thanks dude. I 'll see what kind of damage I can do haha.

I also read that it's best to shoot it 'fine' resolution / large sizes; you can then re-save etc (like you said ) and make any size adjustments to it. I had been only shooting in the normal mode /size for now.

not sure if what I read was the case or not. Too much shit to try to digest when researching for more than 15 minutes at a time lol

I keep 2.0 around because of it's ability to publish large quantities of pictures to a web site. When you shoot 600-700 shots of a baseball tournament in a weekend and don't feel like massaging them, you shoot them all landscape, tell the folks that you publish everything you didn't delete, any you put them all out there on your locally hosted website using 2.0... :)

For that of you that have, or still do, use a Canon 20D...do you have any preference in CF memory cards? Brand/speed?

I do still use a 20D and I use a SanDisk UltraII 2Gig card. Had it for 5 years and I've never had an issue.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...s7pAXnp-VENipG

I think that's the same one I have.

Though I need to get a bigger one.

So I just getting around the ordering a 20D and I *think* I've settled on this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_camera.html

I'm sure that lens is very run-of-the-mill, but it would be OK for me to start with I think. Does that seem like a decent deal?

Also, I want to buy a second battery pack and they have several used ones. Is that OK, or should I buy a new battery?

It's a pretty decent deal. Based on the age of the camera, I think going to B&H makes sense, so you probably aren't getting shafted. The bottom line is it's not new, it's not a cool as these newer models, but I've got over 60K cycles on my shutter, and it works fine to this day. With a LOT of those cycles happening of dusty youth baseball fields, so it's a solid product IMO. Almost as solid at the A-1 I still shoot! Woot!

But adding a BG-E2 grip will be money well spent, and a whole second round of batteries. Much like the motor drives of the past era, they always run out of juice before you do!

I'd also recommend you invest in a sensor cleaning kit. Like I said above I've shot at a lot of dusty baseball games, and you will need to learn the art of sensor AND lens cleaning...

And last the lenses...... Yeah, it's a religion as much as an art! For those of us who have been shooting for over 35 years, we can fill your brain with everything from "circles of confusion" to "real men shoot prime lenses." And in the end, you get what you pay for (that is true), but you need to know what you're looking at too.... So you can pay for "L" glass and everybody will think you're awesome, or you can save money and learn how to use a lens. Nothing wrong with "L" glass, but I've seen too many people (in Lee's Summit at least!!) who have it but don't know what how to use aperture to their advantage, or what f2.8 really means. But that's a story for another day!

I ordered the unit I mentioned above, and now I'm looking to get a semi-fast zoom lens for my daughter's gymnastics events. Fire Me Boy! said earlier in this thread: "For the indoor sports shooting (without a flash), you'll need a "fast" lens, one that can open to a wider aperture. I'd shoot for f/2.8, f/2.4, or f/1.8". So say I'm anywhere from 20 to 150 feet away from the action at an event (indoors). What kind of zoom do I need? Or do I want a telephoto lens for that? I honestly don't know the difference.

This is what you need: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...f_5_6l_is.html


Seriously, if you'll find something that'll get you between 50 and 200 (or so) you'll be fine on zoom. As long as you crank up the ISO to 3200, you'll probably be able to shoot between f/4 and f/5.6. However, you'll add noise if you get your ISO that high. The problem you're going to have in that light is stopping the action with your available light. And unless you can get closer and shoot with a shorter lens, you're going to have to spend a lot to get a zoom with f/2.8.

Before I got my own L-glass, I shot a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro for years, and I love it. You can prolly pick one up for around $1,500 and I don't think you'll be upset. It's not L-glass, but it doesn't cost like it either. It has a digital grind (thats' important), and with 2.8 brightness I've shot a lot of wrestling tournaments and I never needed a flash in a gym (ever), and the focus was/is always spot-on.

But, like any lens in a gym, you'll either need to shoot raw or learn how to set temperature for whatever lights those gyms hold, but learning the joy of white-balance is half the fun...

http://media.the-digital-picture.com...-Hood-70mm.jpg

What about this?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_II_EX.html

Hmmm...it says "For Olympus & Panasonic Digital SLR"

Yeah, that last part is kind of a show stopper... From there, this is what might be better. Ordering both and maybe they'll get you a better deal..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html

So a lens like this - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._8_ex_apo.html - is just telephoto, right? Meaning you can't zoom in/out?

Also, is this used lens the same as the new one you referenced above? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_ii_ex.html

And something like this - http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...30980731501410 - would have too slow an apeture (f/4) to give good results for indoor sporting events?

