Well, what do you know... Drove for 3 hours in the early afternoon today around Irricana and found two snow owls for the first time in my life.
The first one was sitting on a pole a few kms west of Irricana and another east of Keoma. Man, these birds did not like to get photographed! The first one gave us literally 2 minutes for a few quick shots handheld and flew away off the pole the moment I took out the tripod.
The second owl was too far away in a field to begin with but also flew away as soon as we got out of the vehicle...
Shots are not good, unfortunately. Could not get close enough and did not have enough time. These are 200% crops. Next time, will get a camera with a longer lens mounted on the tripod and ready...
I still can't believe we have purposely looked for and found them. Thanks, Buzzard!
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
I'm sure this has been brought up before but there's a lot of pages to check out. I'd love to get into photography myself.
What do you guys recommend for someone just getting into it?
All I have right now is a Nikon D3100, which I'm sure is fine for pictures of kids and such which is why we bought it.
I'm sure this has been brought up before but there's a lot of pages to check out. I'd love to get into photography myself.
What do you guys recommend for someone just getting into it?
All I have right now is a Nikon D3100, which I'm sure is fine for pictures of kids and such which is why we bought it.
What else needs to go on the shopping list?
A Fuzz said, get Adobe Lightroom and start shooting raw, learn how to post-process your photos.
After that a fast prime lens should be your first upgrade beyond the "kit lens", I don't know Nikon gear super well, but looks like they've got a 50MM f/1.8 for less than $200.
Prime lens (a single focal length with no zoom) tend to be stupid sharp, and a wide aperture (f/1.8) will let you really have fun with depth of field.
I second what jaydorn said. Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8g is a great value prime lens. You will also be able to use it if you ever decide to move to a full-frame camera from you current DX body.
I would also recommend Nikkor 70-300mm VR zoom lens. It is not a pro-qualty zoom, but very useful to reach objects far away and is relatively cheap (especially, second hand).
Comfortable wide shoulder strap is also a good and inexpensive item to add.
Decent tripod will be needed at some point.
See William at Saneal Cameras. He also teaches photography at ACAD and will help you select the above and other accessories without any hassles.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Personally I prefer the Nikon 35mm over the 50mm. I find the fifty to have a bit to small a FOV and often can't back up enough to capture what I want. When I travel, I usually take my 35mm over my 50.
If you have the money, and are thinking of upgrading the body at some point, my favourite lens is my 18-200. I'd buy it over the 70-300 any day. Even though it doesn't quit have the reach of the 300, it's versatility at the wide end is worth the trade off. It's the lens you can always have on your camera, and if you can take only one, that is it. Now, I primarily use my camera travelling so I'm pretty picky about what I want to carry with me. Having a do-it-all lens is important.
So ya, those are the 2 I travel with, my 35 and my 18-200.
I agree, Nikkor 18-200 is a decent universal zoom, for a DX body. But a) it is rather expensive and b) it will be useless if he moves from a DX body to full-frame eventually. 70-300 is half- the price of the 18-200 and, combined with 50mm fast prime would be a good set to have for a beginner. Both lenses can be used on a full-frame body.
I like 35mm focal distance on a full-frame (I believe, it was field photo-journalists' choice focal distance for a long time), but Nikkor 35mm 1.8/g DX lens is not a very good lens and not nearly as good as the 50mm 1.8/g full-frame lens. Plus, again, it will be useless if he switches to full-frame.
P.S. On a second thought, perhaps, one 18-200 is all he would need for a while to get used to a camera; so paying more for one lens instead of two could make sense. It's hard to make a meaningful suggestion when no financial parameters are known.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Last edited by CaptainYooh; 01-08-2017 at 01:24 PM.
I used to think plannnig my purchases based on a full frame upgrade was a prudent way to go, but I don't anymore. DX bodies are way cheaper, and do almost anything a full frame will. Obviously there are compromises, but I'm not sure someone who has an entry level DSLR should plan their lens purchases with full frame in mind, unless they plan to get very serious about it.
My problem with the 50mm is it is more like a 75mm on my DX, so it ends up being a portrait lens, more than general purpose.
I used to think plannnig my purchases based on a full frame upgrade was a prudent way to go, but I don't anymore. DX bodies are way cheaper, and do almost anything a full frame will. Obviously there are compromises, but I'm not sure someone who has an entry level DSLR should plan their lens purchases with full frame in mind, unless they plan to get very serious about it.
My problem with the 50mm is it is more like a 75mm on my DX, so it ends up being a portrait lens, more than general purpose.
I came to the same conclusion about 2 years ago regarding going full frame, I even took it a step further and went all in on mirrorless gear with portability being my primary motivator.
Traded/sold all my canon gear for Sony a6000 & e-mount lenses. My current set up consist of a 12mm Prime, 35mm Prime and the 16-55mm kit lens. The whole kit fits comfortably into a messenger style bag that's easy to tote around all day.
...
Traded/sold all my canon gear for Sony a6000 & e-mount lenses. My current set up consist of a 12mm Prime, 35mm Prime and the 16-55mm kit lens. The whole kit fits comfortably into a messenger style bag that's easy to tote around all day.
