Author Topic: All About Photography [Thread 3] (Read 80001 times)

nYx · « **Reply #60 on:** November 23, 2010, 11:50:42 am »

i might be bias sa reply ko, hehe
ive been using a canon 450d. siguro nasanay na lang ako sa control nya so i find it easy to use and ng gumamit ako ng ng nikon i find it hard to change the settings.

pero still it depends on you,, try mo manghiram ng mga camera from your friends to experience and test it 1st hand.. then kung san mo mas feel comfortable ka, i suggest you go for that mode/manufacturer.. as for the inexpensive. marami nang entry level cam ngayon na lumalabas.. try the 1000d for canon and d3000/d3100 for nikon.

qt_ben17 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 23, 2010, 01:37:13 pm »

i went for nikon d5000 at first, i find the controls to involve so many steps. then i changed to canon t2i, there are dedicated buttons! hanep, andaling mag slr. even the pamphlet that comes with the box is easy to follow, dun ko lang nagrasp yung ideas ng wb/ae bracketing, panning and bokeh.

as for lenses, i find nikon to be of better built and performance. it also has a more accurate sense of focusing. in terms of weight, heavier ang nikon. (atleast for that category) when you get to stroll to a theme park with cam strapped to the neck, there goes the burden.

so now, im happy with canon. will invest for better lenses in the future

queencath · « **Reply #62 on:** November 24, 2010, 07:30:26 pm »

Quote from: qt_ben17 on November 23, 2010, 01:37:13 pm

i went for nikon d5000 at first, i find the controls to involve so many steps. then i changed to canon t2i, there are dedicated buttons! hanep, andaling mag slr. even the pamphlet that comes with the box is easy to follow, dun ko lang nagrasp yung ideas ng wb/ae bracketing, panning and bokeh.

as for lenses, i find nikon to be of better built and performance. it also has a more accurate sense of focusing. in terms of weight, heavier ang nikon. (atleast for that category) when you get to stroll to a theme park with cam strapped to the neck, there goes the burden.

so now, im happy with canon. will invest for better lenses in the future

Sis, if I may ask, what nikon and canon lenses in particular have you owned that made you conclude that nikon lenses are better?

riandrew · « **Reply #63 on:** November 25, 2010, 02:26:04 am »

agree with Nyx. you really have to feel both brands first before purchasing the camera.

i have a friend, he purchased an Olympus E-P1 last saturday. i offered him to try my camera, at ngayon mas comfortable pa siya gamitin yung cam ko.

(in all fairness, ang ganda ng kitlens nila - 17mm f2.

qt_ben17 · « **Reply #64 on:** November 25, 2010, 07:56:53 am »

Quote from: queencath on November 24, 2010, 07:30:26 pm

Sis, if I may ask, what nikon and canon lenses in particular have you owned that made you conclude that nikon lenses are better?

both kitlens from nikon and canon.

nikon - 18-55 & 55 -300
canon - 18-55 , 70-300, 50 1.8D II

with nikon before, i could set it at widest angle and go very close with no problem of having some parts going blur. now at canon, i can't. have to go atleast 35, with 50 the most optimum. that's for their kitlens. i dunno about the higher end lenses

queencath · « **Reply #65 on:** November 25, 2010, 12:33:40 pm »

^I do not have a decent amount of experience with nikon lenses but I have to agree that nikon's 18-55 kitlens looks better than its canon counter part, however, I cannot comment about the quality of shots because I haven't used a nikon kitlens.

With regards to high end lenses, I had the privilege to try nikon's 24-70 f/2.8, mounted on a D300s, and compared the shots with my 24-70 f/2.8 mounted on a 50d and I have to say they are pretty much even in terms of image quality. BUT 'L' lenses(canon's high end line up) seem to have better build quality. As some experts would say, 'L' lenses are built like tanks.