.

Other than the $275, how big a difference is there between these two lenses? I've never had a prime, is the .4 really that much difference in the fixed 50mm lenses. Is there a huge difference in build quality?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...0mm_f_1_8.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

It's not just the extra f/. The f/1.4 has the ultra-sonic motor, means faster focusing. It's also got 8 diaphragm blades instead of 5. This is what that means:

I've owned both of these lenses, with my current being the f/1.4. It's notably better built than the cheaper one, but the money may not be worth it to you.

The biggest downside to the cheaper lens is it has a plastic lens mount. This isn't a big deal if you're going to put the prime on your camera and leave it there, but I'd consider the more expensive version if you're going to swap lenses with any regularity. Or, check eBay for a Mark 1 version of that cheaper lens (it has a metal lens mount).

So I'm on a business trip in San Francisco and there's a camera shop just up the street from my hotel. I stopped in and they're trying to sell me on this lens - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html

They said they can give it to me for $599. Is it a good lens and, if so, is that a good deal? BH Photo has it for $649, but there are some on Ebay for as low as $300 (I don't know that I trust ebay for buying lenses though). They told me the ultrasonic AF motor means super-fast focusing which would be good for what I want to do. Also, it appears to have a metal lens mount which you guys have mentioned is better.

Nokia 1020 Camera Phone. :) 41 Megapixels.

It's not a bad deal, and if you're shooting outside most of the time I think you'll be happy, but are you going to have to pay taxes or will he let you go back to the hotel and buy it online and you just have to wait until you get home to play with it?

My main use for it will be shooting inside - gymnastics events where lighting is usually decent, but not always. I was concerned with the f/4-5.6 value in regards to that. He claimed it would be fine because (his words) if you use a f value of 2.8, then usually only part of the person will be in focus and not the entire subject. But if I use 4 or over, the entire person would be in focus. I have no idea if that's true.

Also, its just a local shop and they don't have an online presence AFAIK.

He's basically right on the depth of field, but he's not really educated. The further away from the subject you are the more depth you have. For instance: if you're shooting at f/2.8 with a 100mm lens and your 10 feet away, you've only got about 4 inches of pure focus. But if you're 50 feet away, you've got a little over 8 feet. The higher the f-stop, the more wiggle room you have. At f/4 at 50 feet you have almost 12 feet of focus.

Here's the basics on depth of field, if you care to read up more: http://www.exposureguide.com/focusing-basics.htm

And here's a handy-dandy DOF calculator, if you're interested: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The issue with light (and just because you think it's fairly well lit doesn't mean your camera agrees) is you'll need to crank up the shutter speed to at least 1/250th of a second to even come close to stopping the action, and you'll be a lot better off if you can get it to 1/500th. In order to get that kind of shutter speed indoors, you'll need two of the following: good lighting, low f-stop, or high ISO.

He's an idiot and a salesman! After years of shooting sports, a short depth of field is usually desired anyway. Still a good deal and 4.5 will prolly be just fine...

Every NFL game I shoot this year will be at 2.8 unless it's a close up group shot.

2.8 is where all sports photographers live.

EXACTLY... People often ask how "pho-togz" seemingly get so much better pics with pretty-much the same relative hardware, and these are the little tricks, and they're aren't mind-blowing, that are the difference between a snap-shot and a photograph.

Like you, I've been doing this for a while, Since the 80s in my case, made it through film to today's platforms, thought it and love it. I still love a lot of things about film too!!! But more than anything, I love passing along what I've learned. Be it shooting plates from a submarines periscope to 110 (LOL!!). Hell I even taught black-and-white theory in the 80s! But nowadays I love handing my cameras to mothers and kids at these events and letting them give it a try. Most worry at first, then they just have fun. After that, I setup the camera for the shot, give them a rule of 3rd's lesson, and let it go. And they love it. And i love their perspective. Some buy their own gear, others just have a memory of what it was like to shoot 5fps, and that's cool too.

So alas, keep capturing the moments and sharing as appropriate... Most are good moments....

Enjoy my friend...

Any tips/tricks suggestions on food photography?

Soft box, umbrellas and direct flash.

Photography is the easy part on food.

Food styling is everything.

First, get into Playboy's or Penthouse's intern programs....

Second, Public libraries have books and YouTube has videos on lighting. "Light" is photography, learning a little will affect the outcome a LOT. If you want to grasp light, buy a hand-help light meter and have use it for a while. If you can "go manual" using a light meter and get the results you want, you're well on your way to awesomeness.

