R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Manfrotto and Gitzo are the two big names in tripods, but they are bloody pricey. You can easily spend hundreds on either brand, and then you have to buy a head to go along with it. For a pro, it is money well spent- but for a hobbyist it is just way too much to justify.
I've seen a couple of no-name carbon fibre models, and some of them are pretty good. They aren't up to the standard of the bigger names, but they do the job pretty well. Just don't skimp on the head. And stay away from aluminium. It'll either be too flimsy to do you any good, or too heavy to lug around all day.
I have a Manfrotto tripod, but if I had my time over I wouldn't buy it again. Don't get me wrong- it is absolutely brilliant, but I've seen a no-name tripod (I think the brand was "Troppo" or "Trioppo" or some such) that was probably 80-90% as good for a third of the price.
So get Manfrotto or Gitzo if you have deep pockets, or search around for a decent no-name CF tripod if you don't. Don't skimp on the head, though, and try it with your camera, flash, grip, and heaviest lens (or whatever you have) before you put your cash down.
Andy, not Nathan. NOT Nathan. My left hand is reserved for lighting cigarettes.
I didn't even know you could get tripods with a separate head until I read about them last week. Thought they were all the same.
This is a good spot for info on photography Craig: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
"Manfrotto 486rc2 > $70 rated 13.5 lbs
Slik 700dx > $79 rated for 15 lbs
love this combo...all for $150 new
if you can find used then it will be alot cheaper."
The Slik is the tripod and the Manfrotto 486rc2 is the ballhead I think, you can look them up in google.
This isn't the one I was talkiing about though, I'll find it...
This is it on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Benro-A269-A-269...3A1%7C294%3A50
This one mught be better...basically the same but less sections to undo http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Aluminum.html can get it on ebay too.
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 18-06-2009 at 09:02 AM.
Some photos I took when I was up at Q1 (you have a 360 degree view of the whole Gold Coast) earlier in the year:
I was doing an experiment there.
Any feedback is welcome.
Some pictures from around Scotland when I was there a few weeks ago.
Forever 63* at the SCG
Ooooh. I like #2 and #4 there, nightprowler. I'm a sucker for sun on water or sunset shots. #5 would be good if it wasn't for the haze.
Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.
Vimes tells it how it is:
Cheers. #2 is Helensburgh and #4, 5, 6 are from Ayre beach. Was annoyed that the sun disappeared as some of those Ayre beach pictures would have come out so much better. Went there for Electric Brae but was awestruck by the beauty of the place. Some more pics from Ayre beach.
Excellent nightprowler. What sort of settings did you use? Getting the right shutter speed can be a bit tricky in those fading light situations I find.
I really like the focus in the first of that set - you can get the detail on the waves with the sun setting in the distance. Brilliant.
Haha. Well, I like 'em anyway!
I'll post a couple from my camera in a sec of a similar type. They may be too big though. I'll see what I can do.
Alright this is what the details of the picture is telling me:
Canon Powershot S5IS
Exp time: 1/1600 sec
Does that help?
Nice shots mate, you did really well on the move!
Some nice shots from Q1 too Craig! My only tip would be to pay careful attention to the horizon and try to make sure you have it level in your shot. Unless you're trying to be particularly arty of course That and get a tripod for the night shots. I like the last one.
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 26-06-2009 at 02:12 AM.
I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination.
A 1/1600 exposure though is quite a short one, which suggests (as your camera was on auto) that the light conditions were pretty good.
The f number is a bit more complicated to explain, but I think (in my knowledge as a layman) generally equates to sharpness of the picture. You will generally have a better sharpness of image and resolution if you are able to use a lower f number. I think it equates to how much light you are able to get into the camera in a particular exposure and is a factor of lens diameter and focal length of the length.
I think you can get quite low f numbers in short focal length lenses, but the really expensive lenses will have a long focal length (and thus "zoom") but still have a low f number.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)