Nice pics.

I dunno why, but I'm a sucker for close ups of stuff with interesting texture. insects in particular are nice.

Some pics from SF Zoo. 40D + 70-200/2.8L






















Any advice?

I remember being shocked the first time I saw 40D's high ISO noise. My compact digital at ISO 400 has more noise than the 40D at ISO 1600. But the 5D2 looks to be at least 2 stops better (ISO 6400 looks as good as 40D's ISO 1600). Maybe even as good as ISO 800.

Not sure if I would ever use the video capability of the 5D2, though. But still looks like a great camera. I saw nothing in the 50D that tempted me to switch. The 5D2 nearly makes me want to get one. But I'll probably get lenses (and a new computer) instead of a new body.

I've been waiting for this camera to come out for a while as the 5D was getting a little long in the tooth, but was the sweet spot for the type of stuff that I like to shoot. I was skeptical about using the video functionality of the camera until I saw this:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/...r-ado-reverie/

The MSRP is a bit lower than I was expecting, so that makes it all the more attractive. Though my wide angle lens is an EF-S mount so if I got this camera, I'd need to buy the EF L series wide angle to have a suitable replacement. Expensive.

I just bought a Nikon D40 + kitlens + Nikkor 55-200 + free Nikkon bag.

Top notch product imo.


edit: oh, also 2X 4GB sandisk ultra II. Is that standard?

First half-reasonable picture.




It's hard to believe this is ISO 1600.



Do you guys use PTlens?
http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidraymond/2885530887/

My wife and I are planning on picking up a new camera this weekend. My friend has a rebel XTI that he really likes but it seems like a lot of the people in this post use Nikon cameras. How does something like the XSI compare to some other entry level SLRs? What should I be looking for?

dvs,

Don't worry about whether you get a canon or nikon. look for the better package deal or whatever. i'd also consider going on ebay/craigslist to get a used one.

If you get one from a dealer don't forget to bargain!

i use the machine gun action and i do kinda know what i'm doing!



my camera's always set on burst mode... so many throw aways with wildlife. i use ISO 3200 on occasion too.

Nielso, congrats on the new camera. I just passed up an insanely good deal on a D80 because I'm planning on getting a D40. I'm not sure what you're asking about the memory stick though. Are you having problems with that?

This prompts me to ask a question I've been meaning to ask on here (may have been asked already, but I'm too lazy to search the thread); what cameras are everybody using? Also, if you have experience with other cameras, which ones were they, and how do they compare to your current camera? Thanks.

i went with a D60 because I was told/otherwise thought/read that certain AF lenses won't work with the D40

I dont know if it's true or not but meh

It's partially true. Older AF lenses will work only in manual.

As pointed out above, it's true. But it probably won't affect you that much. It's mainly older lenses that won't be able to work with the D40. Almost all new lenses will work with the D40. And I don't think there are any "must-have" older lenses that don't have equivalents.

Really? I would have guessed that the breakdown between Nikon and Canon is pretty equal. Personally, I'm a Canon user. I'd say the XSi is probably better than the Nikon equivalent.

Obviously, I'm biased, but here's my take on Nikon versus Canon.

* More sports photographers use Canon. This is partially historical, because they came out with good performing lenses for sports well before Nikon did. The tide is turning, though, as Nikon has recently come out with new bodies and lenses that rival/surpass Canon.

* Nikon has a better flash system. I don't actually know all the particulars of the differences, but pretty much everyone "knows" that Nikon's flash system is better.

* Nikon probably has better wide angle lenses. Their 14-24 is very highly regarded and Canon has nothing in that range that is comparable.

* Canon possibly has better telephoto lenses. Nikon is definitely closing the gap here.

* Ergonomics has a lot to do with preferences. Nikon users seem to think Canon's ergonomics suck. Canon users feel the same about Nikon ergonomics. It's just what you're used to.

* As for bodies, I think Canon has a better selection in the lower-end. I don't think any of the Nikon low end bodies match up to Canon's 400D, 450D.