Third, YouTube depth-of-field and "circles of confusion". It's amazing and the process will "show" you what SOOOOO many thought was magic. If it really piques your interests, you might take that path a little farther and read-up on lens design and how various grinds work.

Fourth, learn to shoot silhouettes. Pretty cool effect, plays off of #2 a lot, and will, hopefully, start you on the path to loving the most awesome medium - black-and-white... Wait, that's just my opinion! But anywhay, have fun with silhouettes...

Fifth, if you're married, you might want to never admit how much you really spent on stuff they're sure you don't need...

Sixth, get a great printer with archival ink...

Seventh, learn how to clean a lens and digital sensor really well. A clean lens is to a photographer what a clean dick is to a porn star...

Eighth, a great flash is a great flash. And a great flash isn't cheap...

I didn't end up getting the lens. I did end up talking to a photographer that was working the conference I was attending. The advice she gave me: "Get a decent external flash...it'll be the best $100 you spend."

And I think I have my mind set on this lens (I think someone mentioned it earlier in this thread): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html
It's $1K less than the comparable lenses from Canon.

100.00 dollars my ass.

Try 400.00. Get the name brand Nikon, Cannon, etc. so the dedicated TTL will work right.

Yeah. Get a name brand Canon Speedlite, and what you're doing will be $300-$400.

And FYI, using a flash at sporting events is usually a no-no. It can distract the athlete.

Ouch...I doubt I need one that good. And yeah, no flash photography at my daughters' gymnastics events.

You will love that lens....

And I've read ahead, and I totally agree that $100 for a flash that'll not make you made isn't an option... $300-$400, and it'll be some of the best camera coin you'll ever spend.

Simply said, light and lenses make the picture, so the body isn't unimportant, but you might find you own the lenses and flashes a lot longer than the bodies..

This..... Not much money to be saved here, and the one time you want to match brands...

But.....if you're shooting pics of the Bronco's QB, stobe to your heart's content. Blind the bass-turd!

What is a good digital camera for around 200, I'm having a baby soon and the only camera i have is my phone.

Does anyone have experience with the lens mounted ring lights in an interview and/or close range macro type outdoor low light video work? Ebay is flooded with these things with many of them under 100 bucks, but I see very few reviews showing them actually out in the field being used for what I have in mind.

So I'm FINALLY ready to pull the trigger on this lens - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html

I'd like to order by B&H because I've used them before, but their price on this lens is ~$250 more than several other sites. I called them for a price match, but they said they couldn't/wouldn't. Then the guy tried to scare me away from the other sites saying they couldn't possibly be legitimately selling it for $1K. In light of that, have any of you ever used the following sites for photo gear?

http://negrielectronics.com/sigma-ap...anon-lens.html
http://www.gadgetcircuit.com/viewpro...?ID=1000091711
http://www.digitalbuydirect.com/Sigm..._HSM_for_Canon

They all have the same lens for $200 to $300 less than B&H.

B&H is almost always overpriced.

At the very least try Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...&condition=new

Where do you order from? Or do you go to a brick-and-mortar store?

Yeah, I looked. They're all basically the same price as B&H.

No matter where you get that lens, I think you'll love it...

That's what I've been told. I'm a total amateur though, so I hope it isn't too difficult for me to use. It's auto focus with image stabilization though, so it shouldn't be too bad.

I'm trying to get Adorama to price match now. If they won't, I'll order it from one of those other sites.

Read-up a bit on few things:

1) lighting (it's a science, but nothing you can't learn a lot about in a few good reads),

2) depth-of-field - what it is and how to work with it (this will make you a rock-star in short order!!!)

3) Shutter Priority and Aperture Priority (and see how most folks realize they just bought a 2.8 lens, so Aperture Priority might be where they want to start most days!!)

There no end to what you can do, but I've done this with a lot of people and those concepts aren't rocket science, and they will be some of the biggest leaps you can take.

But photo-guys will argue THAT too I'm sure...

If it's anything like my 17-50mm 2.8 you'll like it. :thumb:

I'd like a little more reach then the 200mm provides, but it'll probably be my next lens.

I have an old Canon 20D and I've read that, because of the sensor size (or something to do with the type of sensor), that the 70-200 will actually behave more like a 100-300 lens. I don't know the ins/outs of that though.

Almost all digital cameras have a "digital conversion," some as much as 60 percent. This is a great benefit if you're need some extra length on the zoom, but it sucks ass if you're shooting wide.

