PossumCorner

So did you get the 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 - I've got the Nikon 85mm 1.8, and love it as a sharp portrait lens, though everyone says the 1.4 is much more useful "in the dark" (KCC Park). The price difference is more than substantial. And yes it's made me do a lot of two step back half a step forward too.

For handouts, A5 is better, and reasonably light-weight, so people can fold/put in pocket or wallet if they aren't hand-bag carriers.

Thanks GK, haven't seen this piece for ages, it is a gem.

Not sure this is right Andrew - my understanding is that neither the D40 nor D60 will auto-focus with AF lenses. (But you can use them on either and only use manual focus). Neither the D40, D40x nor D60 have a focus motor: they use the motor in the lens to auto-focus - that is why they are low price for a Nikon. So for auto-focus with both of them, you need an AF-S lens (not just an AF). It is a slight drawback although there are plenty of lenses in both Nikon and Sigma ranges with the AF-S feature - the focus motor is in the lens. And for "why get a DSLR" if you do not intend to change lenses: there is a very good reason. All point-and-shoot cameras have severe shutter-lag. DSLR cameras do not. So for precise action shots, a DSLR is a necessity: you can get used to a point/shoot, predict the lag through practice and compensate, but they are no-where as accurate.

Leopuppy, I never get to Croydon these days, will be there one Sunday in the next few weeks to see about some classes for young Rheneas. So will catch up to see what you have bought by then 'hands on' and how it is going.

Yes that's the other variable, I mostly shoot Raw which puts less shots on a memory card, and not sure how it affects battery-life. The only time I use jpeg is if doing rapid-fire, but mostly I take single-shot at an obstacle. (We've put well over 2000 jpegs out from one battery shooting Flyball jpeg fine on rapid-fire, but with a D50, so again the comparisons get a bit "meaningless"). I still envy you the D3 but: ("jealous as hell' probably describes it better). I still have the older D50 and D70. And our latest are the D80 and D90, but yep, I would love the extra magic that the D3 offers.

... can your Nikons get nearly 1200 photos out of one standard battery charge? ... Well that's something I couldn't contemplate attempting. When I shoot an event I carry a back-up body and two spare batteries like I thought everybody did. I generally change the battery half to three-quarter through the day: better to have too much charge left than lose one critical shot by being miserly, why would you do that? But look, on this Canon/Nikon thing, it doesn't really matter a toss, and used well the Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Minolta are fine too, no matter how they are badged or re-badged. Edit for typo.

Gee that's a bit harsh - even sheep are not delusional, they are just, errrr, sheep. But yes, sympathise they will never experience Nikon blue, oh well, the power of Photoshop compensates for some things.

I would love an "old D2H" what a workhorse of a camera. Please if they ever decide to sell them off, let me know.

I love the Kikki shops - I've bought the calendar and a set of the pens, but haven't played with it yet. The half-tail and cut-off legs in this shot are "okay" but they would bother me sometimes. I think it would look good and have more impact as square format, cropped to just above the ears and just below the medal. We need to get new prints made for our walls: we took down the lot when we just re-painted some rooms at Christmas. Our camera club has an exhibition coming up soon, so I'll probably wait til it's over and use those prints to start with. It's restricted to natural Australiana (no dogs or horses, bother), but that still gives plenty of scope.

The course is probably good value - but I'd suggest also look for your nearest camera clubs (photographic societies) they are only around $50 to join. And they usually run free basic classes for beginner groups for both camera work and photoshop work. Beginners are welcomed, you don't need to be an experienced photographer to join.

Careful P'seff, the Purist Pixies will getcha!! I used to sort of love Picasa but the copy I had just a few years ago was a "greedy" piece of software, it used to gobble the images from wherever I wanted to keep any separate, had a bossy take-over attitude so I didn't keep it on. I believe that aspect has been sorted out now.

I'm lucky to have kookaburras nesting in one of our "nature-strip" (Council joke) trees. They deserve some brilliant pin-sharp shots but it's not that easy. The tree is 25 metres uphill from the only line-of-sight camera spot, and the nest is about 20 metres up the tree. The birds are the same colour as the tree-trunk. It's too far for my better lenses to reach. And the Sigma 135-400 is too soft at the long end. So I'm having a whinge. A stronger tripod helps, and I can use 2000th easy when light is okay, so motion blur isn't a problem, it's just this lens fuzz-blur. Would be nice to rent a 4 or 500 prime for a day or two. Applying brakes - finger-tip control.

