Support NeoGAF

[Astral/H3X]

Are monopod good low profile and quick setup (in busy area) alternative for photography

Something like manfrotto xpro

Because all monopod videos I've seen are for video filming

So, with a monopod it's in sort of a weird place; they provide benefit, but not enough for me to want to take it for photography. I'd say it'd provide more benefit if you have IBIS or some form of stabilization, as a monopod will give just enough extra stabilization to allow those longer exposures. On it's own with no OIS/IBIS? I'd just as quick just find something to lean on.

That being said, depending on what you're doing, it can still be really helpful. I know people use them for hyperlapses because it helps you make sure the camera stays level throughout the shoot, for example.

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

So, with a monopod it's in sort of a weird place; they provide benefit, but not enough for me to want to take it for photography. I'd say it'd provide more benefit if you have IBIS or some form of stabilization, as a monopod will give just enough extra stabilization to allow those longer exposures.

Same here. Instead of a monopod, I have a 1/4"-20 screw with a captive D-ring attached to a loop of paracord. Attach it to the tripod mount, step on the loop so it's tight, boom, extra stops of IS.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

So, I found a pair of expired rolls of 100ISO color negative and I decided to pop my film cherry putting them through my dad's Praktica Super TL1000, with a Zeiss 50mm f2.8 and a Super Takumar 135mm f2.5
I'm using a phone app for metering, and so far this is exhilaratingly fun.

I just hope I'm doing things right because so far I'm liking the photos I'm taking 😅

 

[selfnoise]

Some people are really good at using their legs to create a tripod with the monopod... But I am not one of those people. So I stick with the tripod.

Also I think the monopod creates a temptation to carry the camera around on a pole all the time, but if I do that on a hike I'm going to bash it into a tree eventually.

 

[Ty4on]

So, I found a pair of expired rolls of 100ISO color negative and I decided to pop my film cherry putting them through my dad's Praktica Super TL1000, with a Zeiss 50mm f2.8 and a Super Takumar 135mm f2.5
I'm using a phone app for metering, and so far this is exhilaratingly fun.

I just hope I'm doing things right because so far I'm liking the photos I'm taking 😅

You'll get pictures anyways, but a tip with expired film is to overexpose by a stop per decade out of date.
I pretty much always err on the side of overexposure with negatives too; highlights have a lot of latitude and fall off smoothly. Too much can make colors less saturated tho.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

You'll get pictures anyways, but a tip with expired film is to overexpose by a stop per decade out of date.
I pretty much always err on the side of overexposure with negatives too; highlights have a lot of latitude and fall off smoothly. Too much can make colors less saturated tho.

Now that you mention exposure latitude, do I have to consistently over/underexpose for pushing and pulling or is it really "I can be lenient with the exposure"?

 

[Ty4on]

Now that you mention exposure latitude, do I have to consistently over/underexpose for pushing and pulling or is it really "I can be lenient with the exposure"?

You should be consistent; if you push 100 speed film two stops pretend it's 400 speed, but the latitude means you can be a little off here and there.
Are you thinking of pushing the film when you process it?

I think film can be a bit more picky when pushed or pulled as the dynamic range shrinks, but I'm not very familiar with pushing and pulling. Color film can be a bit harder too as they risk a color cast so they are usually not pushed more than a stop.

 

[Futureman]

Ty40n, thanks for the detailed response regarding Canon film cameras on the previous page.

if I'm just playing around initially to get a feel for things, where do you recommended I buy film and where should I get it processed?

I was in a photography class a few years ago and the instructor mentioned in a previous class of his someone sampled all the places to get film developed and the lab at Costco was actually one of the best as far as price/quality goes. Honestly I'm not even sure if they still do film there though.

 

[Ty4on]

Ty40n, thanks for the detailed response regarding Canon film cameras on the previous page.

if I'm just playing around initially to get a feel for things, where do you recommended I buy film and where should I get it processed?