* The mid-upper price range is where all the competition is. Nikon's D300, D3, D700 are all very highly praised. But so are Canon's 5D, 40D, and 50D are all very good also.

* I don't think it really makes a difference which system you go with. I went with Canon mainly because I've used Canon's for over 10 years and am used to the way they operate. But I wouldn't hesitate to say that you can't go wrong with either system.

* Although Sony and Pentax have DSLRs also, I think the wider range of lenses and accessories for Canon and Nikon make them the better choice.

I liked all of the pictures, really cool. Just some technical stuff: the tiger looks a bit unsharp, perhaps try to sharpen it up a bit? Also, I would have liked to see all of the wings on the big bird, and tried to remove the bit of the other bird that's showing with PS, and I would also have included the feet on the penguin. Also, the small straws on the left gorilla is making it a bit noisy, but that should be easy to remove. But, all in all, very nice pics. Good compositions

Thanks for the tips! I need to pick up "Photoshop for Dummies" or something

just pop on youtube, and do a few searches for "photoshop tutorial". i'm definitely no post-processing expert though, and methods and final products are definitely matters of opinions. keep that in mind!

I'm thinking of buying a 50mm Nikkon 1.8 lens. Will this one allow me to make good indoor photos (at ISO 400), without a flash? I'll have to manually focus but I think the rest works (metering).

Man, I love Photoshop CS3's raw converter (and shooting raw). It seems like it's much better than the in-camera white-balance, and it gives you the freedom to choose. The fill light-function also seems to work great if you shoot at lower ISOs because I can't see any noise from the lighted dark parts at all!

I also learned how to hold the camera properly and I can now make steady shots at 1/4 s.


iso 400, raw + tungsten + PTlens, 1/4s, F3.5, 18mm, no fill-light, handheld

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidraymond/2888036551/

focus wasn't great in this one, meh.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidraymond/2885530887/in/set-72157604125878449/

Tamron 1:1 macro lens + xti, this is about as close i can get w/o extension tubes on.

Some pics I took on a recent trip to Thailand and Cambodia (Nikon D80):




Offering incense to Buddha at Angkor Wat. This was when we were leaving and the light was finally getting cool. I probably should have stayed in that spot until a monk came along and I got some kind of prize winner, but sadly I had people waiting on me. One thing that's annoying about vacationing with a group of people - you're usually seeing all the really cool stuff in the middle of the day when the light kind of sucks. I've gotten a lot of my best pics traveling solo where I can completely set my own agenda.



Angkor Wat (I should probably rub out the scoffolding?)



Our rooftop pool in Bangkok. I messed around with the color saturation some here to get the sky to look good. But the end result is the pool looks a little unrealistic (at least to me). I am doing all this stuff in Picassa btw. Kiddie editing I know. But I'm old and I hate learning new stuff. I just like to take pictures. But I like messing around in Picassa, and I know Photoshop fairly well from working with it as a web programmer. I just need to bite the bullet and learn photo processing with it. I assume with Photoshop I can control the saturation of just one part of the photo? Or I could always just chop it in half and paste it back together. Duh.



Muay Thai fighter looking mean. It was obvious for these pics I needed a real flash. First time I think I've ever really needed one.



As each new fighter came, their families would come populate their corner. Unfortunately this guy let his enthusiastic family down.



Monk at Angkor Wat. This one was just a tiniest bit out of focus. So I tried Sharpen, which I normally hate, and it seemed to help.



The gate to Angkor Thom, again fiddled with the sky some.



Leaving Angkor Wat. A lot of those little holes are bullet holes from the fighting. There are mortar scars all over.

We went out and got the XSI kit today ($811 with tax) and we're going to return it and get the same kit from amazon for 6 something. We took a bunch of shots today, I'll post some of the random ones in a bit. I'm really happy with how easy it is to take shots with the fully automatic mode and I can't wait to figure out how the camera actually works.

Random shots with the new camera.