I'm planning to get a used 5D early next year specifically to get away from the digital conversion.

FYP

It has arrived! This thing is a monster...bigger than I expected. I ended up ordering it from Gadget Circuit with no problems.

Very nice.... You are very-much going to enjoy it... Great job. :thumb:

I purchased the Nikon 3200 package that included bag, 16gm card, camera, wireless link, and 55 & 200 VR lenses for 599 from Samsclub online.


I gave it to my wife for Xmas and she loves it. It is an extremely smooth camera. It opened my eyes to the shit we have been using for all these years.

I don't shoot Nikon, and I'm not sure it's true "these days", but back in the day (70s for sure), Nikon sure did have a great grind on the primes. Even back then I shot Canon for 35mm (A-1) and Bronica for 2-1/4 (EC-TL II). Oh, and some pretty sweet plate film on a submarine periscope with a pretty nice grind too!!! :D

I think you made an awesome choice. The biggest deal is to get a camera "in the hands" and let the shutter do its thing.

As a man who shot film for oh-so-many years, and STILL love the challenge of it, I also LOVE what digital has done to help bring out the artist in so many more people.

Some of the best shots my camera has taken over the years was when I handed the camera over to another parent at a sporting event (very hard to shoot and coach!), or even to kids. Give a nine-year-old a 20D with a grip loaded-up with a 70-200/2.8 and 2 minutes of how to hold/use it, and what they shoot is often time amazing. After they get passed the "what if I drop it" scare, it's awesome. And in the hands of parents does produce fewer blurry shots (from a percentage perspective), but a lot fewer pictures too. I give the camera to a group of cub scouts with a macro lens, and the stuff they shoot is just awesome.

I'll say this, one of the pictures that hangs on my office wall is one my seven-year-old took of a mushroom growing out of a downed tree at Blue-and-Gray park east of Lee's Summit. Perhaps a little homerism there, but it was taken by a kid who was seven... And I wasn't even near him when he took it. He asked for the camera, the older scouts took them out on a short "hike", and that's what he took. Awesome!

Either way, buy a bigger hard drive and let the pics flow.. :)

What the hell does this even mean?

Lenses are "ground" into shape, so at the consumer/prosumer and mass-production levels, Nikon was (generally speaking) considered to have a better grind than the others at the time. It's a fun argument to listen too, but they were awesome. I find that finding sites with MTF (modulation transfer function) charts are far better. Here... http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/u...ing-mtf-graphs

And "primes" are lenses with fixed focal lengths. No zoom.... And the "zoom" function of a lens, while nice, tends to take away some of the perfection of the lens. Back in the day it was very normal to buy a 35mm camera with the standard 50mm lens. Nowadays, it's almost unheard of.

Take a trip through Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml) and/or Fred Miranda's site (http://www.fredmiranda.com) and there are a ton of interesting articles.

And if you spend a lot of time on boring conference calls, here's a site that can be very interesting to browse. Some of the work is so far out there that it's stupid, but a lot of it is pretty amazing too.. (http://photo.net/)

thanks, I assumed it had something to do with lenses.

I have an old Minolta with a 50mm lens. Haven't used it in years.

You should break it out and use it...

Its sad the weather has been so brutal I've let my 6D and 5D MkIII basically sit unused for the last month or two. Its hard after being in Utah, Arizona, Yellowstone and lots of other western states to get excited to shoot Kansas when it 10 degrees out.

I've been meaning to learn how to do a decent time lapse of the night sky for a few seconds of video. Two nights ago I was really kicking myself for not reading up on it yet as it looked great out there.

Nothing really too it. Get the fastest lens you got (lowest f ratio) set it at the lowest f setting put it on a tripod focus on a distant object and aim it at the sky with a $15 intervalometer and let her rip.

Remember the rule of 500. Take 500 and divide by the aperture of the lens and set that as you maximum exposure. Anything longer will cause the stars to streak. So if a 50mm lens then max exposure is 10 seconds. 500 / 50 = 10.

I've started playing around with it a little. This shot is of a neighbor's Mizzou flag waving in a stiff wind through my window across the cul-de-sac. And that's just point and shoot. I did nothing with the camera settings. I want to catch some geese flying over.

