What does everyone shoot with??
Thread started by
bentstrider at 12.24.07 - 12:15 am
My main weapon of choice is a Casio, Exilim EX-Z1050, 10MP.
Capable of a variety of still shots, and video until the SD card fills up.
reply
first version of the canon digital rebel from 2003.
28-105mm
18-55mm
fisheye adapter
ruinedbyidiots12.24.07 - 12:57 am
reply
Mostly Canon
1D Mkll
20D
G9
and a slew of lenses with a red stripe.
sc_nomad12.24.07 - 1:23 am
reply
for video
Sony VX2000
and a few lipstick cams latest being the VIO POV1.
sc_nomad12.24.07 - 1:34 am
reply
Photography is lame...
D2x's soon to be for sale. Along with 17-55, 12-24 Nikkors.
franz12.24.07 - 2:16 am
reply
@franz
Buggin' out already?
What type of shots could you get with that equipment?
I'm a bit of a rookie at this sport in case you didn't already know.
bentstrider12.24.07 - 2:39 am
reply
Nikon D200
17-55mm 2.8
80-200mm 2.8
12-24mm 4
24-85mm 2.8-4 (For Sale)
Bent, you can't go wrong with the 17-55mm. Its one of the desirable Nikkor Lenses that everyone wants.
stevo412.24.07 - 6:59 am
reply
Ruger p85 mkII 9mm
Ruger 10/22 22mm
Ruger Super Balckhawk 44 magnum (like dirty harry)
Lee-Enfield 303 bolt action
Norinco SKS 7.62 mm
rev10612.24.07 - 8:28 am
reply
Canon 30D
60mm 2.8
18-55mm kit lens
28-300mm POS
richtotheie12.24.07 - 9:42 am
reply
Oh! This is a camera's forum!
NEWB31012.24.07 - 11:18 am
reply
I've got a D40X..
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Taking pics are fun but I'm on the look out for a decent P&S... Any recommendations?
digablesoul12.24.07 - 1:22 pm
reply
I like the Canon G9 as a P&S. Not as fast as my DSLR but very convenient. It is a lot heavier than most P&S but it is solidly built and supports RAW.
sc_nomad12.24.07 - 4:33 pm
reply
Canon A620 and S2IS point & shoots.
Canon Rebel XTi with Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 30mm 1.4
mr rollers12.24.07 - 5:56 pm
reply
A
Nikon E8400 P&2, year 2004:
(-) Way too noisy at max ISO 400.
(-) Variably long shutter delay and long inter-shot delay
(+) Swing-out viewer
(+) Full wide is very much so (24mm equiv)
OverTheHill12.24.07 - 10:58 pm
reply
CANON EOS Rebel T2...the real art is in FILM ..digital cameras are for cheaters and those with no imagination!!
EVILon2WHEELS12.26.07 - 10:46 pm
reply
Used in the following order:
Mamiya 645 Pro
55 f/2.8
80 f/1.9
Original Olympus Stylus (crashed on numerous times in the last 15 years, dropped off a 2nd floor balcony onto concrete, twice!, takes a beating, keeps on ticking)
Holga
Minolta 530si
Sigma 28-70
Rebel XT
Canon 35 f/2
Tamron 24-135
Canon 70-200 f/4
Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
Canon 10-22
toweliesbong12.26.07 - 10:56 pm
reply
w/fuji neopan 1600 or portra 400 vc
...yum ;)
VixObs12.27.07 - 12:18 am
reply
"CANON EOS Rebel T2...the real art is in FILM ..digital cameras are for cheaters and those with no imagination!!"
This is a sentiment I hear a lot but don't quite understand. Film and digital are 2 different disciplines. While they might have some similarities, some processes and the workflow are different.
Capturing an image is the same since they are both governed by lighting and composition. If you can't compose you image correctly it will be bad both in film and digital.
The digital darkroom and the film darkroom is where things are different since you use different tools. But proficiency in these tools is an art form in itself. Being truly proficient in Photoshop, or whatever software one might use, takes time and work.