Someone in our camera club (Knox, Eastern suberbs Melbourne) has upgraded big time and has a Nikon D40x for sale at $600 including two lenses and filters, sounds like it is in good condition, don't think it's had a lot of use. If anyone's rooly intrsted let's know and I'll pass her phone number on.

A honeyeater (New Holland) at the Karwarra Native Plant Gardens last weekend.

Lord how I envy the people here who know the style they have or aspire to have. Must be because I'm the oldest here, I'm one of the sixties hippies and haven't found myself yet. I think the PJ attitude fits me best, but that's generalising. I won't call a candid shot of a person through a telephoto lens a portrait: that is photojournalism. Portrait to me is planned and something I'd like to do more of both people and animals: and my two favourite lenses here are the 85mm 1.8, and the 150mm 2.8 both primes. And I think 50-55 are lovely portrait lenses but I don't have a prime and don't like using zooms for portrait. Action is high on my list, and at present I'm back doing some harness horse events and loving it. For which I would love the $2,500 odd for a 70-200 2.8 stabilised. But manage with less fantastic zoom lenses and use a monopod or tripod for stability and (try to) work within the limitations of 'ordinary' lenses. Landscape I love, and would like maybe the Sigma 10-20 for some wide work. But again even the much-maligned kit lenses in the 18-70 range can make lovely landscapes assisted by a tripod and patience. I'm still in the flower and insect fan-club. I think my partial background in horticulture influences this, and again have more of a PJ approach. So the 150 Macro lens is handy here as well as for portraits (and for pin-sharp bird shots when they are close enough). Machinery is great: think I was infuenced here years ago by the artist David Shepherd, most famous for his African wild-life paintings, but also does wonderful steam engine and farm machinery painting. And living alongside working steam engines, I can play with close-ups of steam and crankshafts and pulleys, all the small peripheral steam railway stuff. Hint, use your cheapest and least loved lens and gladwrap the camera for this: the soot in the air plays hell with them. The recent severe limitations on photography (thanks Henson, may you...no no I don't mean that, - actually yes I do) are making life a bit of a hell for people doing the candids at events. Even to be seen with a camera within fifty meters of children has someone casting suspicious looks. So photography at a horse or dog show even as an official photographer is now a minefield of asking permission. Everybody loses: the photographers who just don't take the shot because it's all too fraught with difficulties, and the parents of kids who have just won their first ribbon with the pony and don't get a good record of it. Style though: I don't know. I think I try to be flexible or a chameleon, and change my style depending on what I'm shooting. And most of it doesn't reach a website or get printed and I don't do photography competitions. So I have a mass of images backed up and will decide what to do with them one day when I find myself.

It is a nice shot of a kid with his head down - whether the photographer posed him like that, or he was being sulky-boots and wouldn't look at the camera. So rather than showing the personality it sort of masks it. In a portrait, I really prefer to see the eyes if it is to portray "the real person" - windows to the soul and all that. I'm not a real fan of the current top-of-head-removed photographic portraits, it's almost like a fad, must follow the in-crowd. I like the top of head included plus a bit of breathing space above it. But if cut, yes go for the closer crop as GayleK did, so it look full on intentional rather than an oops look. Same with dogs, either full head, or close crop, but not just an undecided flattening of the skull. I guess I can understand the Mum's reaction - mums are like that. Lots of mums get very teary when they first see the studio shots of their children, and that in itself is an emotional moment worth capturing, defences down and the true feelings. What I find interesting is that many mothers snob studio portraits, have a newish DSLR, and say "I'd much rather have my photos of them at home, they are so much more natural, they don't look posed". Yet these happy snaps with the garden hose and the dead pot-plant in the background - well they don't generally have the same effect on the mums (or even on dog owners in general). Yet a studio style portrait generally has a really emotive effect, even if the "studio" is just a chair near a window with natural light. Is it more the intent of taking a shot that will reflect the personality in that moment: or in having taken enough time and finding the right pose, right light, right background? Don't know. But any portrait is taken in a sense as a commissioned work: whether requested by the "sitter", or the mum, or the dog owner. So the reaction of that person is the important thing, and in the case of this shot it had a profound effect on your Mum and that makes it a fantastic portrait. It is hers, she loves it, and her response is the only critique that really counts. Out of interest, I'd like for you to make two fresh prints, your original unaltered as she has seen it: the other with all the tweaks talked about here including the crop, etc. etc. Hand her the two prints, do not repeat not say "this is the original, this is the revised version" just hand her the two prints and ask for her reaction to both. On a second and third look, I'm now back towards the original. It allows more of a dreamy quality, and is less of a forceful close-up intrusive style.

