Anyone on here do photography for a hobby?

nudge nudge wink wink

Serious question. Mind you, you do have to venture outdoors for the hobby, so it may be a no no for some on here.

Not an expert by any means. I've got a Canon slr and I occasionally visit the races. I was bitterly disappointed that I couldn't get to York for Sea the Stars.

Flickr is a crackin' site.

My brother does.

yep

Digital cameras are the best thing ever to happen to the wide, wide world of photography.

Agreed. You can take 400 + shots in a day.Upload - and delete all but the best. In the days back then....a 35m roll of film ( 36 exp.) + processing, meant you were were sparing with the shots you took and 90 % of developed photos were rubbish.

Yeah - I reckon I wasted £200 in my first year with a film camera, back in the mid-90s. Just recently binned most of those photos.

I shall be taking 200+ photos tonight at a price of feck all.

Thats what I have Vela. A Canon 450D. But i'm gonna take a look at the new 7D. However, the 450D is a fine camera, but I am using it with the kit lens, so my money may actually be better spent on better lenses rather than a new camera.

I fancy one of these http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

£500 pretty cheap for an L lens.

I've got a Canon 350D and a 300mm lense for getting up close to the hosses, Treble. Just recently bought a cable switch for still lives, etc. I'm experimenting with light sources and bought coloured cloths, silk, etc. to see what effects I can get...also, I've been keeping small cardboard packages, and painting them with white emulsion, then different colours with acrylic paint.

"Still lifes" I should say.

What 300mm lens do you have?

Canon ultrasonic zoom lens, 75-300mm.

Nice. I only have a tamron 70-300. It's good, but only up to about 200mm.

I'm getting in photography semi-seriously. Got a Sony A700 and have just got a Tamron 55-200 lens for the gg's. Need the weather to brighten up though.

Might get myself off to Haydock in a few weeks if the weather is ok. If not, might just go to Blackpool Zoo to try it out. :0

My tamron is pretty much the same lens, except it goes out to 300mm.

This is a shot taken at monkey world at full zoom. Not bad PQ, especially for the rpice, but my camera is capable of so much more with the right lens. So is yours.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/4152696001_53a76a34d2_o.jpg

One tip, when you use these Tamron zooms, try to keep the f-stop above 5. They tend to smooth out too much below this.

Just dont show anybody the photos you take - they're not interested.

Treated myself to an LX3 this year and 'retired' both Digital SLRs
Great stuff

Maybe you're not interested Blackburn. But other people who are into photography are interested to see how different lens perform, so shut your face.

Sounds fascinating

I just see no point in hijacking a thread where people are having a civilised conversation only to spout how boring it is. Dont read if your not interested.

Oh dear

That is one mean lookin' sonofa** monkey...

And I don't mean Blackburn!

Doesn't the fact that your pictures cost more and you could only take 36 mean that you take more care in COMPOSING the picture and ensuring that the focus and depth-of-field etc were correct? Most people simply take a load of badly executed and totally boring 'snaps'. This is NOT photography!

Also, what have they done about the ridiculous delay between pressing the button and the digital camera deciding to comply?

they've fixed it - SLRs

If you're taking action shots of sports events, how much time do you have to "compose"? Anyway, you can crop later, and change photos in photoshop, etc.

And...anyway (again) there is a sort of charm to artless "snaps" - the German artist Gerhard Richter produced dozens of brilliant paintings based on "snaps" and blurred photos, etc.

treble, if you don't mind me saying, that picture you posted looks a touch over-exposed on my screen.

What software do you use for post processing (if any)?

I have a couple of Sony Alpha's, A700 & A900.
The camera counts for little imo . . . its the quality of the glass you use!
Buy the best lens you can afford. . .read as much info as possible, and learn the link between Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO.

The camera counts for little imo..
------

I half agree with that.

If you need a camera for photo's of horse racing then you're better off with a body that has high ISO performance and a reasonable burst rate. If you just shoot landscapes then you may get away with a cheaper body. You're limited shooting fast moving sports with an entry level DSLR even if you have a £1k lens.

I do agree that the lens can make or break a camera. I've just got a Tamron 55-200 f4-5.6. With my Sony A700, I'll need excellent light with horse racing. Even then, focus speed will be slower than better lenses and so will IQ.

It's an expensive hobby. The lens i'm after will cost the same as the actual camera body! :/

Shrew D. . .
Get the Sony 70-200G 2.8
This is probably the best lens (Carl Zeuss aside) that Sony do.
I have one and its superb. . .but a little pricey!!

Yes Shrew D, it is a touch over exposed. I am a Lightroom user. I am a bit confused about your horse racing point though. I would'nt have thought a high ISO would be necessary for horse racing as most day meetings are obviously well lit and at night, the floodlights normally provide enough light.

By the way guys, go here http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/

You can sign up to adobe and download a free beta of the new Lightroom. Give you a chance to see if you like it. I certainly do.

AI.

I was looking at either the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for about half the price of the Sony. Yes, they both have their faults but they're excellent vfm compared to the Sony.

SD

The picture quality on the G lens is better. . the focusing is FAR quicker. . the sharpness is unreal. The SSM of the G makes the extra money very worth while. But (excuse the pun) its horses for courses and i guess the money difference is quite high!!

I take a fair few photos and some of them are pretty good, also dive a fair amount but no underwater housing exists for my present camera...so thinking of upgrading. Dont suppose anyone has or has heard about the Canon 5D?

Ta

treble, I mentioned high ISO because that would allow you to use a faster shutter speed in dodgy lighting. Obviously its not crucial on sunny days but for my uses, it was a deciding factor into which camera I bought.

I'm not sure about most day meetings being well lit. Also, I'm guessing (never actually tried) that night meetings with floodlights cause their own problems.

AI

The Sony is a mix of the best of the Sigma and Tamron. The Tamron is sharp yet slower focusing yet the Sigma is less sharp but faster focusing than the Tamron. I think the Sigma also has an SSM equivalent in its lens as well.

Spot on with your comments. . . The Tamron has better optics but the Sigma has better auto-focus. The Sony has the best of both.
Either on a 700 gives you 105-300 focal length. . .with a 1.4 converter you have a good bit of kit for the horses!

ttt