Photographer's Corner - equipment

Filters, for the most part, seem a waste of money, as the effects can be done in post processing on the computer. Or iPad...

Does she want to photograph objects? A small product table, scraps of different color cloth for backgrounds,
 
Last edited:
If the flash has a cable connectin and can be used off camera, there are flash holders that move the flash higher up, and produce better lighting for kids and portraits . I'll find a photo...

http://www.camerachums.com/Vertical...ympus-Panasonic-Camera/p-328359?refid=Google A

handlebar flash such as a Mecablitz ( also called Metz). These are superb flashes with many flexible easy to use features
Portable power pack for a flash. Can be worn on the the belt. Flashes use a lot of battery power. I've done several weddings in a row with a Metz and a portable battery pack, without recharging in between. Even for norofessiomal use, it's aPIA to be replacing batteries, or be out of batteries, and need them for an indoor shot.
 
Last edited:
By wide angle, in the first post, I meant ultra wide. Tamron makes a 10-24 which is decent, at half the price of the Nikon version.
 
She has this flash.
Amazon.com: Nikon SB-400 AF Speedlight Flash for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

I'd say she mostly takes portraits of the kids, but there is a mix. She mostly likes to learn from the art side. Landscapes may be her next area to dip her toes in. There is no desire to commercialize her hobby.

Her brother did an outing with a skilled photographer (in New Zealand, the horror) specifically to train him to use his camera. Something similar (alas in PA) may be the ticket, as opposed to a product.
 
Sesq,
I have a Nikon DSLR (D90). One of my favorite lenses is Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX). It costs just under $200. It's great for low light photography.

Would she be interested in taking close up photos of things like flowers and insects? If so, consider a macro lens. I like my Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro. It's priced a bit higher than your range, but it's nice! I've heard that the Tamron macro lenses are nice, too, but I haven't used one.
 
How about a workshop with a noted photographer in her area of interest? She could learn a lot from a pro in a very short time & may also get her hooked into the local photographer networks.

seraphim said:
Filters, for the most part, seem a waste of money, as the effects can be done in post processing on the computer. Or iPad...
Click to expand...
True with the exception of a polarizer. If she doesn't have one, it would make a nice gift.
 
I got my first full-frame digital SLR a year ago - and EOS6D. I've really enjoyed it. Great low noise performance as well. It's a good match for the wide-angle "skyscape" type of photographer I like to do.

It still has a mirror, but by using it in "live view" mode which raises the mirror it's easy to leave the mirror up during multiple (bracketed) exposures.

I do a lot of exposure bracketing - up to 7 exposures for sunset scenes to capture the huge dynamic range. The EOS6D can do up to 7 bracketed exposures automatically.
 
walkinwood said:
How about a workshop with a noted photographer in her area of interest? She could learn a lot from a pro in a very short time & may also get her hooked into the local photographer networks.


True with the exception of a polarizer. If she doesn't have one, it would make a nice gift.
Click to expand...
I don't use a polarizer anymore. Multiple exposures work better for me. Software is really good at doing the things you used to need polarizers and neutral graduated density filters for.

Lightroom 5 is great and pretty easy to use. You don't need Photoshop except for pretty esoteric things now.
 
Several years ago I went for a week long backpacking trip in the Sierras with a bunch of photographers (all of us wilderness-photography-wannabees). I must have carried 20 lbs. of gear - DSLR, 3 lenses, tripod - while I vividly remember one other guy carrying a little Leica and some tiny "pancake" lenses. Total weight of his kit maybe 5 lbs. While the telephoto I carried gave me a few shots of birds and Marmots that my friend missed, for everything in the normal to wide focal length range he was able to shoot everything I could and more. And while I was thrashed from carrying my gear around after 3-4 days he was happily marching around the whole time scuttling up peaks while I could only watch in exhausted envy.

What I'm getting at is that the advantages of a mirrorless system depend a lot on the sort of photography you do. If you're a bird/wildlife photographer and all your weight is in big honking telephoto lenses then they don't offer much advantage. However, if you're a primarily a travel and/or backpacking photographer they provide a fine alternative to DSLRs with little loss in quality.

