IBM wrote:
This going good to a camera store and feeling how it feels in your hand is a waste of time , read up on different camera's. Buy some camera mags , learn the jargon from the ground up fstop, shutter speed , iso and all the rest , what each do and how to adjust the main ones , , then when you find one that you may like and buy , check it out ,buy it . take pictures with it set on auto .
Go home bring up each picture on screen , write down what auto choose for your main settings , go back and and set them
manual and see if you can do better than what camereas auto picked, or just stay in that same spot and make changesure
Untell there better than auto or program mode
This going good to a camera store and feeling how ... (
show quote)
Now I know what I've been doing wrong when I buy a new car. I should read the brochures of each car on the market, check out the specks and instructions, forgo the test drives and just buy the car I think I'll like. Then, take the car out and play around with it and see what it will or won't do. If it won't do what the specks said it would, I'll just keep playing with it until it does. If, in spite of all I do to that car I still can't make it perform, then maybe I should just quit driving, sell the car and take a loss.
LEGALDR wrote:
With Yom Kippur over and my confession of all of my sins hopefully having been accepted, I have one last confession to make to make to the membership. I have once again dipped my toe in the water of a strange of a strange body. I have, for many years, been a Canoneer. I did slip several years ago and acquired a Pentax k-r and later, a k-5. Most recently, I have again displayed my weakness and I bought a Sony A6000. Is there a Photo-Therapist on this Forum that can help me curtail this wanderlust?
With Yom Kippur over and my confession of all of m... (
show quote)
I'm reminded of an old saying that goes, "Variety is the spice of life."
Kmgw9v wrote:
You will not get an "educated" response---a least a definitive one. If you are serious, do much research, and then flip a coin.
Here is a normal response: I vote Nikon, because that is what I shoot.
I vote Canon because that's what I shoot.
'bout the only thing I can add to all of the other comments is, "WOW!"
rando wrote:
I've been told I need cataract surgery. My doc asked if I wanted to improve distance or near vision. I told him I was a photographer so my initial response was distance vision. But then I thought about all the menus and buttons on the camera that would near close-up vision. My goal would be to not have use glasses at all when out shooting. How did other UHH handle this quagmire?
I have distance vision (equal) implants in both eyes. I must use readers for near vision and have had no problems with menus and buttons on a Canon 80D, the Canon SX60
or readings on any of the lenses I have.
suntouched wrote:
First I want to say kudos to all those that got out there and took pictures whether they're good bad or indifferent. I saw the eclipse from Oregon and still didn't even try.
I think it had to do with all the hype in advance that was somewhat a turnoff. BUT after seeing it in real time I wished I HAD. The eclipse was magnificent!
And so now, what will you do with the images?
Print the best, file the rest.
I can only hope you're right about that new Canon 100D!
I only wish Microsoft's Customer Service and Support was as good as B&H.
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but you might consider taking an extra
memory card and battery if you do the shoot. Not long ago a professional
photographer told me that these two items have been known to fail at the
most inconvenient of times.
I'm definately not a professional photographer, had never shot a wedding and two weeks ago I was faced with the same situation you are. The couple gave me some vague ideas of what they wanted and that was all. After reading a few articles on wedding photography I decided to have a go at it. Using a Canon EOS 80D, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM and a Canon 430EX II Speedlite Flash I shot the rehearsal a day before the wedding. Decided against using the 70-200 lens for the actual wedding; a little heavy (for me) and a tri or monopod wasn't feasable. I used the 80D with a Tamron 16-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD Macro and the Speedlite for the actual ceremony. For the reception I kept the same camera-flash setup but changed to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM. Now wish I had used the Tamron for the reception. After a week and half of culling out the bad shots and doing minimal post processing on the remainder, I presented the newlyweds with a thumb drive containing 348 pictures, all free of charge. They can select what they like and have printed as many as they want. Now, would I do it again. Sure, if it was an informal affair like this one was. A formal wedding? Nah, I'll leave those to the pros!
What did I do to make a name for myself? Well, I took so many lousy photographs
that it didn't take long for the word to get out!
Fantastic shot...as always!
To me, your posted pics are consistantly great. The Blue Heron is no exception!