I tried this approach with Nikon 1 system (for traveling only) but was not happy with the limitations on image quality caused by the small sensor; especially, in situations where large crops were required. Having said that, there is a good chance, mirrorless technology will make all of the camera gear we have today obsolete in 10 years anyway... Which, of course, doesn't help Stormageddon, who has already bought a DX body.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
My long term plan is to go mirrorless due to travelling. I've got principles against giving Sony money, and ya, as you mention, the Nikon 1 system suffers form to small a sensor. It was an odd decision to go that way. So I'm still waiting for what I consider the best route to go in that form factor. Maybe in a few years something will step in.
Leica Q is the ultimate travel camera solution nowadays, IMO. Yes, very expensive, but really, really amazing. When I finally get tired of carrying a full-frame camera & heavy lenses with me, that would be my travel camera choice, I think.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Well, what do you know... Drove for 3 hours in the early afternoon today around Irricana and found two snow owls for the first time in my life.
The first one was sitting on a pole a few kms west of Irricana and another east of Keoma. Man, these birds did not like to get photographed! The first one gave us literally 2 minutes for a few quick shots handheld and flew away off the pole the moment I took out the tripod.
The second owl was too far away in a field to begin with but also flew away as soon as we got out of the vehicle...
Shots are not good, unfortunately. Could not get close enough and did not have enough time. These are 200% crops. Next time, will get a camera with a longer lens mounted on the tripod and ready...
I still can't believe we have purposely looked for and found them. Thanks, Buzzard!
Awesome, I'm happy you found some!
They are pretty shy, but then most of the big birds are I suppose. You do see a lot of them out there, but finding ones close other than on power poles is a whole different story. I don't even bother with the power pole shots anymore. I've got a bunch now, and they all look the same. I'd really like to catch a nice one in flight before the end of winter.
I like 35mm focal distance on a full-frame (I believe, it was field photo-journalists' choice focal distance for a long time), but Nikkor 35mm 1.8/g DX lens is not a very good lens and not nearly as good as the 50mm 1.8/g full-frame lens. Plus, again, it will be useless if he switches to full-frame.
Hmm...so much for what I've been reading!.
I think I need a 35 mm prime and was getting close to maybe buying this lens. It was my intention to stick with FX lenses but this kept coming up as the best bang for your buck on a Nikon crop sensor and gets tons of really great reviews all over. I figured for only a couple hundred bucks, it'd be worth a try and I could probably sell it, if and when I go full frame.
Can you tell me why it's not a good lens? For the price it sounds pretty hard to beat, no?
I think I need a 35 mm prime and was getting close to maybe buying this lens. It was my intention to stick with FX lenses but this kept coming up as the best bang for your buck on a Nikon crop sensor and gets tons of really great reviews all over. I figured for only a couple hundred bucks, it'd be worth a try and I could probably sell it, if and when I go full frame.
Can you tell me why it's not a good lens? For the price it sounds pretty hard to beat, no?
I should have been less categorical about it. It's not fair to be too critical of a $220 lens. But the superb quality of a $229-priced 50mm/1.8g makes the value comparison difficult. My first foray into digital from film was a D80 fifteen years ago; then D5100. Then I got mad at Nikon for pretty much abandoning lens development for the DX format and ignoring the investments people made in it. This was when I switched to FX format completely and sold all of my DX stuff. 12-24mm and 17-55mm were the only two professional grade zooms developed specifically for DX. 10.5/2.8 DX fisheye is nice as well. Other DX lenses were lesser-quality consumer grade lenses. I am lumping 35mm/1.8g in this latter category and, I admit, this is subjective. You're right; 35mm on DX is very close to a 50mm on FX in terms of FOV and that is a very useful/popular focal distance. As for the lens optical quality, I suggest try one, first, wide-open at the store on your own camera body and then do some pixel-peeping to see if you like it before buying one.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
I've got zero complaints with my 35, what specifically is the issue? Yes, it doesn't feel as nice in the hand as the 50, and clearly is of cheaper construction. It doesn't have a manual aperture ring like the 50, but that's not much of an issue. I've had no image quality issue at all.
Personally, I don’t think there is one camera that will do everything, so you kind of need to decide what is important to you and go from there. If you hate lugging things around, and will never print, go for mirrorless. If image quality is paramount, go for FX (or better yet, medium format…but $$$). Having said that, I’m not really a fan of DX cameras, as they don’t give you the quality of a FX, nor the portability of a mirrorless.
Lens wise, I’m a big fan of primes. Not only for the quality, but also for the fact that it removes options and allows you to focus a bit more. For the same reason, I’ve been a really big fan of Zeiss lenses the last few years. The sharpness and somewhat cinematic quality they give you is just not really doable with anything from Nikon that I’ve tried. Of course there the big draw back is price, and that they only come in manual focus. But to be honest, slowing down is something most us need to do anyway.
The Sigma Art lenses I think are a really great buy. Japanese made prime lenses that are meant to hit go after the Zeiss market at a more affordable price point. Except, unlike Zeiss, these have AF! I'm not usually a big third-party lens guy, but Sigma really hit it out of the park with these.
If you go prime, I'd start with something in the 25-35mm range, as I think that range tends to suit a large variety of subject types (without being too distorted).
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Another one of my primary reasons for choosing Sony's mirrorless was the same APS-C size sensor as what my old Canon SLR head. So for me portability without sacrificing sensor size was a big motivator over some of the micro four thirds systems out there.
But now we've gone & turned this into a gear chat... anyone snap any nice shots as of late?
The Following User Says Thank You to Regular_John For This Useful Post:
