File :-(, x, )
Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
There was another photographer next to me with a 5D and some L lens (guessing a 24-70 from his Flickr).

I felt so very inadequate.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern564Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:21 22:50:33Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
I want your f/0 lens
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
nice photo!

also, i know how you feel..... I did this fashion show a while ago, and all these photographers were next to me with 5D and even 1Ds Mark III (and all L lenses). One of em also kinda laughed at me as I was noobing around with the external flash I borrowed.
I exchanged business cards with the uber equipped photographers... looked at their photos when I came home and chuckled a little.
They all sucked ass except one of em.
So don't feel bad when there's some older dude next to you with a chunky ass camera, assure yourself it's likely he sucks balls
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
>>186751

Also 0mm. Try and find a better pancake lens than that.
>> Anonymous
>>186748

HOLY FUCK GUYS HE TOOK IT WITH THE LENS OFF
>> Anonymous
>>186753

because you did so much better with your front on flash and ultra wide shots lulz
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
     File :-(, x)
Band is Xiu Xiu btw, support was Chris Garneau.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern564Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 08:22:19Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
it's not about the camera, YOU make the picture...
plenty of guys where i live have 5DS and D300 etc with top notch lenses and stuff
they 're like the dudes that ramble all day about car engines and sport (read douchebags)
they don't like photography, they like zomgcameras (phallic compensation?)
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
lol same thing happened to me just today. I was shooting a ballet recital when this one guy (i guess a parent?) came up front and started snapping on his 5d+ZOMGL-lens...kinda hid my camera after that, but then I saw a guy with a sony a100, and two other douche bags with d40s using onboard flash. I then cheered up a bit. lol
>> Anonymous
>>186892
[spoiler]you will find them in the gear threads[/spoiler]
>> Anonymous
>>186896
spoiler: spoiler tags don't work
>> Anonymous
>>186892

sounds like a case of jealousfag
>> Anonymous
Hey OP, what lens were you using?

One of my buddies wants me to shoot his band's next gig and I'm not sure what kind of lens I'll need...
>> Anonymous
>>186970

I would like to know as well. My band photos always come out terrible. ;_;
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>186984
>>186970
>F-Number f/0.0

a fast one.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>186984
1. Buy a fast lens.
2. Set iso to > 800
3. ?????
4. PROFIT!
>> Anonymous
woo Xiu Xiu. Seen them live recently as well. Amazing live gig, very intense.

Nice photos :)
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
I posted 2 photos of Xiu xiu earlier. Chris garneau was great alright; where did you see them?
>> Anonymous
>>186988

How fast?
Would a 50mm ƒ1.8 be good enough?
And are there any really fast zooms, or just primes?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>187032
Yeah 1.8 will work. Fastest zooms only go to 2.8. Also, ignore what your meter is telling you or spot meter. Try to get a decent speed to stop action or you'll just get lots of motion blur. 1/100 is probably a good starting point.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Ooh, nice ISO 1600 from the K10D. I'm considering getting one, or should I splurge for the K20D? I keep on seeing K10Ds go for like $500, I can't see a better deal in photography.
>> Anonymous
>>187065

last time i checked the k10d kit was like $800+

were are you seeing it so cheap?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>187080
People dropping them on craigslist to upgrade to the K20D.
>> Anonymous
>>187089

I would not want a camera that had been dropped.
>> Anonymous
>>187065
So you're back to wanting the K10D?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>187144
Yeah, I think so. It's a money thing, but I also dig their lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>187033
Oly actually has a 35-100mm f/2.0 zoom lens, but yeah, most of them only open up as wide as f/2.8.

I really hate people who complain that 70-200 f/4L is a slow lens, when there's only one stop of a difference to the 3-4x more expensive 2.8 version :)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>187165
There's no such thing as "only" one stop. One stop is huge.
>> Anonymous
>>187165there's only one stop of a difference

lol

that's what every f/4 owner says
>> Anonymous
>>187174
When you own a 1.0 and a 1.2, then you'll have some perspective :)
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
     File :-(, x)
>>187028
>>187017

Awesome! Saw them in Manchester on the 20th, intense is definitely the word for it.

