Sale! Canon DSLR's

[Evan]

yeah Ive never been able to do it very well. the car usually turns out pretty blurry. my last camera was much better at it than my current little point and shoot.

a friend of snobeck's had a pretty nice camera and was good at getting them

[Mike]

yeah, lots of practice panning and the right exposure settings. i practiced in japan, but that certainly wasn't the right place to practice

[Apoc]

I know you didn't ask my opinion and you're going to say I'm hating just for the sake of hating or something about me being all knowing but I think that picture actually woulda benefitted from zooming out (with a tweak to the composition).

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/thirds.html">http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/ ... hirds.html</a><!-- m -->

you're right, i wasn't looking for an opinion, i was trying to give an example of something you can't do without ridiculous zoom.

another example:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://iammike.org/pictures/miscellaneous/2004_12_04_JessicasGrandma/.thumbs/lr_head3.jpg">http://iammike.org/pictures/miscellaneo ... _head3.jpg</a><!-- m -->

Understood, but it wasn't a good example.

This one's much better.

The trick to panning is tri/monopod because that stable pivot point doesn't allow for much up/down motion. You see all the track photographers with them for a reason. You can have slow shutter speeds and all you need to do is match the side/side pan of the car without the human blur factor. I say "all you need" but that's easier said than done as it's still takes an assload of practice. One thing I do know is I don't have the patience.

[Goodspeed]

Ok, heres an example...




How does one get their pics to look like that? Extremely sharp and vivid, the colors are amazing...I can't tell if any work was done to them, possibly a saturation filter but they are what I want my pics to look like! I'm guessing its just an extremely expensive camera...

[ViPER1313]

How does one get their pics to look like that? Extremely sharp and vivid, the colors are amazing...I can't tell if any work was done to them, possibly a saturation filter but they are what I want my pics to look like! I'm guessing its just an extremely expensive camera...

Photoshop FTW!!!

[Apoc]

Ok, heres an example...

I'm guessing its just an extremely expensive camera...

Looks like it was taken while the sun was low in the sky, judging by the shadows, which is why the color feels warm. The camera info isn't in the pic but I'm willing to bet that there wasn't any major work done on it. What's shitty about the technology age we live in is everyone assumes everything's been edited in Photoshop, which isn't always true.

Lighting is the key to pretty much any photograph and if that's working for you, the camera really isn't what matters. I took this with my Nikon point and shoot 2 years ago and this is how it appears right outta the camera. Crisp, clear and the lighting works.



The expensive camera thing is one of the biggest misconceptions in photography. Read this, it changed my perspective on equipment.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm</a><!-- m -->

Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.

"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams, June 3, 1937, in a reply to Edward Weston asking for lens suggestions, page 244 of Ansel's autobiography. Ansel made fantastically sharp images seventy years ago without wasting time worrying about how sharp his lenses were. With seventy years of improvement we're far better off concentrating on making stunning photos than photographing test charts.

Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography. For decades I thought "if I only had that new lens" that all my photo wants would be satisfied. Nope. I still want that "one more lens," and I've been shooting for over 30 years. There is always one more lens. Get over it. See "The Station" for a better explanation.

The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs.

[white_2kgt]

Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography.

That's Bullshit, to a point, true, yes, but you are just not going to get the same shot w/ a Canon Powershot as you will w/ an EOS. Lens can also make a HUGE difference and personally where I plan to spend my money at instead of a big $$$ body.

[Apoc]

Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography.

That's Bullshit, to a point, true, yes, but you are just not going to get the same shot w/ a Canon Powershot as you will w/ an EOS.

You're entitled to your opinion but a lot of professionals agree with him. As he said, some of the best pictures of the modern era were taken before the techbological advances of today (read: Ansel Adams). If you think a Powershot can't take a picture as good as an EOS than I honestly feel sorry for your wallet because you're just going to keep buying lens upon lens convinced money eqauls good pics. (Ask me how I know.)

You may not have the lucritive adaptability with a Powershot but I'd take a Powershot and a photographer who knows what they're doing any day. It's the person behind the camera that makes good pictures, not the camera. Ask all the people who take shitty pictures with dSLRs why their pics suck? It's ain't the lens.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sayin' dSLRs are a waste as the cost of my Nikon gear is worth more than my motorcycle. I'm just sayin' that the person, and experience, goes much farther into making great pictures.

[white_2kgt]

Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography.

That's Bullshit, to a point, true, yes, but you are just not going to get the same shot w/ a Canon Powershot as you will w/ an EOS.

You're entitled to your opinion but a lot of professionals agree with him. As he said, some of the best pictures of the modern era were taken before the techbological advances of today (read: Ansel Adams). If you think a Powershot can't take a picture as good as an EOS than I honestly feel sorry for your wallet because you're just going to keep buying lens upon lens convinced money eqauls good pics. (Ask me how I know.)

You may not have the lucritive adaptability with a Powershot but I'd take a Powershot and a photographer who knows what they're doing any day. It's the person behind the camera that makes good pictures, not the camera. Ask all the people who take shitty pictures with dSLRs why their pics suck? It's ain't the lens.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sayin' dSLRs are a waste as the cost of my Nikon gear is worth more than my motorcycle. I'm just sayin' that the person, and experience, goes much farther into making great pictures.

I'll belive it when I see pro's pull a powershot out of their suit pocket at the next wedding I goto. :roll:

[.RJ]

Chad, you're missing the point.

