First good day of playing with my DRebel

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
These are the same pictures I posted in edesign's thread, but they've been enmeshed in a Canon/Nikon fight over there, and so I'm not feeling the love, and so I want more attention! :eek: :p :D

These are pictures taken with the kit lens, mostly to see how it performs in different circumstances, and understand the camera controls better, but these are some of the less poor outcomes. :D

Some more flowers blooming near my home:




I just liked the colors and textures:


Inside this rock was a cubbyhole, full of other rocks. Strange and wonderful! :D

 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
More interesting colors, although I'm not a fan of how this one turned out. I wanted a much greater emphasis on the post in the front, but the focusing doesn't seem quite right. And the leaves could've been arranged in a better way. The color-bleed on the right of the meter is something that I think is part of JPG'ing it and putting it online...it isn't nearly so bad in the full-res picture on my computer. :(



And a self-portrait of sorts:
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Two more flowers growing nearby...The orange flowers were underneath a pair of orange and blue road name signs (UF's colors), and I wanted to coerce a shot which had the street sign en bokeh in the background, but I couldn't get a good angle for that. :(





This is a nice little park area between the other psychology department's building and my (clinical) psychology department's building. Students and faculty have lunch out here sometimes. There is a little creek, out of view, to the right, in which there are sometimes little baby alligators! :eek: There was a very cute little tiny one that would always be sunbathing mid-day when we went up to classes and meetings at other parts of campus, last fall, but I suppose he or she's all grown up and doing real-gator things somewhere else now! :)

 

MacManDan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2003
295
0
You have some great photos there, mkrishnan - did you postprocess these at all? The red manhole cover is really interesting - haven't seen one of those around here.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
There are some really nice Photoshop actions avilable over at Fred Miranda that are real time savers if you get into the post prosessing gig. :D

Nice pics.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
MacManDan said:
You have some great photos there, mkrishnan - did you postprocess these at all? The red manhole cover is really interesting - haven't seen one of those around here.
Thanks! :D

Most of them are cropped and color adjusted...I didn't do *heavy* post-processing on any of these -- no unsharpen mask or blurring or any of that kind of stuff. But it is really amazing to me how much more color you see in DSLR photos than in point-and-shoot ones...I can't completely explain that aspect. I guess it's just better CMOS sensor quality? edesign, emw, and others have all said the exact same thing their first time using one, so I'm not the only one mystified by it! :D
 

MacManDan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2003
295
0
mkrishnan said:
Thanks! :D

Most of them are cropped and color adjusted...I didn't do *heavy* post-processing on any of these -- no unsharpen mask or blurring or any of that kind of stuff. But it is really amazing to me how much more color you see in DSLR photos than in point-and-shoot ones...I can't completely explain that aspect. I guess it's just better CMOS sensor quality? edesign, emw, and others have all said the exact same thing their first time using one, so I'm not the only one mystified by it! :D
Tough to say, I would argue extra electronics in the camera (your camera packs heat in the form of digic II, no?) help also. I'm surprised the kit lens gets this close, do you intend to spring for a macro and really get in there?
I find my 20D is a little more subtle with color than my previous Sony DSC-V1, but if I use my ef-s 10-22 or an L-series the colors really pop!
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
MacManDan said:
I'm surprised the kit lens gets this close, do you intend to spring for a macro and really get in there?
To be honest, some of the flowers were actually taken inside the minimum focal distance. :eek: (shhhh...don't tell a soul! :D) I bought this to use taking pics of kids at camp, but now I am thinking I might want a macro. Addictive! :D

iGary said:
There are some really nice Photoshop actions avilable over at Fred Miranda that are real time savers if you get into the post prosessing gig. :D

Nice pics.
Thank you! :) RE: the actions, I know! I should enter one of their weekly contests and try to win one! :D But alas, PSE3 does not really support actions, AFAIK. :( And well, if you've taught me anything at all, my dear Gary, I think this is the correct answer: As bad as being a gear weenie is, I think I should spend my money on more lenses, and my time on taking better shots, before I go the routed of CS2 and becoming a post-processing jock! :eek: ;) :D
 

MacManDan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2003
295
0
mkrishnan said:
To be honest, some of the flowers were actually taken inside the minimum focal distance. (shhhh...don't tell a soul! ) I bought this to use taking pics of kids at camp, but now I am thinking I might want a macro. Addictive!

As bad as being a gear weenie is, I think I should spend my money on more lenses, and my time on taking better shots, before I go the routed of CS2 and becoming a post-processing jock! :eek: ;) :D
Like I'm sure you read in e's thread, the sigma 50 2.8 is a good, relatively cheap choice ... hmm, but I'm not trying to fuel the addiction.

But about post-procing ... Always better to be out and about with your camera than in front of your Mac right?

Oh wait, wrong forum.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
MacManDan said:
Like I'm sure you read in e's thread, the sigma 50 2.8 is a good, relatively cheap choice ... hmm, but I'm not trying to fuel the addiction.

But about post-procing ... Always better to be out and about with your camera than in front of your Mac right?