I was in a photography class a few years ago and the instructor mentioned in a previous class of his someone sampled all the places to get film developed and the lab at Costco was actually one of the best as far as price/quality goes. Honestly I'm not even sure if they still do film there though.

Buy film wherever it is cheapest and most accessible. Camera stores like B&H still stock film.
I have no idea where to get it processed in the US, but I'd kinda go with the cheapest. If Costco still does it it's probably great, but those options can be less flexible like no push/pull. You can maybe find a local camera store doing it. The cheapest option for me is a small local store, but that's also because virtually all of the regular shops have stopped processing.
It's pricy, but I recommend getting it scanned too. Scanning film yourself is quite time consuming and a semi decent scanner will run you a few hundred bucks. Scanning fresh film also means less dust. If you just want prints you can of course just order that, but a scanned film in an uncompressed format (like TIFF) can be edited like a raw file. I even put my TIFF scans through Dxo Optics to process them and know a lot of people Lightroom.

 

[captive]

Even the words sound beautiful. I hope you like the final print

edit: Oh right you already got it. It must look amazing

yea got it hung.

24x72 high gloss exhibit mount with 3/4" inset frame with wire hanger.

exhibit mount edge

if you get metal prints form Bay Photo i would highly recommend the exhibit mount. it gives the picture a black edge, which is smoother than the raw aluminum edge.




of course the digital file
One by Billy York, on Flickr

print > digital file.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Not camera equipment related but do any of you folks have suggestions on photo printers?

 

[captive]

Not camera equipment related but do any of you folks have suggestions on photo printers?

epson and cannon are the best.

what are you looking to do?

 

[sixteen-bit]

epson and cannon are the best.

what are you looking to do?

Mostly just family photos for albums. No large prints or anything. It's convenient to get them printed at pharmacies and stuff, but I wonder which will be more cost-effective in the long run.

 

[captive]

Mostly just family photos for albums. No large prints or anything. It's convenient to get them printed at pharmacies and stuff, but I wonder which will be more cost-effective in the long run.

if you're doing small prints 4x6 to 8x10 its more cost effective to print at Walgreens, CVS, Costco etc. They are often running sales and you can print 4x6 for like 10 or 20 cents per photo sometimes.

In that case it would not be cost effective to get a printer, unless you want to just do it for fun. Where it becomes cost effective is doing large prints.

 

[NysGAF]

I'm waiting for Adorama to get a good used one in stock so I could trade the 18-55 in for it. The 18-55 just seems lifeless too me, there's no pop. I'm wondering is it that much better? It seems so when I see the flickr page for it, I'm just making sure if people that have the 16-55 prefer it over the kit lens.

You can put me in the "worth it" category. I tried the 18-55 first as well. It's a great lens, but I wanted the best and I have no beef with the weight issue other owners complain about. Compared to the 5D w/24-70 combo, the weight is no problem.

The first thing I noticed was how quick the focus is compared to the 18-55. Next you just have to love the 2.8 aperture all the way across the focal length. And finally, the 16mm really is that much better than the 18mm and is such a fun focal length to shoot with.

Those are my top three reasons to upgrade. Hope it helps.

 

[TFGB]

Cracking pic Captive!!

Are monopod good low profile and quick setup (in busy area) alternative for photography

Something like manfrotto xpro

Because all monopod videos I've seen are for video filming

I'm off to a WWT nature reserve on Friday, and I'll be taking my carbon Manfrotto monopod with me. My XPRO BHQ2 ball head arrived today, so I'll be using that.

I'll be taking my D800E/200-500 VR Nikkor attached to my Black Rapid Sport strap, but I can quickly release it from the strap and attach to the Monopod hassle free when I need to.

I'll be using the ballhead to have my lens attached perpendicular to the monopod via the collar, as I find it helps with stability, as shown in this video here from a chap who also does this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edIKz_9Otbc

The monopod will be used not just for stability, but to also give my arms a rest!!

 

[JadedWriter]

You can put me in the "worth it" category. I tried the 18-55 first as well. It's a great lens, but I wanted the best and I have no beef with the weight issue other owners complain about. Compared to the 5D w/24-70 combo, the weight is no problem.