On an entirely different note, I agree with the other poster regarding the ability to replicate some of the sky darkening effects of a polarizer using multiple exposures and post-processing. However, no post-processing I'm aware of will eliminate reflections from water (or, crucially, from water bearing vegetation). So I still carry a polarizer for just this purpose.
 
Last edited:
For impromptu pics of the kids, especially indoors, a fast prime would be useful, something in the 80-100 range, 2.8 or less.

If the portraits are posed, then yeah, look into lighting.

For moon shots, you need real long range lenses, like maybe a telescope.

I've shot moons with 300mm zoom on a crop sensor and it's still not large enough.
 
stepford said:
On an entirely different note, I agree with the other poster regarding the ability to replicate some of the sky darkening effects of a polarizer using multiple exposures and post-processing. However, no post-processing I'm aware of will eliminate reflections from water (or, crucially, from water bearing vegetation). So I still carry a polarizer for just this purpose.
Click to expand...
The clarity feature in modern digital camera raw processing software does wonders. It more than makes up for some of the ugly artifacts polarizers can introduce to skies, etc.
 
Yeah but if you hate to post-process, polarizers let you capture it right.
 
seraphim said:
Ask her what she wants to do.
Click to expand...

+1 on that.

Also consider a screen calibration tool. A Colormunki Smile is cheap ($80) and simple to use. Reviews find very little difference in results between that and much more expensive versions. I bought one for my sister's birthday and she likes it. If she prints a lot she'll want the Colormunki Photo but that's quite a bit more ($400). I have one and think it's worth it.

And I'm a big fan of Lightroom but it won't run on Ipads or tablets, you'll need a desktop or laptop.

But I'd start with seraphim's suggestion of just asking what she wants to do.
 
audreyh1 said:
I do a lot of exposure bracketing - up to 7 exposures for sunset scenes to capture the huge dynamic range. The EOS6D can do up to 7 bracketed exposures automatically.
Click to expand...

I'm so annoyed that my camera (5dii) only does 3 exposures in bracketing. This is extremely nice to have if she does any HDR photography.
 
Sesq said:
Where should she go next. Anything missing?
Click to expand...

A photo quality printer might be nice. It's great for instant gratification and it's a nice way to share images.
 
photoguy said:
A photo quality printer might be nice. It's great for instant gratification and it's a nice way to share images.
Click to expand...

+1

I have had great fun with my photo printer. It was a bit more expensive than the cheapos, but the photos are marvelous and I can print on a variety of interesting papers: glossy, semi-gloss, matt, watercolor, and various artsy papers. It even does canvas. People love to see their photos on professional quality art paper.
 
audreyh1 said:
I don't use a polarizer anymore. Multiple exposures work better for me. Software is really good at doing the things you used to need polarizers and neutral graduated density filters for.

Lightroom 5 is great and pretty easy to use. You don't need Photoshop except for pretty esoteric things now.
Click to expand...

Interesting. How do you get rid of reflections where you don't want them. For example in leaves or even relatively plain surfaces.
 
I can see achieving a rough approximation of a graduated density filter with software, but there is no replicating with software what a polarizing filter can do.
 
Mr. Paul said:
I can see achieving a rough approximation of a graduated density filter with software, but there is no replicating with software what a polarizing filter can do.
Click to expand...

If you are using the polarizer to make blue skies darker, then yes this is easy to do in post. Cutting reflections though isn't going to happen.
 
photoguy said:
If you are using the polarizer to make blue skies darker, then yes this is easy to do in post. Cutting reflections though isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

I love pulling detail out of clouds when the angles for a polarizer are just right. Magic disappearance of water surface reflections is also a favorite use. Software can't do either of these. I do like darkening skies particularly in black and white and as you say that is doable in post.
 
Clarity - also known as local contrast in post processing.

Yes, software and sufficient dynamic range can reduce an amazing amount of glare.

I get amazing details out of my skies using HDR.
 
Last edited:
Rarely are lighting conditions perfect enough that a file needs no post processing whatsover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chuckanut
Replace old SD cards that still work?
Replies
10
Views
1K
donheff
donheff

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom