Photo critics/Camera experts. (advice)

RtC.

RtC.

Active member
Rockjibsess069.jpg


DSCF0612.jpg


DSCF0664.jpg


DSCF0643.jpg


DSCF5233.jpg


DSCF0694.jpg


DSCF5195.jpg


DSCF5208.jpg


So, these are a few photos, that I'm shooting on a Finepix 5600 DSLR, all of the photos have been taken on manual, so limited adjustment of ISO/f-stop/exposure but I'm trying the manage as best I can with what I've got.
Any advice on the photos? Criticism welcome as I'm always learning.

Also, I'm in the market for a new camera and lenses, I guess I'm willing to spend around 2000-3000 US$ as this is something i love doing. I'm after a fast fps, 5 would be a good start, maybe more. And have been looking at Nikon and Canon but am open to all.
I am pretty clueless when it comes to lenses and what is good, i know I need a wide angle and others but some direction for compatibility with good bases would be good to hear about.

Cheers for reading

 
sick set of shots, but, your camera is letting you down, if I were you, buy a canon 450D ("rebel/xti") / 40D depending on budget, then spend a load on a lens, for the kind of shots you've got there, I'd want them to be a bit more personal, so zoom is the key, a 100-400mm would suit you perfectly, its fast enough at 4-5.6 despite what some say, killer lens.
 
I don't like them as much in the black and white. It just makes the picture look flat. The color is much sicker.
 
Yeah man, the camera is a big let down, it was bought on a budget a couple of years ago, but now I'm in the position to buy something more suited to good photography.

You're UK based yeah, i checked your site out, you've got some nice photos on there man. Anyway, I'm based in Sussex when not skiing, where would you recommend buying cameras from, I've always found Jessops to be useless except with prices, and my two local shops recently shut d

Just stick with one lens or get two?
 
ahh sweet! well I find jessops plain shit... I bought my 40D in (of all places) currys, they were by far the cheapest, and threw in a bag, customer service was also top notch, but don't expect them to know anything about photography, for little things I'd used the most local shop you have, even just for tiny stuff, Okay so it may cost you a few extra quid, but they'll take an interest in you, and get to know what kind of kit would suit you,

The 40D is unbelievable, it is perfect in every way, I'd recommend Canon over Nikon, not only because they favor in-lens image stabilizers, but they produce better lenses, so the expansion possibilities are endless....
 
Careful there. I've told you this before. Canon doesn't produce better lenses than Nikon. They produce Lenses for Canon so you really can't compare them can you. I've shot both and there isn't a thing wrong with either. They both make damn good glass. Nikon also has the image stabilizers. However it was rated (from sources from both Canon and Nikon at the last Expo) that Nikon currently has the top seat in better DSLR bodies.

If you are lookin to spend that kind of money on a cam I recommend either the D300 (with battery grip), the D2xs, or the D2hs. All 3 can shoot up to 8 fps.

Also if you are really serious about shooting and are lookin to spend that kind of money, then as far as lenses go, I would recommend a straight lense. No zooming in and out but a solid position. When it comes to straight lenses all of the glass is cut and directed towards that particular focal length. So in turn you are getting the best glass the company provides. At all my weddings that's what I use, a 180mm, 50mm, and a 105mm. I have 1 zoom that I use sometimes, still gives me great results, is the 18-135mm
 
It's personal opinion, when it comes to lenses, Canon glass in my opinion is better than Nikon, I also think Canon have a better selection, what do Nikon produce that compares to a 100-400mm the closest they've got is a 200-400, but no canon-Nikon argument is ever settled so......

I also don't agree with the body argument, you can't generalize that Nikon produce better bodies than cannon, no matter what anyone says, and I'd love a reference for that claim you made!

however fixed focal stop glass is awesome, for weddings, but for sport photography I personally would never use it, you're in such a rapidly changing environment, the slight (VERY slight) drop in quality means your shooting possibilities are exponentially increased.
 
No matter what SLR system you get, get a good fast lens like the 70-200 f2.8

Thats a perfect lens for skiing and other applicable situations.
 
You know, on one aspect you are correct, the battle between Canon and Nikon will never be won. You shoot Canon and I shoot Nikon, so naturally we are gonna back up what we use. However I also back up canon. I choose Nikon cause that is what feels best for me. Years ago when I sold the cams I told customers its what feels most comfortable to them. You can have one that has all the features in the world in it, but if it doesn't feel right to the shooter, those features don't mean shit. Of course you are gonna say that in your opinion Canon glass is better, I won't expect to see you buying a Nikon lense for your Canon cam, how dumb do you thing I am.

On the Lense subject, actually, Nikon makes a 80-400mm (which in fact does have a wider range then Canon). Currently both companies biggest lense happens to be a 600mm. So as far as their "selection", they are the same.

As for a reference, can't produce one, for the fact that it was told to me by head of marketing and research of both companies at the conference. I so hate it when people try and use that tactic, to me it just sounds like crying.

How long have you been shooting? Most pro sports photographers use fixed focal lenses. Ever been to a football game? See the photographers on the sidelines. Hate to break it to you but those are fixed focal lenses. It is much easier and faster to have more than one cam with them that have those lenses on them, then to try and take the time to change out lenses or zoom in on a non fixed lense.
 
fair enough, I'll take your word for the sources, I'm a training Lawyer so my life revolves around sources...sorry .