One advantage digital gives it speeds up the learning curve, it moves many bad snapshots to mediocre very quickly. But getting from mediocre to good or even very good takes the same amount of time and effort.
Another advantage is access. Almost everyone has a digital camera in some form or another. But it is still the same percentage of people who have an 'eye' and will be truly innovative.
I am living proof of this, I was mediocre in film and still mediocre in digital.
sc_nomad12.27.07 - 8:41 am
reply
"CANON EOS Rebel T2...the real art is in FILM ..digital cameras are for cheaters and those with no imagination!!"
I shot in film exclusively for a very long time, disappointed with the relative quality of digital cameras. Then the 5D came out, and a full frame sensor digital camera became some what attainable (still expensive as hell but considerable cheaper then an equivalent camera a few years ago).
I did my own color and b&w processing in school. Although sometimes I miss that process, ultimately digital is more time efficient, and with a full time work schedule, doing my own chemical processing and printing simply isn't practical. I shoot all in RAW to have more "digital darkroom" control of the image, so it still takes time to go through each image, but it's infinitely faster then film.
I feel the experience of doing my own film processing was ultimately beneficial to my understanding of photography and the theory behind the computer equivalent tools, and recommend to anyone to try it sometime. There are some wonderful experiments you can do with chemical process, and I keep my film camera so I can go back to it sometime. However, film viewed as exclusive to being more artistic and imaginative is bull shit. Would you call anyone who paints in acrylic a cheater because they don't have to wait for the long drying process of oils? It's a different medium, with it's own virtues, get over it.
My apologies if you were being sarcastic, but it's hard to gauge that from an ambiguous forum post, and I know there are plenty of film purists out there who view digital as some bastard offspring.
GarySe7en12.27.07 - 10:17 am
reply
I love b&w and quite frankly every digital b&w print I've looked at sucks big chocolate salty balls. I only use b&w in the 35mm cameras and sometimes use color in the Mamiya, get some nice large prints from scans of the med format negs.
toweliesbong12.27.07 - 10:25 am
reply
i also agree that b&w leaves much to be desired imo. I've used a b&w plug-in for photoshop that helped a bit, but it sitll doesn't live up to the b&w of plus x, tri x, hp5, etc. I suppose part of it could be my limited knowledge how to achieve the level of quality i desire using PS but i'm not totally convinced its just user error.
stevo412.27.07 - 10:32 am
reply
I believe Henri Cartier-Bresson used a Leica camera with a 50mm lens almost exclusively?? He was the master of "The decisive moment" "Images Ă la sauvette". Check out his famous photograph of the man at The Gare St. Lazare cemetry.
The point is, as previously mentioned, it's the eye that is mostly important.....On the other hand had Cartier Bresson had the current plethora of cameras available would he have stuck with his simple 50mm and that super quiet shutter? I think so...
Limeyfly12.27.07 - 10:40 am
reply
With a lane polaroid back adapted. A little too heavy for ridazz and it costs about a dollar every time i squeeze the trigger. but I love the images. The rodenstock 80mm 2.8 lens is really sharp but not designed to cover the 3.25x4.25" polaroid film so the focus and expousre falls off at the edges.
trickmilla12.27.07 - 10:41 am
reply
Nah, I've spent the last 2 years studying the various methods for b&w conversion in Photoshop along with creating my own custom profiles for my Epson P2200 printer and then I take one b&w class at Art Center and my VERY FIRST B&W print kicks ass over all the digital b&w prints I've done in the last 2 years.
The blacks on the b&w prints are always black, and the contrast is much better. Digital b&w still suffers from metamerism, bronzing, and other artifacts of ink.
toweliesbong12.27.07 - 10:43 am
reply
If we're talking about digital to prints, an ink jet printer will always be inferior. A newer digital process called Light Jet Printing, is the way to go if you want digital prints to compare to film ones. It uses high resolution RGB lasers to expose conventional photographic film paper, which is then chemically processed. The resulting print has the same range of printable color and value as film, and the same archival qualities, because it is essentially the same paper as any film print.
