Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

Alternative photos

Discussion in 'Badminton Photography' started by red00ecstrat, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. 16FeathRPassioN

    16FeathRPassioN Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Pakistan
    what are they lookin at,, some tragic scene ,cuz it reflects from their faces.:)
     
  2. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Either..

    - one of the Olympics events...
    or
    - the aftermath of the weekend's typhoon in HK..
    ...on a large screen TV..
    ;)
     
  3. Sealman

    Sealman Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,236
    Likes Received:
    16
    Occupation:
    Racquet Collector
    Location:
    Singapore
    Spiderman to the rescue? :D
     
  4. red00ecstrat

    red00ecstrat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    (Full Time) Coolie. (Part Time) Photojournalist.
    Location:
    Hong Kong S.A.R. China
    hehe....chris is correct!
    they were watching olympic basketball gold medal match between usa and spain.
     
  5. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,267
    Likes Received:
    539
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    haven't really have much time to take photos in the past few weeks. i did manage to pick up the camera and took a few over the weekend. this one turned out quite nice.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    ^^Are we..^^

    ..suppose to guess what type of plant is this??..:confused:
     
  7. Mini Me

    Mini Me New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poole
    here's my first attempt at shooting bugs. this little fly was only about 0.5cm long.
     

    Attached Files:

    • fly.jpg
      fly.jpg
      File size:
      88.3 KB
      Views:
      562
  8. Armor_tec_14

    Armor_tec_14 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    School..Dont have one :P
    Location:
    Glasgow

    Wow..!!! Well Done:eek:
     
  9. Marky

    Marky Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
    The power of D700 ? and please, I beg you tell me what lens is it taking this wonderful pic.
     
  10. Mini Me

    Mini Me New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poole
    i wouldn't say that a d700 would be necessary for this pic since i was only shooting at iso640. more important is the lens, which is a sigma 150mm/2.8 macro. too bad this fly was so small so i couldn't get a bigger picture, but all the big flies that were hanging around outside my house suddenly disappeared when i brought my camera out.
     
  11. Marky

    Marky Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
    thank you MiniMe. From the first day I start photo, I never believe sigma or tamron (and other aftermarket lenses) can do better than the original one (i.e nikon or cannon etc)... it seems i need to revise my thought.
     
  12. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    This lens is a macro lens which means the lens is optimized for taking near and small objects where flatness of field is critical. Although it can be used for infinity focussing, non-macro lenses, optimized at infinity, are better than macro lens. Longer focal length macro lenses are used when you cannot get near to the subject. For even greater magnification the use of bellows or rings, which will require manual operation, should be used but the depth of field is wafer-thin.
    Sigma and Tamron are after market lens manufacturers. They are not comparable to the Canons or Nikons but are good value for money.
     
  13. Mini Me

    Mini Me New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poole
    canon/nikon are the best, sigma/tamron/tokina suck, blahblahblah. this nonsense is common amongst lens snobs. if you only looked at canon's 18-55mm lenses or nikon's old 70-300mm (non-vr) and compared them to sigma's 120-300mm/2.8 or tamron's 90mm macro then you'd find that canon/nikon are good value but not comparable to sigma/tamron. sigma/tamron/tokina are all capable of making lenses just as high quality as canon/nikon, but they're targetting different niches. e.g. tamron makes plasticky lenses that are small and light, tokina makes metal lenses that you could use for self defence, sigma is making lenses with zoom ranges that canon/nikon aren't making.

    this generalised "sigma/tamron/tokina bad, canon/nikon good" is just the same as the "made in country X is worse than made in country Y" crap. any country X (sigma/tamron/tokina) can produce just as high quality as country Y (canon/nikon), as long as the buyer asks for high quality and is willing to pay the associated higher costs.
     
  14. Mini Me

    Mini Me New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poole
    "better" in what way? e.g. if you need to shoot at 500mm, a pro sports photographer who doesn't have to pay for his equipment would say a 500mm/4 is better than a cheap 500mm/8 mirror lens. if you're a (financially) poor amateur then getting the cheap mirror lens is better because you can't afford the 500/4 and you can't take any photos without a lens.
     
  15. Marky

    Marky Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
    haha, my little feedback attracts that many informative replies. well, in my old photo fever days, i remember tamron should have heavy glass lenses; and i did own some tamron and sigma but disposed them quickly because of their image quality. ... after that i bought only original (nikon) lenses. And this photo section of BC inspires me to picking up some of the fever again.
     
  16. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I have a Tokina 32-135 3.5/4.5 and also did possess a Nikon 35/135 3.5/4.5. Both lenses are capable of taking good pictures, my impression is that the Nikon lens provides a sharper picture. Personally I prefer the pictures taken with the Nikon lens.

    My relative bought a Nikon 300D - he has the Nikon 80-200 2.8 VR lens and also the Sigma 20mm 1.8. He took indoor photos using both lenses - he said the same settings were used but interestingly enough the pictures taken using the Nikon lens were brighter and a bit sharper. I have seen the pictures and I have to agree with him.
     
  17. Marky

    Marky Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
    Viver, very nice reporting.
     
  18. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    I had bought Sigma Apo, Tamron, and Tokina lenses but ended up selling them or giving them away. The expensive Sigma Apo had its coatings turning cloudy and fogging all the glass elements and became unusable, which I had to throw away. The most expensive part of a lens is in the precision focussing mount, not so much the glasses. That is why brand name lenses are heavy and more a pain to carry around. They also can stand the test of time, weather, moisture, dust, etc.
     
  19. ae86trueno

    ae86trueno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jakarta & Auckland
    Hi Taneepak, Sorry I don't quite understand regarding the focussing mount is the most expensive. But to my knowledge, I would say the glass & built quality are the most expensive part of lenses. Also the faster lenses (bigger aperture) thus bigger glasses will make the price increase astronomical... the Sigma you have, I think its not the coating turn cloudy.. normally thats because it grow fungus on the glass thus make it look cloudy
     
  20. red00ecstrat

    red00ecstrat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    (Full Time) Coolie. (Part Time) Photojournalist.
    Location:
    Hong Kong S.A.R. China
    Really? Have they ever made any lens for Leica and Rollie cameras?:eek:

    Anyway, I have to agree with taneepak this time. In terms of manufacturing or optical quality. No doubt, those originals are indeed better than those made by third party companies. Also, German made lenses are better than Japanese made lenses. I know, coz I'd made compairison between them in the past when I was young and green.
    But I always think equipment isn't the key of getting "quality" pictures. In fact, it's all up to the one who use it!
    So, just keep shooting!
     

Share This Page