can anyone who knows more about digital cameras than i explain the difference between the nikon d40x and d80? there's a big price difference and i don't get it.

d40x

d80

thanks.

I love photo's like these. Yes they're common, but that's because part of the appeal is the humanity. The man has this amazing face and is set against this urban environment. you just receive these strong undertones of despair and individuality.

At least that's why I diggs 'em yo.

I love the second from the top. Very nice.

(There were a BUNCH of others I liked in this thread too, but I'm going to bed. Just quickly, the one with the dog jumping into the lake, whoever's that was, well done.)

www.kenrockwell.com is a good source of Nikon reviews.

Primarily because there is a huge contingent of photography geeks who care more about the equipment then they do about the images. They spend a lot of time taking pictures of focus charts to see how sharp their lenses are instead of taking beautiful pictures.

Rockwell is an opinionated a**. But he's knowledgeable, so he's worth reading for Nikon reviews. It's definitely a change from reading the very detailed, but very dry, reviews on dpreview.com.

His Canon reviews should be taken with a huge grain of salt. He bashes them all the time for ergonomics. But he doesn't seem to realize that the reason he likes Nikon ergonomics better is that he's used them for so many years that he is used to them. If you take a guy who's shot Canon SLRs for 20 years and gave him a Nikon, he'd have the same ergonomic problems. IOW, they aren't problems. They are differences.

I don't know much about Nikon cameras (I'm a Canon guy myself), but what I understand about these two cameras is that they will provide similar photo qualities, but the D40x has less autofocus points, don't support AF lenses, and is quite a bit smaller with inferior build quality.

I think that I'll repeat what I read time and time again: Given similar products, go and pick up both cameras and see how they feel in your hand. That'll really tell you.

I finally broke down and bought the Olympus/Zuiko 50-200mm lens for my E-500. If I don't start seeing belly feathers of birds in flight, I'm going to be very upset. I've been calling this "the bear lens" for a long time because one of my wife's and my goals is to go to Katmai and shoot some off the bear platform. Lots of stuff needs to come together to make that happen, though...

I kind of like this picture. It's a tram that runs through the city, passing one of the psychiatric hospitals in Oslo. FWIW, shot with a Canon Digital Rebel, 76 mm (35 mm equaling 123 mm), f/32, 1.0 seconds, ISO 400

ok, i just looked at the photos - there's a lot of really good ones, there's a lot of really original ones, really fun thread to scroll through

i sense that there is some discussion going on about something, but obv tl;dr, sorry

i have a very hard time photoing people, but i like this one (obv person is blurry hahahaha)



(already posted this in ssnl cheese, but to all those who don't read that)

(i wish i got a better angle on the rattler, but meh)

The colors in that first one is incredible. I love this thread.

Wow most of these pictures are sooo good!
I don't think mine are that good but these are some of my fav's!

my fiancee in front of the bellagio fountains.
random ass digital camera. messed around with in picture viewer/whatever.

I'll agree here. All good shots. The first one is great.

You know what might be cool here, though? HDR. Here's a tutorial: http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/200...dr-images.html

What HDR does is combine several exposures such that everything is properly lit. Obviously, in that photo, it is exposed for the light from the stained glass, leaving the church dark. If you exposed for the church, the stained glass would be blown out. Combined using an HDR technique, everything would be properly exposed.

I've never actually tried it before, and some people think it looks fake (well, it is fake). And it might not even work on this image because the contrast between the dark church and the stained glass is an important part of the photo.

But I'll be experimenting with that technique once I get the newer version of Photoshop.

I think it all depends on what you're going for. I see plenty of examples of just a higher dynamic range represented in a photo. Doesn't look fake at all. On the other hand, some people are going for a different look and it oftens look very fake, but I think it becomes more of an artistic choice rather than a functional one.

I took this photo last night:



I shot it inside of my DIY macro box (like this one: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07...o-studio.html)

To provide a bit more technical info: I fired my 580ex ii at 1/8th power through the top of the box. The steam from the Americano wasn't quite coming out the way I wanted it so I took it outside where it was colder and got a little more action in there.

Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/18
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 200

BTW, that macro box is great for photographing smallish objects. You can get nice, soft, diffuse light with a single light source. Because the sides and top are made of opaque paper, you can fire a strobe or use a lamp to light it and the light source will reflect off of the interior of the box.

Here are other examples from my own box:





As you can see, very soft shadows, evenly lit. Pretty sweet for about 30 minutes of your time to build, and just a few dollars in materials.

I really like the color and composition of this one, very nice job.

Here's a few I took in Monterey CA on a recent trip:

















And here's one I took in my backyard on the first day I got my camera, that I've always kinda liked

Love the colors revots, and I really like that last one too, it looks so...rugged.

I love this one.

Awesome thread.

MissCriss, where were those photos taken? They remind me of Portugal.

Some photos from a recent trip to Yakima:

Great photos. Especially liked the first one and the last one.