The point was, a pro with a powershot will produce much better pics than someone like you with a DSLR. The pro uses the SLR because its the best equipment. Its the same story as a track car - an experienced racer in a low HP car will embarrass a novice in a high HP car on track.

[white_2kgt]

Chad, you're missing the point.

The point was, a pro with a powershot will produce much better pics than someone like you with a DSLR. The pro uses the SLR because its the best equipment. Its the same story as a track car - an experienced racer in a low HP car will embarrass a novice in a high HP car on track.

So what you are saying is I'll never use the functions of a DSLR? Only someone who gets paid to take pictures ever could? Um, no. I've taken almost 1,000 pictures w/ my Powershot. The first 10 I took w/ the Rebel were better than 90% of all the powershot pictures as far as quality goes.

[.RJ]

You're reading between the lines where there is nothing to find. I NEVER said you wouldnt enjoy the benefits of the SLR. I'd like to have one, but I think I'd take a photography class first to get the most out of it.

The point is someone that knows what they are doing are going to get better shots with your point-and-shoot camera than you are with your SLR, or if I had an SLR, or whatever. Its not a personal attack, thats just the way it is.

[white_2kgt]

You're reading between the lines where there is nothing to find. I NEVER said you wouldnt enjoy the benefits of the SLR. I'd like to have one, but I think I'd take a photography class first to get the most out of it.

The point is someone that knows what they are doing are going to get better shots with your point-and-shoot camera than you are with your SLR, or if I had an SLR, or whatever. Its not a personal attack, thats just the way it is.

Here is the first line in the quote posted above,

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."

That is 100% bullshit. End of story and what I am arguing about.

[Apoc]

Here is the first line in the quote posted above,

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."

That is 100% bullshit. End of story and what I am arguing about.

I think you're confusing picture quality with the aesthetic/artisitc quality of the picture. Obviously a piece of shit camera is going to take piece of shit pictures but a large majority of cameras, especially those like the Powershot, have evolved enough that the techinical difference in quality is imperceptable. Crappy pictures are more often the blame of the photographer and not the camera.

If you instantly took better shots with your dSLR, that's because you didn't know how to use your Powershot. I have $5000+ in dSLR equipment and some of my best pictures were on my $400 Nikon. Hell, aside from glass (and I know you're going to say that's reason), most of the settings the average person uses are available on most P&S.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.101science.com/Photography.htm">http://www.101science.com/Photography.htm</a><!-- m -->

[white_2kgt]

Here is the first line in the quote posted above,

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."

That is 100% bullshit. End of story and what I am arguing about.

I think you're confusing picture quality with the aesthetic/artisitc quality of the picture. Obviously a piece of shit camera is going to take piece of shit pictures but a large majority of cameras, especially those like the Powershot, have evolved enough that the techinical difference in quality is imperceptable. Crappy pictures are more often the blame of the photographer and not the camera.

If you instantly took better shots with your dSLR, that's because you didn't know how to use your Powershot. I have $5000+ in dSLR equipment and some of my best pictures were on my $400 Nikon. Hell, aside from glass (and I know you're going to say that's reason), most of the settings the average person uses are available on most P&S.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.101science.com/Photography.htm">http://www.101science.com/Photography.htm</a><!-- m -->

I am takling from a standpoint of picture quality, clarity, shadow's, macro stuff. My Powershot CANNOT take a picture like this,
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.2kgt.com/gallery/d/1160-2/IMG_0864_Medium.jpg">http://www.2kgt.com/gallery/d/1160-2/IM ... Medium.jpg</a><!-- m -->

Everything would have came out blurry/grainy. THAT is what I'm talking about. Maybe the newer ones can, good for them.

[Apoc]

Personally I don't think that picture is that clear. That's an honest opinion that I'm stating for sake of this discussion and not meant to flame just for the hell of it. Regardless, I bet it can, provided it has the macro setting (which pretty much all of them do), but that's neither here nor there. I'm not going to argue back and forth what your camera and can't do, just saying that there a ton of very capable P&S out there.

I took this 3 years ago with my $400 P&S. You can see the freaking dust for pete's sake and I'm not even that good of a photographer. Good for me, right? My point is I didn't need my dSLR to get a great macro shot.

http://www.derecola.com/archives/daytona...35_JPG.jpg

At this point I guess we just agree to disagree... but next time there's a gathering bring your Powershot and I'll show you what it can do. :wink:

[white_2kgt]

Well, to me, there isn't a lot of color, shadow or detail in that picture to decide if the quality is all that great, but like you said, this isn't worth arguing about, I know the rebel is going to take better pictures set to full auto than my P&S did when christina is taking pictures of the baby, and that was the #1 reason why I got it, #2 was to have another toy.

[Apoc]

Full auto pretty much puts everything in perspective. If you're not going to use the features and tweak settings yourself, chances are a more expensive camera will take better pics. Anyway, good luck with your camera. After owning mine for about 2 years I can say the best advice anyone ever gave me was PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE. Unlike film, 1s and 0s are cheap.

[Apoc]

Well, to me, there isn't a lot of color, shadow or detail in that picture to decide if the quality is all that great...

Here's a better example.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://derecola.com/archives/cruise04/images/DSCN1224_JPG.jpg">http://derecola.com/archives/cruise04/i ... 24_JPG.jpg</a><!-- m -->

[HAULN-SS]

possibly the grossest picture ive ever seen