MAMA's Techno-Geek Thread

[jwardell]

I've read books and taken classes. You can't learn talent.

Quote: Originally Posted by bethandlouis

(topic switch) Who has lenses for a canon digital SLR that they want to unload? Looking for a wide angle lens that is pretty good.

Wide angle gets expensive. The 17-25 cannon L is actually a good deal at $700. I have the sigma 15-30 which I think can be found for $400. There isn't much cheaper than that in the sub-20mm range, because you just can't do it with cheap optics.

[NoNo]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwardell

I've read books and taken classes. You can't learn talent.

So you're saying you have no talent. Come on, you walked right into that one!

[NoNo]

I have the Sigma 18-50 on my Nikon, and I love it. When I bought the camera I was starting from scratch, and I just couldn't afford the "official" Nikkor lenses. I have to say, I've never had a problem with the Sigmas. The next lens I want, but will not be getting for a very long time, if ever, is a nice telephoto with vibration reduction. But those are outrageously expensive.

[bethandlouis]

I'm trying to buy Louis another lens and he is resisting all my pushing (crazy man) I am starting to think (even though it's not the best lens) the kit lens (18-55) is keeping him happy. Very tempted now by the 70-200mm f.4L under $600! (but just). Can I justify this purchase? absolutely not but it's not a bad price for an L lens.

[Pamlico]

Problem has to do with the sensor being smaller than a 35mm frame and the resulting need to apply a correction factor (1.6 on my Canon, may be different on the Nikon). This ends up with an 18mm lens being the functional equivalent of a 29mm lens. Not exactly the widest angle unfortunately. (And the 1.6 factor doesn't really mean that a 100 mm lens is the equivalent of a 160 mm).

[MGB Boy]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwardell

I've read books and taken classes. You can't learn talent.

But you can learn technique. The only unlearnable talent in photography is ability to have an image in your head for how you want the final picture to appear and how you want it composed. Technique is how you make that image become reality, knowing what exposure/f stop/metering/etc to use in order to re-create the image you see in your head. Photoshop overcomes shortfalls in technique, not talent. If you have the talent to have the image in your head, it's just a matter of finding the tools to make it happen...

-Ricardo

[jwardell]

Quote: Originally Posted by NoNo

So you're saying you have no talent. Come on, you walked right into that one!

Thats exactly what I was saying.
I almost never get a good picture out-of-camera.
Of course digitals just don't expose as nicely (in an artsy way) as film. So you have to make up with it with PS.
Yeah, I guess some of my few B&W film shots were nice out-of-camera.

[NoNo]

So why don't you try this: Put PS away. Uninstall it if you must. Then start snapping away. That way you'll be forced to work on getting it right the first time. I'm not making any claims as to the quality of my work, but I almost never post-process my pictures. The most I'll do is change it to B&W (still don't know why that's not a built-in function) or tweak the exposure if I was a little off. The only way to learn is through practice, grasshopper.

[jwardell]

Because on days "snapping away" I already take upwards of 600 photos. Do I really need to take more?



Change of subject. I've now been playing with Skype for over a week and I'm very impressed.
I've made free calls to toll-free numbers all over the world.
I used it to book my reservations at the T&C
Works and sounds just like a regular phone, when using it with phones.
When you connect to another skype user, you no longer have the 300-11kHz "phone voice" that you are so used to since there are no bandwidth restrictions.
I'm surprised those of you from across the big lake don't already use it, you can make calls to most of europe for 2 cents a minute.
And I did not experience any delay whatsoever. Delays were exactly the same if I called with my cell phone.
What amazes me is it even works through the firewall at work, which almost nothing does, and it doesn't even need any special config to do so.
I have the Ipevo Free-1 and I'm very happy with it. But I look forward to the self-contained wifi NetGear phone.

[GadgetGav]

Beth, if you want to go w-i-d-e the one to get for Canon is the 10-22mm. It's on my wish list, but it's expensive and fairly limited in what it will do. On the other hand, if you want to take landscapes or odd perspective shots, it's very good..!

[bethandlouis]

I saw the 10-22mm lens and talked to Louis about it. His response, "I don't want you to spend the money." Which is not an I don't want that but an it's too expensive. I am really tempted by the 70-200mm though it's a L lens which is nice and seems to do well in pictures that I've seen. But it's $700 and that is just something that I don't think I can swing right now. So if anyone has a lens in their bag that they just don't use anymore looking to sell?

[snid]

I don't have any lenses to offer up, but if you're thinking wide, the Canon 17-40 f/4 L makes more sense than the 70-200 L. Both great lenses, but the 17-40 is (obviously) wider. Still $700 though. Both of those lenses are supposed to be insanely good.

[GadgetGav]

Quote: Originally Posted by bethandlouis

I saw the 10-22mm lens and talked to Louis about it. His response, "I don't want you to spend the money."

My birthday is in July and I wouldn't mind how much you spent on me..!

[MGB Boy]

I've never spent more than $150 on a lens. Been tempted many times, but never have. Every time I've come close to putting down big money on a lens, I've ended up playing the "for the same money, I could get X and Y and Z" game in my head, then I don't pull the trigger. They'll get me sooner or later though...

-Ricardo

[bethandlouis]

This all started because I wanted to get him another prime. I was going to go for the 24mm prime (less than $300) and we went to the camera shop in Hanover. They didn't have the lens but could order it. I wanted to have Louis look at it through a camera to get the feel for it before slapping down the money for it. The lenses he has currently are 1) the kit lens 18-55mm
2) 50mm f/1.4
3) 28-135mm USM IS

So he has a lens that will technically perform in the 24mm range, albeit not well but good enough to make him happy. (See his gallery http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/f...emberID=148730

We finally got to a camera shop and he looked at the 24mm and he wanted to go wider. I instantly thought of the 17-40mm L lens but that is still only wide at 17. He has a lens that will get wide to 18mm (not well, see comment above). So the next step would be going to the 10-20mm lens as a super wide angle which seems to perform well. But inspite of all my pushing he doesn't want it.

So I was looking to maybe increase his telephoto range as currently it only goes to 135mm and even though it is a pretty good lens there is bound to me vignetting in the corners and some distortion (which may be able to be corrected by ISO and aperture settings) I stumbled across the 70-200mm f/4 L. Seems to do well in the telephoto side. Does have some barrell distortion but not that bad and it also seems that there isn't much in the way of chromatic aberation either. So I brought him this. It overlaps in the telephoto a bit but maybe we don't have to fiddle with the settings and speeds as much to correct anything the lens is doing. We'll have an L lens which by all accounts is a pretty good lens. But it's still $600 and he still doesn't want it.

So I have it on the wish list and maybe come spring he'll want it. So instead of a lens I bought him curb your enthusiasm. Not as fun but a damn funny show!