My daughters both have gymnastics meets this weekend, so I've been taking it to their practices to practice with it. I set the camera to continuous shooting (which sounds really cool, btw) and auto everything else. Their facility is about the size of an average high school basketball gym, and I was on the opposite side from where they were practicing. My main problem so far is keeping my daughter as the focal point...but I'm assuming that comes with practice. Most of the shots were decent, more than a few of them bad/out of focus, but there were a few really cool shots. I got her on the uneven bars in flight between the two bars...perfectly in focus, exactly midway between the bars. Just a cool shot.

I do have a question though. This lens has image stabilization. Should that be on or off with shooting fast action in continuous mode? Or does it matter. I would think it might slow down some of the shots, but I'm really not sure. I have a monopod that I use that provides some stabilization.

OK...more questions about indoor sports photography. I tried some more manual settings this weekend and didn't get great results. In most of the photos, the subject's center mass was in focus nicely, but the arms/legs were blurry. I was told by a photog that was there that I need to up my ISO to freeze the motion better. I've been reading through the 20D manual...are shutter speed and ISO the same thing? It says that ISO is the sensitivity to light, whereas shutter speed is how fast the shutter opens/closes. In some places though, it seems they're used interchangeably. So, based on the manual and reading some forum posts, here are some settings that I'm going to try next. Any thoughts/suggestions?:

--AF Mode--
AI Servo with automatic AF point selection

--Program Mode--
1. Tv mode (shutter priority)
-set ISO speed to 800 or 1600 and allow the camera to auto-set the aperture
-if the aperture gets set too narrow (probably 3.5 or narrower), try option 2

2. Manual exposure mode
-set ISO speed to 800 or 1600
-set aperture width to 2.8
-make adjustments based on the exposure level meter

3. Tv mode with exposure compensation
-set ISO speed to 800 or 1600 and allow the camera to auto-set the aperture
-raise or lower the exposure compensation based on the exposure level meter
-this option is not available in manual exposure mode

--White Balance--
Most gyms will use either white fluorescent or tungsten lighting.

I find the easy way is to set what you know, and let it go. Try this:

1) Set the ISO to 1600 (or H if you're willing to try) so the camera can fire as quickly as possible.
2) Set the camera to AV mode and manually set it to 2.8 (or the brightest setting you have, which should be 2.8), and that should help with getting the shutter speed as fast as the camera can go.

While that will minimize the DoF (the 2.8 part), the ISO of 1600/H will do about all you can do to limit the fast-moving-parts from blurring (if that's what you want).

But I'd recommend the AV because it lets you control the 2.8 part of the lens you just spend so much money on (for its 2.8 ability), but keeps the camera's brains in the mix beyond that.

I didn't know I could manually set the ISO when in AV mode. I had it in AV mode for a while, with the aperture set to 2.8, and the camera kept setting the ISO (or maybe shutter speed) to 60 or 80. I knew that was way too slow to stop any motion, so I stopped using that mode. I'll try out your suggestions.

In AV mode, with you having set/forced the aperture to 2.8, the camera sets the shutter speed to whatever it needs to based on the other thing you had "set" (the ISO). So set the aperture to 2.8 (fast/bright as we say), the ISO to 1600/H (fast), and the camera will/should set the shutter speed to something a lot faster than a 60th or 80th of a second. Then again, I'm not sure how dark the gym was. If you PM me one of the original pics (with EXIF data still attached), I'll take a look...

I see...that makes sense. The gym really didn't seem that dark to me on the floor. I think what may have been happening was that the background walls (by the bleachers) didn't have good lighting and maybe the camera was picking up on that. I'm shooting in 'L', not 'L + RAW', so I don't know that I have the EXIF data you're talking about.

Everything you shoot with it has EXIF data. If you've downloaded them you can go into the folder in Windows Explorer (unless you have a Mac), right-click on the picture, go to properties, select the Details tab, and you should have the EXIF data there too.

If you're using the SW that came with the camera, there should be a shit-ton of data there too..

I'm not familiar with the 20D at all, but I've enjoyed using AV mode with my 60D quite a bit. It seems pretty accurate and is making me look better than I am. :thumb:

I would think you'd want to set the focus to fixed center so you're in control and the camera can't try to grab the bars or whatever other apparatus you're working around. You may be far enough away you've got enough depth to account for the error though.

Every gym, church, and dungeon is going to be lit differently. I'd try to learn to get the WB set correctly each time you enter a gym instead of trusting it to get close based on what kind of lights and lighting the building has.

I'm definitely going to try this. I've been mistaking shutter speed for ISO when in AV mode. So when the aperture was set to 2.8, it was using a slow shutter speed because the ISO was set too low (I never set it). This clears some things up for me.

