Your Own Photography

Jr Pee Wee football city championship game. Both teams undefeated going in. Ultimately, the Falcons won 20-14.

Thanks! I normally shoot sports with a Canon 7D, with a 70-300L lens. I didn't use a tripod during the game, since I was moving around quite a bit on the sidelines.

Love how the shots not only look great, but capture the story and the emotion of the game.

Love the last shot.

Would be really helpful to know the gear of you guys . Iam usin a Eos 1000D since 3 years but it sucks in dark rooms etc. So Iam lookin for a camera with a better ISO usage. Thinkin about fullframe (6D,5DIII) or a 70D.

Hi Biba, if you can get a FF I would recommend it. They are expensive but they are great in low light situations. I'm looking to pick up a D800E.

All of the shots you see from me have been taken with a D7000, I'm using a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 primarily now. The early shots in this thread could have been taken with 18-105 (kit lens) or 50 f1.8 (kit as well).

Cheers

Not sure how I feel about this one:

Thx for response. As I did say my Canon EOS 1000D is really capped at ISO (1.600). I never used a Nikon, but heard great storys about the better chip etc. Your pictures are really sharp, maybe I should invest in other lenses first. But I guess 1.8 is for portrait good enough? Any pro's for Nikon against Canon war? Had the chance to get a used 6D for 1.300,-?...

My lowest aperture lens is 1.8 and its the 50 that came with my D7000. Canon and Nikon both make great cameras, I'm with Nikon because I was gifted a Nikon camera so I already had a few lenses.

Nikon vs Canon is more of a religious debate than it is anything related to which is actually better. I've owned both brands (use mostly Canon now, but all my film stuff was Nikon) and you can't go wrong either way.

As far as portrait lenses, the 50mm I use goes to 1.4 but I shoot mostly at 2.0-2.8. Obviously it will depend on where the lens is sharp, I think the 50mm I shoot is sharpest at 2.0. My goal with portraits is usually to have the eyes tack-sharp and the skin just blurred enough to make it soft so I adjust my depth-of-field accordingly.

I guess you re right. Also I cant find a answer for myself at the momet. Tough decision a lot of money but its time to say goodbye to my 10 megapixels . The point with the lenses... I didnt really invest a lot of money, but I guess 50/85 1.8 are totally fine for portrait.
PS: A shot from Ireland. Awesome country, people, history etc.

Correct me it I'm wrong but iircc the sharpest a lens will be is +3 stop from wide open.

For the 50&85 the best results are at 5.6, but 4 is nearly the same. So yes, you re right.

opiate82_sl said:

Nikon vs Canon is more of a religious debate than it is anything related to which is actually better. I've owned both brands (use mostly Canon now, but all my film stuff was Nikon) and you can't go wrong either way.
.

Click to expand...

The main thing for me is the lens investment. I mainly stick with Canon because I already have a LOT of lenses. If I were to move to Nikon, I'd need to get all new lenses for them (unless I used some kinda lens converter...)

Something I snapped earlier this morning in a massive forest.
It's a plot I own of about 15 acres of pure elemental poetry.
So beautiful to hang out there in the early morning.
Disclaimer: I am not a professional photographer, this is probably obvious. I just thought this was a decent shot.

I KNOW this is a shitty pic. But I was asked to walk a co-worker to her car today. As we are walking I start laughing, and she asks me what is so funny. I asked her what would she do if she saw me coming at her from my car (The white Expo), just walking toward her, nothing more. She was honest as fuck, and said she would scream as loud as she could and say I was attacking her. They needs lights in this parking lot...