Davyd ([info]davyd) wrote,
@ 2008-05-10 23:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
why so many photos?
People may have observed an increased amount of mediocre-quality photography appearing on my blog of late, and be wondering why.

When I was young, Dad always used to shoot on a 35mm SLR, but with the advent of digital, switched back to point-and-shoot cameras. For many years I longed for a digital SLR, but it was very much out of my price range. Later I decided that I would prefer a small camera that I could easily carry around with me, so for quite a while I've had a Canon Ixus.

Those who saw me at linux.conf.au this year saw me carting around my Dad's Canon 400D, as part of a field trial. Dad buying this camera resparked my interest in SLR photography. I found myself quite enjoying the control and the ability to create really nice photography (or at least make an attempt). It fit in nicely with my need to find new hobbies; plus now digital SLR was something I could afford.

To this end, I purchased a Canon 450D and the two image stabilised lens kit (18-55 IS and 55-250 IS) about 2 days before Steph and I got married. This was the camera I took around Penang and Singapore.

I'm still learning how to use it, but it seems like quite an improvement over the 400D, but I think a lot of that is the lens. The 18-55 IS lens is quite a bit nicer than the old Canon kit lens. The IS is really forgiving and allows for shots that otherwise I would have blurred, although for some reason emits a high-pitched whine when stabilising, which is a little unpleasant.

So that's why I've been taking so many photos.


(Post a new comment)

XSi
[info]eugenia_loli
2008-05-10 11:21 pm UTC (link)
Cool! My husband bought an XSi today too! We love it! We also got the 135mm F/2 L portrait lens!

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: XSi
[info]davyd
2008-05-11 01:50 am UTC (link)
Clearly you have a lot more money than I do. That seems like a long lens for portraiture.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: XSi
[info]eugenia_loli
2008-05-11 02:12 am UTC (link)
On full frame cameras the lens is fine. The 450D is a secondary camera for JBQ, the Canon 5D is his main one. My husband works for Google's Android btw, but his main hobby is photography these days. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]dunq
2008-05-11 01:48 am UTC (link)
Nice. I didn't realise the 18-55mm IS was so cheap, and didn't know there was a 55-250 IS that was also cheap!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]davyd
2008-05-11 01:53 am UTC (link)
dpreview rated the 18-55 IS very highly given its price. They suggested that many amateurs would now probably not buy a more expensive lens.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]dunq
2008-05-11 01:41 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm. $400 replacing the kit lens (I already have the 55-200mm non-IS which is quite sharp) could be an alternative for me, to spending $1700 on a Nikon D60 + 18-200mm VR. Completely different options of course :-) (and there is no viable equivalent to that lens in a Canon)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]davyd
2008-05-11 01:57 pm UTC (link)
That's quite a zoom range. Does the lens get significant barrel distortion at its extremes?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]theducks
2008-05-11 01:52 am UTC (link)
Your photography isn't mediocre, it's actually pretty good, if my opinion counts :-P

The only thing is the one we've talked about with regards to the contrast of some of the images you've processed, but I don't think that's your fault.

I think I've taken some nice photos over the years with my fancy point and click digital cameras, but nothing compares to a DSLR.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]davyd
2008-05-11 01:58 am UTC (link)
The Powershot cameras take some really nice photos, although have a tendency of overexpose on automatic, leading to burnout (I've noticed this across most of Canon's devices I've used).

I'm still learning to control for contrast in my shots. I want to be able to take those really punchy images that you see on flickr. That said, I think there is a significant amount of post-processing going into some of those. I need to learn more about tone curves, etc. I really only understand the tip of that iceberg.

The Ixus still has its place, because you can actually carry it (I know people use camera phones for this, but those things really make me sad... if only they weren't so noisy). As a result I got some neat photos of all the walls being ripped down at work. After finding out how good image stabilisation can be though, I wish I'd forked out for an IS version all those years ago.

Oh, and a lot of the photography is mediocre. Especially the one at the bottom of this entry.

Edited at 2008-05-11 01:59 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ducts
2008-05-11 12:05 pm UTC (link)
Especially the one at the bottom of this entry.

Though there's something interestingly meta about images of image-making devices.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]davyd
2008-05-11 01:18 pm UTC (link)
I've often thought so.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]dunq
2008-05-11 01:37 pm UTC (link)
I always thought its a bit lame actually. It brings me to tears to see some of these guys take photos of their own kit against a white background in studio lighting. Why??

No offense to yourself, you've obviously taken a quick shot with a flash no less and not spent hours setting that up, and hey 10 points for the context of your own abode.

There, rant over and many enemies no doubt made.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]davyd
2008-05-11 01:47 pm UTC (link)
I suppose that Canon are allowed to take that photo to shove on their brochures. I was also reading an article on "taking photos for e-bay" where they were photographing cameras, but their "studio" cost about £5.

I wasn't aiming for any more or less than a quick shot, I just wish both the front and the back were in focus.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…