The first thing I noticed was how quick the focus is compared to the 18-55. Next you just have to love the 2.8 aperture all the way across the focal length. And finally, the 16mm really is that much better than the 18mm and is such a fun focal length to shoot with.

Those are my top three reasons to upgrade. Hope it helps.

I have been doing some work shoots recently with my Nikon 2.8 24-70 and I'm like, "yeah this is why I bought this thing." It's just such a versatile range. I'm on full frame, I'm used to weight and this stuff weighs less than that so I'm fine. I didn't exactly go into mirrorless because it's "light" good lenses need glass...period. The shoots that I've been doing have actually reaffirmed that I need the 16-55. Shit I didn't even like the XT2 till I got a legit Fuji lens for it, the 18-55 does not bring out the best in that camera, it might be geared more towards the earlier XTrans sensors or something. I think even the 90 F2 doesn't come to life till you put it on an XT2 or XPro 2.

 

[JadedWriter]

So...Fuji 16-55 for 925. Should I just snap it up?

 

[chefbags]

Anyone know a good place to get the A7s with the kit lens?

 

[nhlducks35]

So...Fuji 16-55 for 925. Should I just snap it up?

Yeah that's pretty good, I got mine for $900

 

[JadedWriter]

Yeah that's pretty good, I got mine for $900

And bought. Now I can just sell my 18-55 to make up the difference a little. Edit: Looks like I bought it off of an architectural photographer. I can assume the lens was well taken care of, also must be why the offer of 875 was rejected.

 

[Sir Doom]

So, with a monopod it's in sort of a weird place; they provide benefit, but not enough for me to want to take it for photography. I'd say it'd provide more benefit if you have IBIS or some form of stabilization, as a monopod will give just enough extra stabilization to allow those longer exposures. On it's own with no OIS/IBIS? I'd just as quick just find something to lean on.

Thanks

Cracking pic Captive!!



I'm off to a WWT nature reserve on Friday, and I'll be taking my carbon Manfrotto monopod with me. My XPRO BHQ2 ball head arrived today, so I'll be using that.

I'll be taking my D800E/200-500 VR Nikkor attached to my Black Rapid Sport strap, but I can quickly release it from the strap and attach to the Monopod hassle free when I need to.

I'll be using the ballhead to have my lens attached perpendicular to the monopod via the collar, as I find it helps with stability, as shown in this video here from a chap who also does this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edIKz_9Otbc

The monopod will be used not just for stability, but to also give my arms a rest!!

Post an update on how it goes

 

[JadedWriter]

Got my 90 F2. Why isn't this thing more popular? It's fast and sharp as fuck.

 

[TerryLee81]

Got my 90 F2. Why isn't this thing more popular? It's fast and sharp as fuck.

I think the focal length is the only reason that it isn't more popular. 135mm is not for everyone.

 

[JadedWriter]

I think the focal length is the only reason that it isn't more popular. 135mm is not for everyone.

So is it safe to say that it's more to my liking because I live at the long end of my 70-200 all the damn time? Yeah it requires more feet zooming...or unzooming, but the lens is great. I don't even find it that big, I hate the lens hood though.

 

[TerryLee81]

So is it safe to say that it's more to my liking because I live at the long end of my 70-200 all the damn time? Yeah it requires more feet zooming...or unzooming, but the lens is great. I don't even find it that big, I hate the lens hood though.

Yeah it's awful. And does yours also feel like there's a loose part inside if the camera is turned off? It goes away when turning the camera on.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

You should be consistent; if you push 100 speed film two stops pretend it's 400 speed, but the latitude means you can be a little off here and there.
Are you thinking of pushing the film when you process it?

I think film can be a bit more picky when pushed or pulled as the dynamic range shrinks, but I'm not very familiar with pushing and pulling. Color film can be a bit harder too as they risk a color cast so they are usually not pushed more than a stop.

I'm shooting at the rated speed (100) and probably should be shooting at ISO50 considering the film is expired. I also don't know whether the camera has any light leaks, it was sitting in a drawer for years.
Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to finish the first roll.

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

So is it safe to say that it's more to my liking because I live at the long end of my 70-200 all the damn time? Yeah it requires more feet zooming...or unzooming, but the lens is great.

135mm is kinda of a weird focal length, really. It's a really long portraiture FL, but lots of portraiture are done indoors, most of the indoors shooting most people do is at home (anecdotal evidence and all that), so anything above 85mm gets really cramped and unwieldy.

If you shoot a lot outdoors and in large indoor spaces (theaters, churches, big studios, etc), then it gets much more useful and creates (well, not the lens, but the distance it puts you from the subject to get the same magnification) a really nice flat perspective I personally like a lot.

If you tried to get a thigh-up portrait with a 135mm here at the agency I work for, you'd have your back flush against the back studio wall. Not very practical.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

135mm is kinda of a weird focal length, really. It's a really long portraiture FL, but lots of portraiture are done indoors, most of the indoors shooting most people do is at home (anecdotal evidence and all that), so anything above 85mm gets really cramped and unwieldy.

If you shoot a lot outdoors and in large indoor spaces (theaters, churches, big studios, etc), then it gets much more useful and creates (well, not the lens, but the distance it puts you from the subject to get the same magnification) a really nice flat perspective I personally like a lot.

If you tried to get a thigh-up portrait with a 135mm here at the agency I work for, you'd have your back flush against the back studio wall. Not very practical.

It is the best FL for telephoto candid shots in the street, no contest. The right blend of reach, perspective compression, defocus, and handling.

 

[JadedWriter]

It is the best FL for telephoto candid shots in the street, no contest. The right blend of reach, perspective compression, defocus, and handling.

This is one of the main reasons why I bought it.

135mm is kinda of a weird focal length, really. It's a really long portraiture FL, but lots of portraiture are done indoors, most of the indoors shooting most people do is at home (anecdotal evidence and all that), so anything above 85mm gets really cramped and unwieldy.

If you shoot a lot outdoors and in large indoor spaces (theaters, churches, big studios, etc), then it gets much more useful and creates (well, not the lens, but the distance it puts you from the subject to get the same magnification) a really nice flat perspective I personally like a lot.

If you tried to get a thigh-up portrait with a 135mm here at the agency I work for, you'd have your back flush against the back studio wall. Not very practical.

I'm mostly an outdoor portraits person these days. If I'm in doors I use my FX set up, I'll get the 56 at some point though.

Yeah it's awful. And does yours also feel like there's a loose part inside if the camera is turned off? It goes away when turning the camera on.

They all do that. That's the magnets for the AF shifting back and forth. They move because there's no current keeping them in place. The 50-140 is the same way.

 

[JadedWriter]

This a good strap for my Fuji XT2? I've heard great things about Peak Designs *cough Astral cough*

 

[Astral/H3X]

This a good strap for my Fuji XT2? I've heard great things about Peak Designs *cough Astral cough*

*cough seriously Peak Designs cough*

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

I'm trying to get back in photography again. I've always taken photos of inanimate objects because I hated how blurry my photos of anything that moved looked. But I do want to start taking pictures of my friends for fun and I would feel bad if they didn't turn out well because I'd feel like I wasted their time.

I have an old Nikon D5000 with kit lens. I was looking to upgrade the lens to a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. Would this be an acceptable upgrade? Can I get away with keeping the body still? I know the gear doesn't matter as much as the skill, but almost every picture I take on someone else's camera looks better to me than one taken on my Nikon. I've looked at prime lens as well, and they seem nifty and cheap, but a friend recommended the Sigma.

I'm also trying not to break the bank too badly for something that is ultimately just a hobby for me. I want to take photos of posed people as well as casual shots in low lighting like an arcade or something. I also take photos of my figurines. Something with high aperture is something I considered (one of the strengths of the prime lens I was looking at).

I don't really know much about photography and intend on reading a book on the basics soon, but thanks for the help.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Yashica is bringing an "unprecedented camera" to kickstarter next month. Any froth?

 

[JadedWriter]

I'm trying to get back in photography again. I've always taken photos of inanimate objects because I hated how blurry my photos of anything that moved looked. But I do want to start taking pictures of my friends for fun and I would feel bad if they didn't turn out well because I'd feel like I wasted their time.

I have an old Nikon D5000 with kit lens. I was looking to upgrade the lens to a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. Would this be an acceptable upgrade? Can I get away with keeping the body still? I know the gear doesn't matter as much as the skill, but almost every picture I take on someone else's camera looks better to me than one taken on my Nikon. I've looked at prime lens as well, and they seem nifty and cheap, but a friend recommended the Sigma.

I'm also trying not to break the bank too badly for something that is ultimately just a hobby for me. I want to take photos of posed people as well as casual shots in low lighting like an arcade or something. I also take photos of my figurines. Something with high aperture is something I considered (one of the strengths of the prime lens I was looking at).

I don't really know much about photography and intend on reading a book on the basics soon, but thanks for the help.

Regarding moving things up your shutter speed. I actually used to have that Sigma...it's not bad, but the AF is all over the place to be honest. If you can find it cheap enough I recommend it.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

Regarding moving things up your shutter speed. I actually used to have that Sigma...it's not bad, but the AF is all over the place to be honest. If you can find it cheap enough I recommend it.

The cheapest I can find it is $320. Do you think it's worth it at that price?

 

[QualityPixel]

I'm trying to get back in photography again. I've always taken photos of inanimate objects because I hated how blurry my photos of anything that moved looked. But I do want to start taking pictures of my friends for fun and I would feel bad if they didn't turn out well because I'd feel like I wasted their time.

I have an old Nikon D5000 with kit lens. I was looking to upgrade the lens to a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. Would this be an acceptable upgrade? Can I get away with keeping the body still? I know the gear doesn't matter as much as the skill, but almost every picture I take on someone else's camera looks better to me than one taken on my Nikon. I've looked at prime lens as well, and they seem nifty and cheap, but a friend recommended the Sigma.

I'm also trying not to break the bank too badly for something that is ultimately just a hobby for me. I want to take photos of posed people as well as casual shots in low lighting like an arcade or something. I also take photos of my figurines. Something with high aperture is something I considered (one of the strengths of the prime lens I was looking at).

I don't really know much about photography and intend on reading a book on the basics soon, but thanks for the help.

The camera is more than capable, the Sigma 17-50mm with OS would help with motion blur because it does have an optical stabilizer and a faster aperture of F2.8 (this is assuming you have the non-VR 18-55mm lens).

Look into using the A mode and force a larger aperture (smaller F number) which allow more light into the camera and allow for faster shutter speeds. And don't be afraid to use a higher ISO from time to time, ISO 1600 or 3200 when super necessary. The extra image noise will only be noticeable when viewing up close or making large prints.

Also, whenever I'm taking photos and I'm worried about motion blur from camera shake I always take several photos and keep the one that looks best.

And if you find yourself taking a lot of photos in low light consider the Nikon 35mm F/1.8G. It's great for low-light and portraits.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

The camera is more than capable, the Sigma 17-50mm with OS would help with motion blur because it does have an optical stabilizer and a faster aperture of F2.8 (this is assuming you have the non-VR 18-55mm lens).

Look into using the A mode and force a larger aperture (smaller F number) which allow more light into the camera and allow for faster shutter speeds. And don't be afraid to use a higher ISO from time to time, ISO 1600 or 3200 when super necessary. The extra image noise will only be noticeable when viewing up close or making large prints.

Also, whenever I'm taking photos and I'm worried about motion blur from camera shake I always take several photos and keep the one that looks best.

And if you find yourself taking a lot of photos in low light consider the Nikon 35mm F/1.8G. It's great for low-light and portraits.

