*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread

WRXGuy1 said:
I shoot in aperture priority mode most of the time. Most of my photos are either landscapes or sports, in landscapes I set my aperture to either f/2.8-f/4 if I'm looking for some bokeh when taking a foreground shot with a landscape background, or f/8-f/11 for when I want to take a distant landscape shot. It makes no difference to me if Im shooting at f/8 what my shutter speed is, as long as it's twice the focal length. 1/250 or 1/2000 doesn't make any difference, so shooting in full manual just takes extra time, especially if I'm taking photos with varying sun and clouds.

In sports, depending on the lightning conditions I'll shoot either in aperture priority or full manual. Indoors where the lightning is consistent I'll shoot full manual, but outdoors say at a soccer or lacrosse game under party cloudy skies, I'll shoot Av to avoid drastically underexposed photos. On sunny or overcast days, I tend to shoot outdoor sports on full manual.
Click to expand...

This. :good:
 
Some more from the Sigma 10-20 (apart from the pumpkins one which was done on the 55-300).

The weather has been weirdly warm for November - I'm talking 18C! :eek:

Click for full resolution on Flickr.



















 
Jamebonds1 said:
Nice picture Jason! What was name of your camera?
Click to expand...

He's got a D3200.

Got my new Rokinon 35mm lens the other day. Love the bokeh you can get with it! It's really a great portrait lens.

dqlma1.jpg
 
spirit said:
Some more from the Sigma 10-20 (apart from the pumpkins one which was done on the 55-300).

The weather has been weirdly warm for November - I'm talking 18C! :eek:

Click for full resolution on Flickr.
Click to expand...

Those look great. How much was that lens? Iv been wanting to get a new lens to play with for my D3100 and that looks like the kind of thing I would be going for.

Would that lens also be good for night photography?
 
G80FTW said:
Those look great. How much was that lens? Iv been wanting to get a new lens to play with for my D3100 and that looks like the kind of thing I would be going for.

Would that lens also be good for night photography?
Click to expand...

I got mine for £230 used. The f/4.0-5.6 version is £330 new and the f/3.5 version is about £400 new I think. Not sure how much it is in the USA. Check it out on Amazon.

On a tripod this lens will be fine for night photography but for handheld night/low-light photography neither the f/4.0-5.6 or the f/3.5 versions are really suitable because the apertures are too small. It's definitely made for landscapes and architectural photography so it's not really designed to be used at night without a tripod.


Here are some others from yesterday:









Had to use ISO 800 on that because of the f/4.0 aperture and relatively low light.






You can see all of the photos I have taken with this lens in my set on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/sets/72157648551118965/
 
Last edited:
spirit said:
I got mine for £230 used. The f/4.0-5.6 version is £330 new and the f/3.5 version is about £400 new I think. Not sure how much it is in the USA. Check it out on Amazon.

On a tripod this lens will be fine for night photography but for handheld night/low-light photography neither the f/4.0-5.6 or the f/3.5 versions are really suitable because the apertures are too small. It's definitely made for landscapes and architectural photography so it's not really designed to be used at night without a tripod.
Click to expand...

That's why you raise the ISO ;)
 
NikonGuy said:
Yeah, Lightroom has a great tool that works amazingly. Its called noise reduction :P You can do it very well in Photoshop too. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah it works well and is handy. But if you do too much of it you'll end up with soft photos if you're not careful.

G80 asked if the Sigma was good at night photography. I said it'd be fine on a tripod but obviously for low-light handheld shooting it's not the most ideal and remember too that the D3100, whilst it handles noise very well, doesn't handle it as well as the higher-end models. You'll get noticeable grain at about ISO 1600 or 3200.

So whilst raising the ISO and then reducing it in post is a workaround, if you want to get a lens for handheld low-light photography then get something with a bigger aperture, eg f/2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4 so you don't have to worry about using the higher ISOs. I know they're not ultra-wide but the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 are dirt cheap and would be more ideal. Otherwise the Sigma 10-20 is fine on a tripod.
 
Last edited:
spirit said:
Yeah it works well and is handy. But if you do too much of it you'll end up with soft photos if you're not careful.

G80 asked if the Sigma was good at night photography. I said it'd be fine on a tripod but obviously for low-light handheld shooting it's not the most ideal and remember too that the D3100, whilst it handles noise very well, doesn't handle it as well as the higher-end models. You'll get noticeable grain at about ISO 1600 or 3200.
Click to expand...

That's why you bump up the detail. And even clarity if you wish. Because then you can get rid of Noise, while still keeping all the detail. Many ways of working around it ;)

I'll just put it out there I had the D3100 for 2 and a half years. I know very well it's low light performance. So i'll say this @ G80. There will be no way around a tripod of a stable surface of sorts for a night shot with your camera. That is only because if you raise the ISO anything above 400, the Noise just get unacceptable. The best shot you can get with the camera is a nightscape of a city or something. The lights of buildings will help hide the noise. But astrophotography, or just street photography at night, you gotta keep it at 100 ISO. Even lightroom has a hard to removing the noise because it's so high. This is just my view. Of course if I were you ask a true professional, preferably someone with a lot of knowledge on the D3100
 
NikonGuy said:
That is only because if you raise the ISO anything above 400, the Noise just get unacceptable.
Click to expand...
With my Canon 50D, 7D, and now 5D Mark III I have always been able to push the ISO to around 1600 before I see any noticeable noise, unless you crop to 100%. With my 5D, I typically shoot indoor sports at ISO 8000-10000, and with some NR in Photoshop the images are noise free and still very clear.
 
WRXGuy1 said:
With my Canon 50D, 7D, and now 5D Mark III I have always been able to push the ISO to around 1600 before I see any noticeable noise, unless you crop to 100%. With my 5D, I typically shoot indoor sports at ISO 8000-10000, and with some NR in Photoshop the images are noise free and still very clear.
Click to expand...

I meant with the D3100 at night scenes :P

On another note, damn that's amazing. I try not to go above 3200 with my D7100. But i've actually never tried to go higher either. Would you mind telling me why you went with Canon over Nikon?
 
NikonGuy said:
I meant with the D3100 at night scenes :P

On another note, damn that's amazing. I try not to go above 3200 with my D7100. But i've actually never tried to go higher either. Would you mind telling me why you went with Canon over Nikon?
Click to expand...
I started with the low end Rebel series, before I really knew too much about DSLRs, but once I got accustomed to Canon and bought some lenses it was tough to switch.
 
I went with Canon because that's what Geoff was shooting and he was my go to guy for questions :D

Then when I wanted to upgrade I bought his 7D off him! :D
 
WRXGuy1 said:
Haha, and next you'll buy my 5D :P

Or maybe we can convince Jason to go Canon lol
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen bro! Went Nikon because their lower-end D-SLRs were cheaper and better-built than Canon's when I bought my D3200. I have a friend with a 700D though and I think it is a improvement on the build quality of the 600/650D (I have friends with those too).

I wasn't very impressed with the 600/650D when I tried them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top