Oh wait, wrong forum.
No, it's a good system...morning and evening light are for photography, then one comes home and plays with one's mac at dusk while waiting for one's friends to go out. This way one also avoids dinner, allowing one to keep one's rail-thin, model-like figure. In case the opportunity arises to be on the other side of the lens. ;)

So, erm, I have seen many recommendations for that Sigma. And it's very much within my price range, as is Canon's 50mm macro. Not that I want to create yet another gear lust thread, but... :) One thing I don't quite understand, as I know a lot about optics but not necessarily about the way photographers talk about optics... You have two lenses that are both 50mm focal length, imaging onto the same body. A 50mm macro and a 50mm non-macro prime (such as the 50mm f/1.4 that I ordered) will deliver drastically different results, right? With the latter providing smaller magnification at all focal distances, or just at the minimum focal distance? Is it just me, or why isn't the imaging system aspect of the lens's magnification factor ever quantified, except for macros? I'm confuddled.... :(

PlaceofDis said:
nice pictures indeed, especially like the manhole one, is quite unique!
Thanks, PoD! :D I'm such an attention ho. ;)
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
mkrishnan said:
No, it's a good system...morning and evening light are for photography, then one comes home and plays with one's mac at dusk while waiting for one's friends to go out. This way one also avoids dinner, allowing one to keep one's rail-thin, model-like figure. In case the opportunity arises to be on the other side of the lens. ;)

So, erm, I have seen many recommendations for that Sigma. And it's very much within my price range, as is Canon's 50mm macro. Not that I want to create yet another gear lust thread, but... :) One thing I don't quite understand, as I know a lot about optics but not necessarily about the way photographers talk about optics... You have two lenses that are both 50mm focal length, imaging onto the same body. A 50mm macro and a 50mm non-macro prime (such as the 50mm f/1.4 that I ordered) will deliver drastically different results, right? With the latter providing smaller magnification at all focal distances, or just at the minimum focal distance? Is it just me, or why isn't the imaging system aspect of the lens's magnification factor ever quantified, except for macros? I'm confuddled.... :(



Thanks, PoD! :D I'm such an attention ho. ;)
Too bad you're in Florida and Edesign is in the UK. Been looking for someone to shoot pics with around here. you really will find the BEST of the best photographers at Fred Miranda, though.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
i was taking another look at 'em, and im not sure what to make of the rocks one to be honest. im intruiged by it but the ones in the cubby hole look kinda like eggs...... for some reason i keep thinking about it because its weird to see a rock with a hole like that, and those are some smooth rocks inside too....

oh and dont worry we all love attention, bring on the love! haha
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
iGary said:
Too bad you're in Florida and Edesign is in the UK. Been looking for someone to shoot pics with around here. you really will find the BEST of the best photographers at Fred Miranda, though.
Hmmm...*thinks of evil plan* All we have to do is convince edesign to get into marathon running, and then we can do a BSIM / photoshoot weekend next year! :D

Do you have an FM account? Mine is "soulmirror." I think I originally tried "mkrishnan" (I use soulmirror elsewhere too though), but I'm a retard and I typed my e-mail address in wrongly, and my confirmation went to la-la land.
 

MacManDan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2003
295
0
mkrishnan said:
So, erm, I have seen many recommendations for that Sigma. And it's very much within my price range, as is Canon's 50mm macro. Not that I want to create yet another gear lust thread, but... :) One thing I don't quite understand, as I know a lot about optics but not necessarily about the way photographers talk about optics... You have two lenses that are both 50mm focal length, imaging onto the same body. A 50mm macro and a 50mm non-macro prime (such as the 50mm f/1.4 that I ordered) will deliver drastically different results, right? With the latter providing smaller magnification at all focal distances, or just at the minimum focal distance? Is it just me, or why isn't the imaging system aspect of the lens's magnification factor ever quantified, except for macros? I'm confuddled.... :(
A 50mm f/2.8 macro is "equivalent" to a 50mm f/2.8 at the same focusing distance. I believe the difference is in the distance that it can focus - you get the magnification from the realllly small distance that the macro can focus.
Your 50 1.4 is different than the macro in that it doesn't have such an extreme focusing distance (its probably a more normal 1.5 feet) and that it is two stops faster. If you had two identical bodies both on tripods next to each other, one with the 1.4 and the other with the macro, and set them to the same aperture and focusing distance, you should (theoretically) get equivalent photos.

Magnification isn't made such a big deal for non-macros because they're not as impressive, and many aren't designed in that way. I believe you can still find stats on it though, for just about every lens. Perhaps someone has a better explanation for this, though.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
MacManDan said:
If you had two identical bodies both on tripods next to each other, one with the 1.4 and the other with the macro, and set them to the same aperture and focusing distance, you should (theoretically) get equivalent photos.
Ahhh, thank you Dan! :) With your explanation, I went and found a Canon lens chart and I think I understand this better now.... so for instance, the minimal focal distance of the Canon 50mm primes is 1.5 ft, as you suggested, with a max mag of 0.15x. The Cannon .5x 50mm macro, OTOH, can still focus when only 0.8 ft away, and gets a 0.5x mag (more than three times larger...and that's not even a 1:1 macro) at that distance. But if I focus both of them at an object five feet away, I get the same magnification....

