King C Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Wowsers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoozie Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Probably shouldn't post this publicly with my real name, but what the hell it's only a month before it's revealed anyway... (Shortlisted for Professional Photographer of The Year 2012) Quoting this because more people should see it, amazing photo! Went to Pyestock for the second time over the weekend, already planning a return trip. It's getting demo'd soon so I really want to see the parts that I've missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) Shot's ill Mike! My d200 has just broken (a snapped CF card pin that I'd previously bent back into place so I was always expecting it to go eventually) and I need an upgrade but I haven't paid attention to new kit for so long I'm a bit lost to be honest. Which Nikon's should I be looking at? I was originally looking at the d300 which I can get second hand for £550-600, but I've just clocked it only does 720p video and not 1080. Are there any Nikons in a similair price range with 1080p video that aren't plasticy entry level models? Good high ISO performance is also a big priority. Edited February 26, 2013 by Max Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Deere Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 You can pick up second hand D7000 bodies for around £550. They're partly magnesium framed (top and back plate, so where it counts) and shoot 1080p from what I remember, much better colour and tone rendition and noise handling than the D300 from what I've experienced too. Thanks for the positive responses on the picturegraph too people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) You can pick up second hand D7000 bodies for around £550. They're partly magnesium framed (top and back plate, so where it counts) and shoot 1080p from what I remember, much better colour and tone rendition and noise handling than the D300 from what I've experienced too. Thanks for the positive responses on the picturegraph too people! Cheers! Gonna have to find somewhere I can try them both I think. It's really a toss up between 1080p video and build quality/ergonomics. I love how bulky and solid my d200 and the feel of a more pro body. Wiith my shooting style it's forever getting knocked about. But 1080p could definitely be useful. Edited February 27, 2013 by Max Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Harrison Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Look for the D300s over the D300. Mike's advice is good though - the D7000 is very impressive. I opted for the D300s because I was used to the heavier more 'pro' feel of the D200 chassis, which is more or less what the D300/s one is developed from. With a heavy lens it feels much better - if I put my 17-55mm f/2.8 on a D90 for example, it doesn't feel so balanced. That said, the D300 is a 2007 model and the D300s is 2009 (I think that's right?) so the technology is getting old. I'm sure my Fuji X10 gives better dynamic range than the D300s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradJohnson Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewEH1 Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) Honestly? Ten too many filters there for my liking... Edited March 6, 2013 by AndrewEH1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Yeah not quite what this thread is about dude... looks like an iPhone pic over processed in PS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) Look for the D300s over the D300. Mike's advice is good though - the D7000 is very impressive. I opted for the D300s because I was used to the heavier more 'pro' feel of the D200 chassis, which is more or less what the D300/s one is developed from. With a heavy lens it feels much better - if I put my 17-55mm f/2.8 on a D90 for example, it doesn't feel so balanced. That said, the D300 is a 2007 model and the D300s is 2009 (I think that's right?) so the technology is getting old. I'm sure my Fuji X10 gives better dynamic range than the D300s. Cheers! (And to Mike again). Just went in to a shop and had a play, although I much prefer the shape and ergonomics of the d300s (as I've come from a d200 like you), I think I'm gonna have to go with the d7000 for general quality and better video. Although it feels a bit small it doesn't feel flimsy in any way so I'm sure I can get used to it. Edited March 6, 2013 by Max Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Harrison Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 I saw a video the other day which I thought must've been done on a 5D, but when I asked the producer he said no, D7000. Very impressed with the quality of the footage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Spent a few days on this, made my self an entirely fictional human using key aspects of 5 different subjects face's i hope by coincidence i bump in to someone who looks the same, that would be WEEEEEIRD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 It'd be cool to see the reference pictures too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 gimme a min Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) Found them* Edited March 12, 2013 by Davetrials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Haha, that's cool, man. What course are you on, that involves photoshop like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Photography, For my final major i'm testing the theory that beauty can be mathematical and wanted to incorporate my skills on photoshop so i set about to create a human face in my own image, measure them and see what the results were. Turns out i made a slightly more mathematically beautiful human male than the real males i have measured.. if that makes sense lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 found the original pics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) That's on point Dave, other than the (obviously intentional) wonky ears I wouldn't have guessed there's any trickery in there at all and would have skimmed straight past the photo. But the more you look at it the more wierd it seems and you can't work out why. Edited March 13, 2013 by Max Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Deere Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 After three years without one, I have a new website woop http://mikedeere.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arw_86 Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Im sure you have seen this before, but I'm interested to know if you think this has gone through post production? I just cannot imagine having that much colour whilst being able to see the milkyway so vividly. I know shutter speed will play a big part in the night shots, So using something like a gopro at night would be useless? Have to be a DSLR with adjustable shutter speeds? Im new to all this so sorry if any questions seem dumb. Also, with the movement (panning) in the shot does that mean his camera is set up on a timed track or could he have done that in post production? As in, zoomed in on the whole shot then panned it across the original shot? Does that make any sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Deere Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 There's almost certainly some colour grading there, which is normal as footage straight out of camera will generally be pretty flat to encompass as broad a range of tones as possible. Saying that, photos I've taken of the Milky Way have been as colourful... And the vivid orange glow from light pollution is normally pretty intense. And yep, using a GoPro at night would be useless. You'd need something with a large sensor to collect as much light as possible and full control over ISO/aperture/shutter. I normally find ISO6400 f/2 and 15secs is a good starting point for the milky way. The panning is done during shooting. The dynamic movement between layers in the scene is only achievable by physically moving the vantage point of the camera, doing it in post afterwards would result in just a flat black layer in the foreground sliding across the frame with no separation or depth perception. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arw_86 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Thanks for the reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arw_86 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 http://www.groupon.co.uk/deals/national-deal/ASK-Direct/19031224?nlp=&CID=UK_CRM_1_0_0_74&a=1664 Hopefully it works for you. If not, then its a Canon EOS 550D (as used by Mark W in some/all his videos I believe) with Canon EF-S 18-55mm and Canon EF 75-300mm lenses for £496. Haven't done much research but seems a fairly decent deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Added a music page to the website.. www.maxjquinn.com/music.html Edited March 18, 2013 by Max Quinn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.