>>186970

Any 50/1.xx will do, I'm sure. Mine's a Pentax 1.7 which I use for most shots, switch to the kit 17-55 if I need a wide shot or my 135 for close-ups (usually a far back drummer or something). Yeah, I switch lenses far too much but hey, that's the point of an SLR, right?

>>187065

K100D, and it's been cleaned up a tad with Neat Image, I just cheat my way around the "No Exif for trial version" thing.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern564Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 13:39:36Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
>>187154
Yeah, the limited primes are probably the most gorgeous things this side of Leica/Zeiss/etc. I've seen. So lush and sensual, almost like they're making love to the scene...

I'd probably bend over backwards to get a Kx0D and some lenses if they would just give it a full coverage finder. And yes I'm an anal twat sometimes.
>> Anonymous
>>187229

what's a full coverage viewfinder?

is it like, right now most dslrs are 95% coverage meaning the viewfinder doesn't show 100% of what's captured?
>> Anonymous
>>187236
Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>187239

does that 5% bother your composition that much? serious question

it's like what? 50 pixels all around?
>> Anonymous
>>187254
No.
>> Anonymous
>>187254
The way I shoot, often from (with a normal lens) one or less-three meters away, with things at the edge of the frame, it probably would. Also, there's just no reason but a few dollars in the cost of manufacturing for an SLR not to have a full coverage finder.

And also this:

>I'm an anal twat sometimes.
>> Anonymous
>>187260
You actually think its just a few dollars? A proper penta-prism really cost fucking lots of money and since there's not one single amateur DSLR without a inbuilt flash, i would think its literrally quite impossible to make a full coverage.
>> Anonymous
>>187269A proper penta-prism really cost fucking lots of money

Hmm, the 40D has a prism, a built-in flash but it's still 95%.
>> Anonymous
>>187269
The 100% coverage D300 is no more expensive than the 9x% D200 was and has a built-in flash.
>> Anonymous
>>187275
Yea, it's 95% because there's no space for a bigger one, because of the flash. You missed my point.

>>187282
"Nikon D300's viewfinder delivers nearly 100 percent frame coverage, something we specifically wished for in our D200 review. It's here, and it's glorious. Magnification is still a very good 0.94x."

_Nearly_ (from imaging-resource.com)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
If I can use a rangefinder, I can use a 95% WYSIWYG SLR viewfinder and still feel lucky.
>> Anonymous
>>187291

It's 100%. Phil of DPR knows his shit.
>> Anonymous
>>187291
Nikon specifies it as 100%.

>>187292
Shooting with an RF is different, though. If it's an SLR, there's no reason not to take it to the full extent of the SLR mechanism's capabilities.

Also, I would cum buckets if someone ever actually gets around to that "100% accurate electronically projected framelines" idea that people talk about on online forums.

(Key words: "people talk about on online forums.")
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
D300 is approx 100%.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern750Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 19:05:01Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1072Image Height712RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>187304
Exactly, nikon does. Im somewhat bitter as a canonian, but since i got my 1.3x seculine magnifier, i actually have a larger viewfinder than any current fullframe DSLR on the market without any loss of light and still a bigger eyepoint compared to the d300's 18,5mm.
>> Anonymous
>>187308
Yes, i ment 19.5
>> Anonymous
>>187307
They put the "approx." on everything. Check the D3 manual; it's there, too.
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
     File :-(, x)
And now his are up. This one is a bit like my shot;

>>186885

So I guess that's the best for comparison. He fucking loves his in-camera black and white (I saw some of the shots show up on his camera when he took them) and tilt.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 23:53:04RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length57.00 mm
>> Anonymous
>>187529
Sorry, this is better. Man deserves his 5D and L glass.
>> Anonymous
>>187128
I fukken lol'd.