Neal Osborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lauren, I can only imagine the scene in the Marietta burbs as you walked the pavement in those boots.
Olle . . . here are a few examples of shooting wide open in low light from a fireworks party last night. You could do similar stuff with the 35mm AF-s.
Olle, the 35mm 1.8 was made to fill the missing link in the Nikon line up for the Dx cameras. Think of it as a 50mm 1.8 on Dx sensor. For the price, it is “the” walk around prime lens. The specs are impressive but have similar limitations at wide open as the 1.4 (CA, etc). Based on my sampling it is also a bit soft at f2.8 and below. However, it is the least expensive “good” option to get in to ambient and low light walk around photography for a Dx sensor, IMHO. If I didn’t already have an old but very good 28mm Cosina lens that 35mm1.8 would be scratching at the wallet.
Another idea – you can usually get an older 60mm macro on Ebay for less than $300 (I think the older glass is better than the new covered glass model personally – mine is an older version). Depending on your price point, it is possible to get both the 35mm and the 60mm macro for about the same price as a new 50mm 1.4.
BTW, the camera settings for the pics above: Flower, 8:30 pm at night, street light ambient only, 1/125 (fast) at f/1.4 -1/3EV, ISO200. This shot is an example of “fast glass” since the ambient light was dark dark and I still shot at 1/125 (fast) because of the wide open f1.4 (and at ISO 200! so minimal noise) and by the way it was handheld without blur/shake. That is why people love the 1.4 lenses in low light. Girl one, early daylight diffused, 1/1250 at f/2.0, +2/3EV, ISO 160. Girl two, same light, 1/125, at f2.8, +2/3EV, ISO160.
Olle,
The Nikon 50 1.4 is kinda like a pop star – everyone loves to talk about it on the internet and make wild claims about how “fast” it is and how it will start your car and kiss you good night. Honestly, as much as I pride myself on researching equipment (to a fault really) I couldn’t resist the urge and ended up getting the 50 1.4. Everything David mentioned above is spot on. It is a great lens above f2.8 but the whole 1.4 fast glass creamy background artsy-fartsy stuff is often overdone. Furthermore, as mentioned multiple times elsewhere, this lens just feeds my desire to go Fx because on my Dx sensor I am always cursing about the loss of frame. Personally, I end up using my 60mm 2.0 Micro-Nikkor most of the time and that 1.4 tends to sit in my bag. Overall, not a regretful purchase because it does get some great dog shots in low light but it wants to live on an Fx frame and now I just stew about getting a new body. Personally, I’d get the 60mm macro – it’s one of my favorite battle lenses and used much more frequently. By the way, the 35mm f1.8 Dx lens is about a perfect lens for a D60 level camera and at $199 the price will get you into the artsy stuff much quicker without the regret.
The 60mm macro lens will also serve you well for fly photography, much more versatile.
All that said, it is fun to play with prime lenses. These are from my 50mm f1.4.
Todd,
The W-80 is a great camera. Honestly, just pick one (Olympus or Pentax) that is a good deal and get it. Check out http://www.flyartstudio.com where I have posted some tutorials on how to use a waterproof point-and-shoot camera. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me or post them here for discussion.
By the way, what are you holding in your avatar?
That’s a great point about the importance of correctly placing the dead space and making sure the background lines flow with the subject. Never noticed it in that fly image until you pointed out that the plane of the fly is tangential to the horizon, resulting in a feeling of falling down a slope – unnatural really. That’s the funny thing about rules – they are there for a reason and breaking them requires careful planning. Again, this is a great topic, it has really got me thinking.
Thanks Morsie (and Rob and others), great topic . . . as always. I’m taking notes. By the way, that last picture in the first set (saltwater fly casting) is just flat out awesome. And Rob, your tight in compositions are very intriguing.
Hey, I want to take this topic one step further. What about using horizons or “planes” to create an off sense of motion in an image? I’m talking about about the creative application of skew rather than the unwanted sense of sea sickness that we get with incorrect application of the horizon shot on tilt.
Here is an example of what I’m talking about. Recently, I have been shooting my fly art stuff with skewed planes and it really seems to add a sense of movement/motion to the flies. Anyone have examples or thoughts on how we could purposely skew a landscape shot to add interest without straining the viewer?
Chad,
They say imitation is a pure form of flattery. I had your basketball picture in mind this morning when I took this picture of Chloe on our Sunday walk. Shot with my iPhone . . . early morning sun directly behind the subject. It’s not really the same setup with the low angle of the sun but still got me thinking.
