The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[justin]

i tried to take a picture of the moon rising above the mountain from my window (the moon rises fast as shit BTW) but no matter what settings i tried, the moon is overexposed. plus detail is poor. blame the camera, lens, user, combination of these?

ability to capture scene: fail

[justin]

if i get a D800, it looks like this, right?

[mikeymad]

d800 = just works...

When shooting the moon I always went on the f16 1/25th rule. That being I start the exposure the same as a sunny day (iso100,f16,1/125th)

[Salt Peanuts]

Most photographers need 36MP like they need a hole in the head. I'd still like to see a D3S sensor in a D700 body.

I'd be happy with just a D700. Maybe the introduction of D800 will do wonders to used price for D700 (I doubt it), not that I could afford most nice Nikon lenses.

Speaking of lenses, Canon just introduced 24-70/2.8 II along with new 24/2.8, and 28/2.8 - last two with image stabilization. Why they felt the need to add image stabilization to new 24 and 28 is beyond me.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Salt Peanuts

[Iron_Dreamer]

i tried to take a picture of the moon rising above the mountain from my window (the moon rises fast as shit BTW) but no matter what settings i tried, the moon is overexposed. plus detail is poor. blame the camera, lens, user, combination of these?

ability to capture scene: fail

The problem is really the dynamic range of the scene. On a full moon night, by the time the moon peaks over the horizon, the sun has set sufficiently such that the moon is much brighter than the rest of the landscape. Unless you're using an 800mm+ lens, the moon is just a small bright spec in an otherwise dark scene, therefore, the metering of the camera will decide to expose longer, to brighten up the dark scene (and blow out the moon). To get a shot like the ones that you're showing, with detail in the moon, you'll need to take one shot to expose the landscape, another for the moon, and photoshop it in. Or take the picture a few days earlier in the moon cycle, while there is still enough residual sunlight to balance the brightness of the land and moon naturally.

[Dreadhead]

Or cheat and take two exposures and photoshop

[Jon L]

Speaking of lenses, Canon just introduced 24-70/2.8 II along with new 24/2.8, and 28/2.8 - all with image stabilization. Why they felt the need to add image stabilization to new 24 and 28 is beyond me.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/02/new-gear-canon-ef-24-70-f28l-ii-usm-and-two-wide-angle-primes

$2300 (!!) for 24-70 II. What is Canon smoking? Adding IS to wide angles for some reason and charging more $$. With the concurrent Nikon D800 announcement, at surprisingly lower price points, the Canon lens announcements will likely piss off quite a few Canonites. Arrggh!

[Cankin]

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. No "L" but it has the Longest name

[n_maher]

I still want them to release a D400.

I think it's called the D7000.

[nikongod]

If I switch to Nikon and use Canon lens-to-Nikon Body adapter for my L glass, am I going to lose on-camera aperture control? (in addition to AF)

I cant tell if your joking, but a Canon lens on a Nikon body wont focus to infinity. Canon picked a shorter lens flange to film(sensor) distance to allow for simpler lens designs, Nikon picked longer to allow for 100% coverage viewfinders.

Anyways, why stick with "L" glass when Nikon makes lenses that are similarly awesome?

Edited February 8, 2012 by nikongod

[Jon L]

I cant tell if your joking, but a Canon lens on a Nikon body wont focus to infinity. Canon picked a shorter lens flange to film(sensor) distance to allow for simpler lens designs, Nikon picked longer to allow for 100% coverage viewfinders.

Anyways, why stick with "L" glass when Nikon makes lenses that are similarly awesome?

Because I thought the recent AF-S Nikon lenses actually were priced higher than Canon L counterparts, but with the new Canon 24-70 II priced at $2300, I guess Canon figured out they should charge more.

I guess I *could* sell all my Canon L glass and go Nikon, but I really don't think I can abandon 85L II and 70-200 f2.8 II. Will wait to see if Canon 5D Mk III will pack any punch.

[Iron_Dreamer]

I guess I *could* sell all my Canon L glass and go Nikon, but I really don't think I can abandon 85L II and 70-200 f2.8 II. Will wait to see if Canon 5D Mk III will pack any punch.

Lenses are more important than bodies. I'd stay with the lenses you prefer. Granted, I doubt there's much practical difference between the C/N 70-200 2.8 II's. If you like f/1.2, fully usable tilt-shift lenses, and countless telephoto options, Canon is the place.