Now with the blurring, could it be possible that you have used a different aperture setting that may have caused some parts to blur?

qt_ben17 · « **Reply #66 on:** November 25, 2010, 12:46:40 pm »

like if i set it 18mm 3.5 and do a very close up like a macro, canon cant get the middle areas tack sharp. (even at mf) which tells that i need to get a real macro lens lol

queencath · « **Reply #67 on:** November 25, 2010, 01:21:44 pm »

Or a 'reverse macro ring'.

bangusnakulot · « **Reply #68 on:** November 26, 2010, 07:28:33 am »

pwedeng mag-join mga sisses?

Let's have a photowalk na!!!

nYx · « **Reply #69 on:** November 29, 2010, 11:34:53 pm »

hi share ko lang yung last weekend shoot namin sa marikina..

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5217412138_5f8b9f82e2_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5217413676_57f001f9b1_z.jpg

blueblood · « **Reply #70 on:** December 08, 2010, 12:04:47 pm »

i wanna focus on portrait photography. will an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens be good for a 450D?

queencath · « **Reply #71 on:** December 13, 2010, 02:47:51 pm »

24-70 f/2.8 is better than 24-105 f/4 if you plan on focusing on portrait photography. OR an 85mm prime.

nYx · « **Reply #72 on:** December 13, 2010, 03:38:20 pm »

^^50mm would do na. since naka crop sensor ka naman.. bang for the buck lens!

agree with queencath "24-70 f/2.8 is better than 24-105 f/4 if you plan on focusing on portrait photography"

or kung may budget ka pa 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
swak pang portrtait yun!

blueblood · « **Reply #73 on:** December 13, 2010, 04:02:35 pm »

I was on a first actual photoshoot yesterday and I got to fiddle with the 24-105mm and 24-70mm. I like the latter because it takes sharper pictures (or was it because it was mounted on a 7D? hahaha) but the former has a longer range. :| Anyway, I'll be posting up some pictures later from our shoot yesterday.

And oh, what general purpose lens would be good? 24-105mm would be a good one, right? Or do you have any other recommendations? What about 70-200mm?

queencath · « **Reply #74 on:** December 14, 2010, 12:58:48 pm »

A 70-200 would be more often than not useless indoors especially on a crop body.

My top 3 general purpose lenses are the following:
1. 24-70 f/2.8 L (after 3 long months of confusion, I finally decided to choose this over the 24-105)

2. 17-55 f/2.8 IS (EF-S mount only)
3. 24-105 f/4 IS L

blueblood · « **Reply #75 on:** December 14, 2010, 09:54:48 pm »

i've decided to get a 24-70mm.

Is the 17-55mm good for portraits too?

queencath · « **Reply #76 on:** December 15, 2010, 08:24:45 pm »

Yes but its not an 'L' lens. Have you checked the prices of the said lenses?

blueblood · « **Reply #77 on:** December 16, 2010, 09:29:27 am »

Yes I have. The 24-70mm is about 60k and the 17-55mm costs around 50 and yes, it's not an L lens. I'll just take it slow then. I'll buy the 24-70mm and use it for a while, and then I'll just see what lens I would want next.

My friend's selling his 24-105mm for 45k. Is that a reasonable price? I think he's used it for barely a year.

queencath · « **Reply #78 on:** December 20, 2010, 09:09:27 am »

The current pricing of 2nd hand 24-105 nowadays is 45k and yes, it is a reasonable price. But the thing is, if you'll buy a 24-105, I bet you'll still want a 24-70. And having both lenses won't be that practical. I once had an argument with a friend about the 35mm added range of the 105 and this is what he said, "Pwede ka namang maglakad, 35mm would probably be just 2 steps forward. E yung f/4, walang solusyon para maging f/2.8"

blueblood · « **Reply #79 on:** December 20, 2010, 10:09:03 pm »

well that's an enlightenment! i seriously haven't thought about that! my gosh. hahaha! thank you! you really really have a point there!

anyway, i wanna share these pictures i took during that photoshoot i had 2 weeks ago. it's not really that bad, i think.

No Topics

Author Topic: All About Photography [Thread 3] (Read 80001 times)

nYx

qt_ben17

queencath

riandrew

qt_ben17

queencath

qt_ben17

queencath

bangusnakulot

nYx

blueblood

queencath

nYx

blueblood

queencath

blueblood

queencath

blueblood

queencath

blueblood

Latest Stories