Thank you! I know being able to shoot in manual is important as a photographer, but I could never seem to balance my settings correctly. When I used to shoot for fun years ago I always relied on Auto or the various Scene modes which I suppose aren't always friendly with moving objects or scenes. I'll try to rely more on manual settings.

It's funny that you mention those lens because those were the exact ones I was looking at when I mentioned prime lens! I really liked the price and ease of use, but it was my friend who also does photography on the side who kinda discouraged me away from them. I think he thought the Sigma was a better investment as a replacement for my kit lens (which are apparently generally terrible?). He seems to value the zooming of the Sigma more because the prime lens may feel too restrictive. He seems to think if I get the 35mm I might still want the Sigma later on.

 

[Gin-Shiio]

I hope I'm asking in the right thread. My girlfriend is looking for a new and affordable phone with a great camera. She's currently leaning towards the Xiaomi Mi6. Do you guys have any input or suggestions? Thanks in advance!

 

[JadedWriter]

The camera is more than capable, the Sigma 17-50mm with OS would help with motion blur because it does have an optical stabilizer and a faster aperture of F2.8 (this is assuming you have the non-VR 18-55mm lens).

Look into using the A mode and force a larger aperture (smaller F number) which allow more light into the camera and allow for faster shutter speeds. And don't be afraid to use a higher ISO from time to time, ISO 1600 or 3200 when super necessary. The extra image noise will only be noticeable when viewing up close or making large prints.

Also, whenever I'm taking photos and I'm worried about motion blur from camera shake I always take several photos and keep the one that looks best.

And if you find yourself taking a lot of photos in low light consider the Nikon 35mm F/1.8G. It's great for low-light and portraits.

He's on a much older crop sensor camera. I personally wouldn't touch 3200 on that thing, but I do A LOT of low light events and have been in some fucked up lighting conditions. So maybe lowlight for him isn't as bad as my low light gets.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

The reason I listed low lighting as a priority was that a friend and I recently went to one and I borrowed his camera and just snapped a few shots with him for fun. He's just getting into photography himself and has a D3400 with the 35mm Nikor I was looking at. Here's an example picture (not the best but it's the only one I have on hand at the moment):

I know it's not a good example, but you can see that the two people are illuminated by the game fairly well. The settings here were a focal length of 35mm with 1.8 aperture obviously, an ISO of 1800, and a shutter speed of 1/250. The pictures taken came out pretty vivid and sharp even with a lot of movement. If I were to take these pictures with my D5000 and kit lens, the only thing you'd probably see are the game screens along with blurry blobs of people as they walk by.

I just tested out my camera in my brightly lit living room on manual. Even with an ISO of 1600, aperture at f/4 (the lowest I can get on the current 55-200 lens I had on hand), and a shutter speed of 1/60, the pictures still came out pretty dark. For this reason, I really gravitated toward the 35mm prime lens because I was impressed with how sharp the pictures were in that arcade. I just hope my camera body won't hamstring it in any way. My other friend still strongly recommends the Sigma over prime lens. I guess my question is do you think the Sigma lens will achieve similar results in a similar setting to the prime lens? I'm really attracted to the higher aperture, low light performance, and less moving parts with the 35mm. But I'm worried I might lose out on the flexibility and long term prospects the Sigma offers.

I'm sorry if I made no sense. I was really just typing my thoughts as I had them. Thanks for listening to my rambling and for the advice!

 

[RayStorm]

I really had a lot of fun with the Nikon 35mm F/1.8G and D5000 combination. But I was coming from the 18-55 VR Kit lens, and never considered a faster zoom lens such as the F 2.8 you are considering. Considering the low cost and performance I don't think you would be making a mistake in buying it and seing how far it takes you.

 

[Aruarian Reflection]

yea got it hung.


24x72 high gloss exhibit mount with 3/4" inset frame with wire hanger.

exhibit mount edge


if you get metal prints form Bay Photo i would highly recommend the exhibit mount. it gives the picture a black edge, which is smoother than the raw aluminum edge.


of course the digital file
One by Billy York, on Flickr

print > digital file.