[Jon L]

If you like f/1.2, fully usable tilt-shift lenses, and countless telephoto options, Canon is the place.

Funny you should mention TS-E. Been looking at Canon's TS-E's, and obviously 90mm is not going to cut it for landscape. 17 and 24 are rather pricy for f/4, f/3.5 speed offered. So that leaves me with 45mm f/2.8, for less price and better background blur effect. Any thoughts?

[Dreadhead]

I think it's called the D7000.

[n_maher]

I was being mostly serious. It's a highly-advanced pro-sumer body with features and specs that supercede the 300 in every respect that I can think of. The only thing that really needs improving upon would be the burst/continuous shutter speed and capacity, neither of which matters to me so I can't see spending 50% more for something like a 400. The only change that I want to make, but probably will never be able to afford, is the move to full-frame. In that vein the D700 is likely to be the last camera that Nikon makes that I'd want to own, the 36MP sensor on the D800 is a complete non-starter for me from a file-size-management perspective. I can't imagine what a RAW file would be like or the power needed to manipulate it.

[VPI]

Yeah the file size of the 5D mk II RAW images was always my major complaint with the camera. Can't imagine dealing with 700+ 60mb files in transferring and manipulation. I am actually contemplating trading one of the 5Ds for a D700 as it seems like an excellent small D3. I am actually enjoying the Nikon experience quite a bit. So different than the Canon experience. I still greatly prefer the Canon lenses though.

[blessingx]

[crappyjones123]

i read that this morning and was about to post it

[Jon L]

PuHwahwahwa..Love it! In that spirit, I just ordered the white, grooved Speedotron beauty dish I have been eyeing for some time.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/133201-REG/Speedotron_14236_Beauty_Dish_Grid_Reflector.html

[Iron_Dreamer]

Funny you should mention TS-E. Been looking at Canon's TS-E's, and obviously 90mm is not going to cut it for landscape. 17 and 24 are rather pricy for f/4, f/3.5 speed offered. So that leaves me with 45mm f/2.8, for less price and better background blur effect. Any thoughts?

What are you really wanting to do with this lens? You mention landscape, then background blur...?

I had the Nikon 45 PC-E for a while. There is definitely plenty of ability to play with shallow DOF at that focal length/aperture. However, I didn't really end up using tilt as much as I thought I would, and the shots where the lens really made a difference were shifted shots, eliminating the keystoning effect. Though I had a nice time learning the lens, in the end, I didn't get enough use out of it overall to keep it in the bag.

I could see myself using the 24mm more frequently than the 45 (and keystoning is more of an issue at that focal length). The 17 is a very cool product from Canon, but certainly a specialist tool, at that wide a focal length. However, in the presence of the Nikon 14-24, it's hard to look a a pair of lenses, each more expensive, to cover the same general focal range and quality.

Anyway, if you want to play with DOF for people/object shots, the longer, the better. Realistically, you could use any of them for landscapes, that just depends on your style.

[Jon L]

What are you really wanting to do with this lens? You mention landscape, then background blur...?

I mean selective defocusing, for both landscape and people shots. The defocused/blur would be more pronounced with longer focal length, but I don't think 90mm is going to be wide enough for landscapes.. One example I found:

Toy Kuala Lumpur by Timmy Toucan, on Flickr

[Iron_Dreamer]

I mean selective defocusing, for both landscape and people shots. The defocused/blur would be more pronounced with longer focal length, but I don't think 90mm is going to be wide enough for landscapes.. One example I found:

Toy Kuala Lumpur by Timmy Toucan, on Flickr

That particular shot appears to me to have been done, at least partially, in post processing. There should still be a slice of the far background fully in focus if it was indeed done only with lens tilt. If that type of shot is what you're after, the 45 is probably going to give you the best compromise of DOF vs. field of view.

[VPI]

That was all done in post from a P&S picture.

[grawk]

Basically, you need to bracket, then combine them to get detail in the moon

[n_maher]

Basically, you need to bracket, then combine them to get detail in the moon

I've never had any success doing that being the photosoftware newb that I am but I agree, some sort of combined dynamic range image is the only way I see that composition providing any detail of moon. Otherwise the brightness of the moon is going to get blown out when you try to accurately expose the remainder of the frame.