corners where most lenses look a little soft.

I've been saying this for a long time but with crop if you like the bokeh of fast lenses wide open but you lose FOV with crop then with a static subject shoot a bokeh pano. It doesn't need to be anything extreme either. A 3-5 shot vertical pano with 35-50% overlap can do the trick with a subject that isn't moving like a portrait. You'll get the same look of full frame. You're just filling in the cropped areas with extra frames. Microsoft ICE is free and does a better job than software I paid hundreds for. Just my 2 cents.

Right, thanks for the clarification Dom, I know crop sensors are smaller and give the illusion of reach, a 300mm lens is 300mm on all cameras, the perceived range varies, because of sensor crop. But it's easier to say more reach than a disclaimer sentence, I need to figure out a better. shorter way of saying the same thing I suppose. The D500 is around $1,000 used, so it's pretty expensive for a DX body, could maybe make the jump to FX. I think I could equally find some things enjoyable about a change to M4/3s, it's the wildlife that I enjoy shooting the most, which is what keeps me from M4/3s. I think the D500 would be a good upgrade to the D7100. With eyes on the 200-500mm for the next lens. I could swing for the D750 instead I suppose, but not sure if it would be better just for the sake of full frame.

https://www.flickr.com/people/chadberens/

[StackingPlates]

With eyes on the 200-500mm for the next lens.

I tested the Sigma ART 150-600 Sport lens and wound up buying the NIKKOR 200-500mm. The latter is significantly lighter and just as "sharp" in real world conditions (e.g. you aren't pixel peeping in a lab). As someone who hikes pretty decent distances with a backpack full of gear, the weight itself was a huge selling point.

The only potential "issue" is that the Sigma is a bit more professionally built but this is likely only going to be a concern for those who shoot in very inclement weather conditions.

[Dominik]

Right, thanks for the clarification Dom, I know crop sensors are smaller and give the illusion of reach, a 300mm lens is 300mm on all cameras, the perceived range varies, because of sensor crop. But it's easier to say more reach than a disclaimer sentence, I need to figure out a better. shorter way of saying the same thing I suppose. The D500 is around $1,000 used, so it's pretty expensive for a DX body, could maybe make the jump to FX. I think I could equally find some things enjoyable about a change to M4/3s, it's the wildlife that I enjoy shooting the most, which is what keeps me from M4/3s. I think the D500 would be a good upgrade to the D7100. With eyes on the 200-500mm for the next lens. I could swing for the D750 instead I suppose, but not sure if it would be better just for the sake of full frame.

I think the D500 would be a great choice and should perfectly suit your photography. It's proven technology. Personally I'd prefer that to entry level full frame for that AF system alone.

It's actually what I thought the D700 replacement was going to be back in 2012 only FX but Nikon instead did a 180 and went with a slow high MP camera which was the D800/D800E. When Nikon released the D850 it got all the attention as the FX equivalent but for most people 45mp and $3K is major overkill, money that could go towards some nice glass, lighting gear, or a solid tripod. Many times I've wished I had a D500 because for a lot of situations it would be close to the perfect camera.

[BlueSasquatch]

I tested the Sigma ART 150-600 Sport lens and wound up buying the NIKKOR 200-500mm. The latter is significantly lighter and just as "sharp" in real world conditions (e.g. you aren't pixel peeping in a lab). As someone who hikes pretty decent distances with a backpack full of gear, the weight itself was a huge selling point.

The only potential "issue" is that the Sigma is a bit more professionally built but this is likely only going to be a concern for those who shoot in very inclement weather conditions.

I read a handful of articles/youtube videos where the Sigma/Tamron 600mm were compared, the sport vs contempary and G1 vs G2, all came out pretty even with one another, for a 600mm under 2k. I enjoyed the G1 Tamron last year, should be renting the 200-500 for similar conditions this year and have nice comparisons. Have you tried throwing a tele on it?

I think the D500 would be a great choice and should perfectly suit your photography. It's proven technology. Personally I'd prefer that to entry level full frame for that AF system alone.

It's actually what I thought the D700 replacement was going to be back in 2012 only FX but Nikon instead did a 180 and went with a slow high MP camera which was the D800/D800E. When Nikon released the D850 it got all the attention as the FX equivalent but for most people 45mp and $3K is major overkill, money that could go towards some nice glass, lighting gear, or a solid tripod. Many times I've wished I had a D500 because for a lot of situations it would be close to the perfect camera.

Great info, thanks!

[zknarc]

Microsoft ICE is free and does a better job than software I paid hundreds for. Just my 2 cents.