GarySe7en12.27.07 - 11:21 am
reply
Wow!
This became a core elite thread.
I got to jump in.
I've been shooting photos for a living for 20 years.
No that doesn't mean I'm good.
It just means I've shot a few hundred thousand pictures.
I was never into "gear". Mostly because I'm careless and I tend to trash it, drop it, destroy it, within weeks. I've always used basic consumer equipment. A series of Canon T70s in the film days, then Nikon Coolpix 950s, now a Nikon D40 w an 18-200mm VR and a Panasonic DMC FX07 P&S.
For my work, which is documentary for internal use and not for printing or publication, I only have to shoot buildings and landscapes. All my gear has worked fine.
For MR bike rides though, I'm stumped. We need to take pictures of moving subjects in low light while often moving ourselves. The SLR cameras tend to be bulky, esp while riding, the P&S are too slow and blurry.
There is a new Nikon DX 18-55
VR lens I'm thinking to get but I'd also like to have live preview esp for shooting while riding. I'm thinking of getting an Olympus Evolt 410.
I wish I could it all with a P&S. Last month I bought the Canon 870 but after 3 rides the zoom mechanism broke and I returned it.
marino
12.27.07 - 11:22 am
reply
bold spillover close it.
marino12.27.07 - 11:23 am
reply
"A newer digital process called Light Jet Printing, is the way to go if you want digital prints to compare to film ones." It's still limited in the types of paper it excepts and in it's contrast control for b&w. The LightJets are great for large prints but for 11x14 and smaller RC wet printing is still going to be more flexible and give better b&w prints.
toweliesbong12.27.07 - 11:33 am
reply
The VR system potentially gains you a stop or so. The lens still starts at 3.5 (as opposed to 2.8) so i'm not sure that it will solve your (and all of ours) dilemma. I haven't purchased a P&S yet because of the limitations you mention. And it is a drag to carry around my slr sometimes but the trade-off is worth it to me so i can have the ability to get decent images to share with everyone. I still am bumping against 1600 iso's and slow shutter speeds but its better than nothing. Alternatively, i throw on my flash at times to capture the moments.
stevo412.27.07 - 11:36 am
reply
A 28mm or 35m f/1.4 lens at ISO 800 (or possibly 1600 depending on the DSLR).
toweliesbong12.27.07 - 11:39 am
reply
as with every comparison, the purpose is a very important aspect. I shoot mostly sports and digital is the clear winner in image capture.
sc_nomad12.27.07 - 11:46 am
reply
"I shoot mostly sports and digital is the clear winner in image capture."
Absolutely, fast frame rates, 1.6x or 1.5x conversion factor for APS-C sized sensors for more reach, digital is particularly great for sports and wildlife.
toweliesbong12.27.07 - 11:51 am
reply
I'll admit that my piece isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
So, I sort of have to play around a bit to get any still-shots of decent quality.
One of these methods is myself anticipating an action, then holding down the shutter button to capture everything ahead of time.
If the flash is on, my hand is steady, and action goes accordingly, I'll usually hit the mark right on the head.
If all else fails, that's where a bright, headlight and my built-in video come into play.
bentstrider12.27.07 - 1:09 pm
reply
Film vs. Digital debates died in 2005.
The new debate, MFD vs, 35mm Digital, continue.
franz12.27.07 - 1:50 pm
reply
My super snob elite setup:
Film:
Canon AE-1, 50mm and 28mm lenses
Yashica T4
various Konica Big Minis
Digital:
Canon SD10
Apple iPhone
No zoom lenses for me!
The iPhone has been used the most lately, sadly. The whole ride-and-shoot thing scares me a bit, I don't know how you guys do it.
cabhauler12.27.07 - 5:44 pm
reply
Nikon E8800
It works for why I bought it and then some.
Jeronimo12.28.07 - 2:43 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