As it turns out, the 18-55mm EF-S can get to 0.92 feet and a mag of 0.28...so from my understanding, poor optics aside, it will actually do better macro-esque work for me (in the absence of a real macro) than the 50mm I ordered.... But then again, it has an (ewww) max aperture of 5.6 at 55mm. So bokeh is a nokeh. :(

PlaceofDis said:
for some reason i keep thinking about it because its weird to see a rock with a hole like that, and those are some smooth rocks inside too....
I know! That's why I took a picture of it! It's just contrary to the moral law. :D If I were George Bush, I would've lobbed a nuke-you-ler missile at it by now. ;)

Actually, I sent a link to all the pictures in photobucket to my mom, without telling her what each one was (I forgot), and she asked me if they were real eggs. :D
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
mkrishnan said:
I know! That's why I took a picture of it! It's just contrary to the moral law. :D If I were George Bush, I would've lobbed a nuke-you-ler missile at it by now. ;)

Actually, I sent a link to all the pictures in photobucket to my mom, without telling her what each one was (I forgot), and she asked me if they were real eggs. :D
well at least im not alone! those are great pictures though, i really need to save up and get myself a digital camera, my parents have a Kodak digital that i will be able to use soon, but its not up to the quality that i would like, oh well better than nothing i suppose.

keep up the good work though and of course always share more with us!
 

jared_kipe

macrumors 68030
Dec 8, 2003
2,967
1
Seattle
mkrishnan said:
As it turns out, the 18-55mm EF-S can get to 0.92 feet and a mag of 0.28...so from my understanding, poor optics aside, it will actually do better macro-esque work for me (in the absence of a real macro) than the 50mm I ordered.... But then again, it has an (ewww) max aperture of 5.6 at 55mm. So bokeh is a nokeh. :(
Actually 5.6 isn't even high enough for macro work. At 5.6 you're still going to get a really small DOF at macro distances.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
jared_kipe said:
Actually 5.6 isn't even high enough for macro work. At 5.6 you're still going to get a really small DOF at macro distances.
Hmmm...I hadn't considered that... *goes to DoF calculator* You, sir, are quite right! :eek: I had a brain fart on this. For some reason, I thought it would be easier to obtain short DoF at shorter focal lengths on a zoom lens, because the lens opens all the way up. I shot a lot of those flowers at 18mm! :eek: And I was wondering why I couldn't restrict the DoF sufficiently to blur the stems and other stuff. I needed to be at 55 mm!

*loves learning*
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
mkrishnan said:
Hmmm...*thinks of evil plan* All we have to do is convince edesign to get into marathon running, and then we can do a BSIM / photoshoot weekend next year! :D

Do you have an FM account? Mine is "soulmirror." I think I originally tried "mkrishnan" (I use soulmirror elsewhere too though), but I'm a retard and I typed my e-mail address in wrongly, and my confirmation went to la-la land.
Mine is "iGary"

You'll find me most often in the "Wildlife" forum.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
iGary said:
Mine is "iGary"
That will certainly be easy to remember. ;)

I don't think I've seen a lot of your wildlife photos on MR...I should go searching. If they can rival your landscapes than, frankly, Mr. Shankly, I'm rather jealous! :)
 

atari1356

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2004
1,586
32
Funny how the pictures shown here, and EDesign UK's pictures look great and were all taken with the kit lens.

Going by how many comments have been thrown around about kit lenses being "pure crap", I would have thought that all of these pictures would have turned out looking horrible. ;)

I'm in the market for a new digital camera too... I was planning on spending around $500, but all this DSLR talk has got me wanting something better (and much more expensive). :( :D

Thanks for posting the pics.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
atari1356 said:
Going by how many comments have been thrown around about kit lenses being "pure crap", I would have thought that all of these pictures would have turned out looking horrible. ;)
Hehehe, thanks! :D I guess awful is a relative term! ;)
 

homerjward

macrumors 68030
May 11, 2004
2,745
0
fig tree
i love the meter one, and the thingy (not sure what it is) with the reflection in it. that's really cool how it's like all mirrory and stuff. i noticed on the meter one you said there was "color-bleed." i know it's a n00btacular question, but what's that?
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
homerjward said:
i love the meter one, and the thingy (not sure what it is) with the reflection in it. that's really cool how it's like all mirrory and stuff. i noticed on the meter one you said there was "color-bleed." i know it's a n00btacular question, but what's that?
Thanks! :)

I don't think it's a n00btacular question (although I'm going to start using that word! :D)... I think I used the wrong term. There's a fringe along the right side of the meter where it looks green, almost like a ghost or outline of the meter edge on that side. Part of it was a focusing issue, but the full size JPG on my computer doesn't look nearly so bad.