So annoyed that that it has stopped being developed (eg. no 16bit version). It was by far the best stitcher (unless you need serious control like ptgui).

[zknarc]

[Sandmang27]

Just be careful and don't indefinitely chase the sharpness dragon. Unless you are in the business of printing large format, most won't be able to tell the difference between lenses when posting to places such as the web.

I'll try not to. I just do photography as a hobby so definitely don't need large prints but it's nice to have the option to do it. I just was amazed at how dumb I was thinking I was editing RAW files and there's a huge difference is the quality of the couple of pictures I edited on my laptop. At least I have the RAW files so I'm able to do this.

[StackingPlates]

I'll try not to. I just do photography as a hobby so definitely don't need large prints but it's nice to have the option to do it. I just was amazed at how dumb I was thinking I was editing RAW files and there's a huge difference is the quality of the couple of pictures I edited on my laptop. At least I have the RAW files so I'm able to do this.

No, it isn't dumb, it is just learning from experience. When I first started shooting I thought shooting everything in JPG format was fine. And, to be honest, for some it is - just depends on what your ultimate goal with your photos is. With that said, with the price of in-camera storage these days, there is really no reason to shoot at least JPG+RAW. At least you can always go back and edit the RAW this way.

I really like the extra information contained in RAW files as I'm often shooting scenes with quite a dramatic dynamic range of light. So I shoot only in RAW and have the camera write to two cards (for redundancy).

I read a handful of articles/youtube videos where the Sigma/Tamron 600mm were compared, the sport vs contempary and G1 vs G2, all came out pretty even with one another, for a 600mm under 2k. I enjoyed the G1 Tamron last year, should be renting the 200-500 for similar conditions this year and have nice comparisons. Have you tried throwing a tele on it?

No, none of my field tests were done with a teleconverter. As you said, always a great idea to rent glass before purchasing it...

[Dominik]

So annoyed that that it has stopped being developed (eg. no 16bit version). It was by far the best stitcher (unless you need serious control like ptgui).

Damn. I was hoping they'd keep developing it but you're right they dropped anchor in 2015. I have PTGui Pro along and it struggled with a few panos ICE handled with ease requiring a lot more input in the control points editor. And that was using a pano head with everything perfectly aligned on each axis, NPP, etc.

There are a lot of people out there just eyeballing them and shooting handheld panos so it'd be even worse. ICE worked so well for me I never even bothered upgrading PTGui.

Always a bummer when software gets dropped like that. Had the same feeling with Nik plugins which I used a lot. Google bought Nik because they wanted the Snapseed app, then they practically gave them all away, and then they stopped development. Today I learned DXO acquired those Nik tools in 2017.

[BlueSasquatch]

Not sure on this photograph, can't make out that small thing on the ground, maybe the 2/3s rule with a bit more of the ground in the shot?

This is a picture I took last year, loved the light, and the bison below ontop of that hill, problem was I couldn't move very much, ideally I would have gotten a close up with the bison and the sky in the frame, but instead I got the 2nd image. Neither of the shots are amazing, but I feel like there was potential there. How would you guys have done the composition?

[zknarc]

Not sure on this photograph, can't make out that small thing on the ground, maybe the 2/3s rule with a bit more of the ground in the shot?

It's two people. The massive compression on image hosting sites mangles it, 900px size doesn't help either.

[Sandmang27]

No, it isn't dumb, it is just learning from experience. When I first started shooting I thought shooting everything in JPG format was fine. And, to be honest, for some it is - just depends on what your ultimate goal with your photos is. With that said, with the price of in-camera storage these days, there is really no reason to shoot at least JPG+RAW. At least you can always go back and edit the RAW this way.

I really like the extra information contained in RAW files as I'm often shooting scenes with quite a dramatic dynamic range of light. So I shoot only in RAW and have the camera write to two cards (for redundancy).

That's very true. Photography is a constant learning experience and a lot of it is done by trial and error.

My next camera body will definitely have 2 card slots. I was very close to getting the 7D mark ii with that being a big reason because I've lost photos before as I'm sure we all have. The 90D should be getting announced soon and it is rumored to have dual SD slots so I'll keep an eye out for that.

[Sandmang27]

Not the best weather but I got a few good shots.

[BlueSasquatch]

First shot doesn't do much for me, but I like the other ones, nice work.

Anyone have any idea what to expect for Black Friday? I am in the market for a D500, I can find them used on Ebay for $1,000-1,200. They are $1,500 new from Amazon or Nikon.

Torn between buying one now, and waiting for Black Friday deals, I have a trip in December, so It could wait until then.

[jmelanson]