I also read some comments from some people that said you don't need to use image stabilization when using high ISO/fast shutter speeds? Does it really matter either way?

All things being equal, and you want to take a big step, if you shoot RAW, you can fix the color later... But they are big pics and can't do much about burned (over exposed) or dark (under exposed) pics. But knowing how to set the white balance is always something good to know. And I think learning this and keeping white paper with you might be simpler that learning end remember all the numbers associated with various color and light temperatures.

Watch these:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q5HaRTmbozc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And this one has bracketing too. Kinda cool too!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Dy3JB0Z1G24" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QwZGrSQ2IFI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks, I'll watch those.

So I took the camera to my daughter's practice and made the adjustments...set the ISO to H (3200 I believe) and used AV mode with aperture set to 2.8. HUGE DIFFERENCE! No blurry pics save for the ones where I was just off target. It froze flips and back handsprings perfectly with no blurring. Thanks for the help everyone. Its good that I'm getting this down, because I think some parents thought I was just some perv that came in off the streets with a telephoto lens.

Sweet... Next you'll want to "grasp" on focus point (in non-servo mode), and focusing in the servo/one-shot modes.

Once you find which of those make you happiest, then moving into metering (center weighted or more averaging) will be sweet..

Know this, digital or film, light and lighting is the biggest part of photography. So learning how to manipulate light is what it's all about. And dealing with flash And yeah, you can flash in a gym too if you get a good one, and you'll find out how much progress you've made. And I think you can get a really good grasp of most of it by just writing down the things you want to learn, and focus on just that for a day or two.

I've had my D3100 for a couple of years now and really haven't learned to use it to its capabilities. Can you recommend a good website that will cover some of the intermediate/advanced subjects?

The blog at www.fredmiranda.com is usually awesome, but I'll tell you, youtube is awesome if you know what you're looking to do. And Nikon has a ton out there. Hell, their mirror lock-up is still the best out there IMO, but that pretty advanced stuff right there (if you're doing stuff that needs it like shooting timed exposures of stars).

But here's an article for how to set it on you D3100: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...kon-d3100.html


The key are the subjects you search for on youtube. In this case look for youtube videos for the D3100's white balance. Even though the concept is the same across all cameras, the procedure is pretty specific to a brand, so it'll save time. The key will be to understand why you're setting white balance. Photo nerds like to talk smart and call/say different kinds of light have different temperatures/warmth. Whatever, it's all about photons! But alas, all folks need to know is that when you shoot under florescent lights you might get a blue tone, and in some cases green tones! You don't want that, so here's what you can do..... So white balance "the subject" is worth a 5-10 minute video. Once you've heard the nerds talk, the important part is how do deal with it using your super-smart camera. :)

But the concepts of using AV for a camera that you've dropped a 2.8 lens on, that's just something that you do and it's pretty simple - set the camera to AV, set the ISO to something really fast, then shoot. The concept is to use the "bright" 2.8 lens, and the easiest way to do that is to use AV. See, I'm more lazy than smart. :)

Here's a tutorial of AV/DoF (Depth of Field) that's worth a few minutes of your empoyer's time and his bandwidth.. :)

http://youtu.be/X8wL3gdJ7KA

Awesome, thanks. I could probably just talk to my dad about it too. He's a very good photographer. I've posted some of his work here before.

Curious what the resident lens experts think... I'm going to be buying a new lens soon, just kinda stuck between the Canon f/4L 17-40mm and the Canon f/4L 24-105mm. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both and if one is the better lens, focal length notwithstanding.

This will be my first L-series, but I've got the f/1.4 50mm prime (very nice lens, really sharp at f/3.5 and higher), a f/4-5.6 75-300, and the crappy 18-55mm kit lens.

I'm primarily shooting food right now, but I want to start some HDR work, too.

If you can rent both, that'd be best so you can decide.

The being said, my personal recommendation would be the 24-105. 17 is VERY wide and prolly not something you'd find useful all too often.

Here's an idea, you might want to click on this link and browse some of the pics you think are very close to the kinds of shots you'd take, then look at what those photogs used. It might be a waste of your time, but meh, we have time..

http://photo.net/gallery/caption-sea...ry_string=food

And speaking of wide, this will be on a 5D, so full frame sensor, no digital conversion.

Yes Sir. Great choice...

I may have just made my choice. I found some gently used f/2.8L 24-70mm. And by gently used, they say "90-96% of original condition. Exceptionally nice. May have slight wear on finish but visible only under close inspection. Glass very clean."