I entirely agree with your fixed focal length lens argument, and yes I am aware most pro sport photographers shoot prime, but for the purpose of this post, I presumed that the poster wasn't planning on purchasing 3+ cameras, since he was asking us what camera to buy, so buying a zoom seems to be his best bet. As for the 80-400mm, that sounds like an impressive lens! and yea, the Canon Nikon fude can only be settled with "whatever suits you." good call.
 
Canon currently has an 800mm.

Ever been to an NBA game? Most of the lenses you see are 70-200 with some 300 and 400's as well as some wide zooms and fisheye's. Also included with most NFL shooters is the 70-200. Whenever something is happening right in front of them that's what they use. It's easier to notice the big fixed lenses because they're bigger.
 
i need a new camera, does anyone have a canon g9? reviews?? how long would it take me to whip it out of my pocket and take a picture?
 
Think of black and white photography as a way to really emphasize scenes or pictures with a stark contrast.. meaning really DARK darks, against bright lights.. The problem with your black and whites is that the contrast isn't existing to begin with.

The snow is bright in the foreground, the sky is bright, and it doesn't help that the skier is wearing bright clothes either..

See how they are all the same tone? now if the skier was wearing ALL black. then possibly..

Get the idea? Just think B&W when you have a powerful contrast.

Now as far as your photography, you have pretty good work! and I definitely see good things in your future. just stick with it!

But remember most importantly when you take a picture to share a unique perspective. The second shot you did awesome on!

The angle was dead on, you showed the landscape in the background, I love it. My only complaint is the location of the skier

If you divide the picture into slivers.. he's right smack dab in the center. With photography you generally want to keep a rule of thirds.. Placing your point of interest in anything BUT the dead center.. Now there are sitautions where you can do center but you really got to be creative on it. On the photo of the skier with the blue pants. Your photography was sweet and well done!

the skier's style on the trick though is mediocre.. but that's not your fault.

6th picture down - Your perspective on this one is amazing! however, I just wish the snowboarder wasn't minimized by the jump.

There's little to no focus on him here. If he angled that jump and was in the top right corner of this pic then it'd be epic!

And let me share with you a little trick. I definitely reccomend getting photoshop and learning the basics. In about 2 minutes in photoshop I was able to adjust your pic levels, hue/contrast, sharpen it up.. and look at the difference it made.

nsphotos.jpg


 
Cheers GhostDragon, it's good to hear some pointers.

Now I know the black and whites fail because of the contrast, I'm just currently on a camera that I just couldn't get adjusted right in the conditions I was in.

So thanks for your time man, it's really good to hear postive and negative feedback.

About photoshop, there is absolutely no way I can afford it; I know how to use it pretty well and have made sequences and adjusted photos extensively in the past. It really is a cost issue though. Running it on a mac too so my friends family versions won't work for me.

It sucks.

Any recommendations on a body and glass?

Cheers though man.
 
for the b/w it looks like you just converted to grey scale in ps, which is the worst way to do it, theres many different tutuorials that will teach you how to make your b/w shots "pop"
 
some sick shots! definatly pay attention to the long post above (rule of thirds, etc...). also if your background is not interesting, shoot low aperatures b/c it blurs the background out and puts more emphasis on the skier. its a little tough though to get the focus on the skier everytime
 
Cheers for all the input fellas, i really appreciate it.

I have a couple of questions about body/lense options though.

Prices are in UK pounds.

So, I can get a 40D body for 530... This seems damn cheap compared to everywhere else. Is this because there's a new line coming out? It doesn't bother me, i'll buy it whatever.

Also, I can get the canon 70-200 lense f.4 i think for 400 new. This seems to be a pretty good price, and i really can't justify 1000 for the 100-400, plus the size will greatly reduce ease of use.

Do you reckon the 200 will be fine? It's going to better than the stock 17-85, but is going to make 400£ worth of difference.

Also, I want a wide angle lense. Can anyone recommend a good canon lense for wide angle? (Jessops suck, "all the ones listed on our lense sheet will be perfect for your ski photography...")

Finally, I am hitting up America next season, will it be worth me waiting until i get over there for buying glass? It'll all be the same, maybe?

Cheers again
 
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk - all you need for UK pricing.

I'm a Nikon guy but if you go Canon then a 70-200 f4, 10-22 and 50/1.8 is a good but affordable setup. I use a 70-200 for 90% of my ski shots, and around f8 most of the time so that 70-200 should be fine.

Get your lenses first then spend the rest on a body. A used D70 or 10D will do you well and you should be able to get one cheap. And forget about fps.

 
i would definitely try to get your hands on photoshop. if you don't mind torrenting it thats the easiest way. photoshop is soooo helpful in making great photo's. also you could try to fill up your frame a little more, especially if the background is uninteresting.

those are just my tips.
 
Cheers for that bro, that's a sweet site.

I'm only really going Canon because of the deal I'm getting on the body with a 17-85IS USM lense. Like insanely good. I got a new lower price. And it felt good in my hand.

What would Nikon have to offer me?

Cheers everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top