I've been doing it the lazy one-step way. I buy a large maybe 2kg beef liver chunk from the butcher, generally one or two dollars (Maxi supermarkets sell it like this also). Bake in oven, just like baking a roast. When cooked, slice and dice. As a treat it is high value, and a handful as part of the meal with dried food or vegies goes across pretty well too.

Two good brands are Manfrotto and Velbon. You need a head on the monopod or tripod: the heads come with a little screw-on plate that attaches to the camera (or to the lens if it is a heavy/longer lens which gives better balance). Then that plate can clip quickly on or off the tripod head. You can buy the tripod or monopod and the head separately: the best heads are the three-way ball, and they cost around $200. But the two-way lever heads are good too, they do everything the same, tilting or swinging to portrait mode, it's just more fiddly with the two controls than a three-way. There is a nice lightweight Manfrotto tripod which comes with a fused-on ball head, all-in-one. I think Ripley took this one to Scotland recently. They are cheap for a Manfrotto, about $100-150 depends where you buy it. But the head is light, not really intended for a DSLR with a heavy lens attached. I love mine, use it with the D80 as a monopod (since my monopod was stolen at Melbourne Royal when I put it down for a minute to change lenses). The heads are inter-changeable. The one that comes with the Velbon Sherpa tripod goes well on the Manfrotto monopod (or did til they were stolen, I'm not bitter about the loss, may they rot in hell). I don't do much without a tripod, they feel clumsy and a pest to start with, but are worth persevering til it's second nature. Don't buy a cheap cheap one, they have them on special in variety stores for under $50, and are too weak and flimsy to risk a good camera on.

Yes they said it would be visible in the Northern as well, except the other way up (like we see Orion upside down) and someone said well will that be a scowley face, but they said no, still a smiley but upside down.

Good for your mother, good link, we'd heard a bit about it earlier and were going to drive up to the Ridge so we could watch it and take some shots. But so much cloud around didn't go. Cloud has cleared now a bit but too many trees around here for a clean shot. Just tossing up whether it is worth getting in the car now to drive for ten minutes or not. Pity about your battery though, this is a bit special isn't it!

First with the small hands - so do I, probably the smallest on DoL. If you like a larger camera I wouldn't let small hands be the reason not to go with it. If you like the smaller camera tha's fine too, but don't limit yourself. Most people don't agree with me but I think this big hands/small hands thing is a bit over-emphasised, and shouldn't be a deciding factor above the features you want in the camera or its suitability for the job you want it to do. With the Nikon DSLR range - if you check out the entry level D60 (previously D40 and D40x) they are a great smaller size camera, but they are limited to AF-S lenses. There are enough lenses in that range to cover any normal use. I have the D40 and love it - but you just need to be aware the range of lenses for them is limited. It gets more complicated: they need the AF-S lens to auto-focus. But if you are happy to manual-focus, they'll take any lens.

My dogs like liver, but bought liver-treats are too dry. So I buy a slab of liver from the butcher (huge chunk about 2.5kg, for $2.) Then slow-roast it in the oven, like any roast. Easy to cut into tiny squares, dry enough to handle without being messy, moist enough to be a taste sensation. And handy to mix a cup-full with their feed now and then for a change. I was thinking of being creative and see what happens to it with a few hours in the slow cooker, maybe next week.

Glad then it's not just me being super sensitive. I went into the cluster recently and found them pretty unpleasant. Supercilious lot all of them. We were fairly loyal to Teds up until a year or two ago when they reduced variety of stock and got rid of the qualified and clued-in staff. (Ringwood are still fairly okay). Today clinched it, I went into Knox Ted's late arvo needing two mem.cards, both a CF and an SD. Couldn't find them. Asked. "Oh we keep them in a glass case well behind the counter: do you know what you want". "I'd like to look a them for a minute and compare brands and capacity and prices" Snot-child: "Oh that's not necessary, just tell me what you want" "I want to have a look at them" Snot-child again: "Do you actually know which kind you wish to know the price of?" Me: Yes, the ones over at JB HiFi. Stormed out, went over to JB HiFi, and got me two 4gig cards at a great discount off the marked price. I'd have ordered on line if I had a couple of days in hand, but we didn't want to be caught short of cards tomorrow. Redangel, I prefer Nikon for myself: but as people are saying, all of the leading-brands have good features. Pentax lenses are lovely, Olympus claim to be the easiest and fastest focussing. Whatever you buy this year will be superseded next year, models are changing so quickly.