Is gloss too reflective / glare? I want to get a couple metal prints made but wonder how the mid-gloss looks. Wish I could get small samples from Bayphoto without having to pay for them

 

[JadedWriter]

The reason I listed low lighting as a priority was that a friend and I recently went to one and I borrowed his camera and just snapped a few shots with him for fun. He's just getting into photography himself and has a D3400 with the 35mm Nikor I was looking at. Here's an example picture (not the best but it's the only one I have on hand at the moment):



I know it's not a good example, but you can see that the two people are illuminated by the game fairly well. The settings here were a focal length of 35mm with 1.8 aperture obviously, an ISO of 1800, and a shutter speed of 1/250. The pictures taken came out pretty vivid and sharp even with a lot of movement. If I were to take these pictures with my D5000 and kit lens, the only thing you'd probably see are the game screens along with blurry blobs of people as they walk by.

I just tested out my camera in my brightly lit living room on manual. Even with an ISO of 1600, aperture at f/4 (the lowest I can get on the current 55-200 lens I had on hand), and a shutter speed of 1/60, the pictures still came out pretty dark. For this reason, I really gravitated toward the 35mm prime lens because I was impressed with how sharp the pictures were in that arcade. I just hope my camera body won't hamstring it in any way. My other friend still strongly recommends the Sigma over prime lens. I guess my question is do you think the Sigma lens will achieve similar results in a similar setting to the prime lens? I'm really attracted to the higher aperture, low light performance, and less moving parts with the 35mm. But I'm worried I might lose out on the flexibility and long term prospects the Sigma offers.

I'm sorry if I made no sense. I was really just typing my thoughts as I had them. Thanks for listening to my rambling and for the advice!

This is all about that one stop of light in the 1.8 and also the d3400 having a better sensor. I don't think the d5000 is as capable in low light since they made pretty decent inroads to that with the 24mp sensor. The Sigma is fine. If you can ebay that for about 250 then fine. Hopefully you get one with consistent AF. There's a reason I stopped using that for events.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

Thanks for all the help guys! Hopefully I'm lucky with these eBay auctions that may allow me to get more for less money. If possible I kinda wanna upgrade to a D5500 body if I am find a good enough deal. But for now I'll just see how far a new lens will take me. Thanks again!

 

[captive]

Is gloss too reflective / glare? I want to get a couple metal prints made but wonder how the mid-gloss looks. Wish I could get small samples from Bayphoto without having to pay for them

its reflective but its not bad. you can order samples. IMO the high gloss looks the best.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Quick gig pricing Q.

Headshots for small business. 4-5 people in a real estate loan office, plus one group shot. Southern California.

I can do the shoot no prob, I just never do this type of paid work, so I just needed a ballpark figure of what I should quote them.

Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I hope I'm asking in the right thread. My girlfriend is looking for a new and affordable phone with a great camera. She's currently leaning towards the Xiaomi Mi6. Do you guys have any input or suggestions? Thanks in advance!

I don't think you're going to find a lot of passion in this thread for phone cameras. Any modern high-end smartphone will take fine pictures that are very comparable in the grand scheme of things. The sensors they have to fit in smartphone bodies are tiny and any differences at the high end will be very minor.

Apple has talked a lot about how their new processor in the iPhone 8 series and upcoming iPhone X will improve noise reduction with a hardware accelerated solution compared to previous smartphones, but I haven't been able to find a comprehensive review and comparison on this. They also have some cool portrait lighting/fake bokeh AR effects that work pretty well if you're interested in that kind of stuff.

 

[JadedWriter]

Quick gig pricing Q.

Headshots for small business. 4-5 people in a real estate loan office, plus one group shot. Southern California.

I can do the shoot no prob, I just never do this type of paid work, so I just needed a ballpark figure of what I should quote them.

Thanks!

Probably start at $200 and factor in travel time, equipment load out and editing time.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Probably start at $200 and factor in travel time, equipment load out and editing time.

OK, I was thinking 300, so that fits.