Nice of you to create the new thread. Please remove my name from the D40X owner's list... cuz....

1) I don't have it with me any more... it's been returned to its original owner
2) The D40X was never mine to begin with

So theoretically the D90 is my first DSLR

Ask the mods... if they agree, just incorporate the information into this thread and close that thread. Too many new threads. If there's a new thread for each and every camera that's released pretty soon all the threads are gonna so watered down.

Quoted for plain and simple common sense truth.

Don't make a fool of yourself la....

zellleonhart's original question was :

"I wanna ask something. If shooting macro in somewhere indoor and insufficient lighting, the Di622 cannot illuminate the subject completely! The flash is too far away frm the lens, so only the upper part of the object is illuminated. I use bounce card lagi teruk. If i use wireless, I need someone to hold the flash for me T_T"

The reason is simply because your own lens is blocking the light. Which is why if you really wanna go *that* close, get the R1C1 or equivalent



Notice the flash is right up front and unobstructed.

This is for those really serious macro shooters though as it does cost some $$$

You use too many absolutes in this sentence, which was what earned you unnecessary attention. Photography is all about controlling the lighting. And there's many many ways to do so... some of which have been highlighted in the replies by Xand and Nick.

If you knew this all so well, you wouldn't have made such an absolute statement as I mentioned above.... which in turn misleads those who do NOT know.

Stop nitpicking. The general idea is still there whether you can control up to 1/128 or 1/32 - it's still less than full power which still gives the possibility of not overexposing the subject.

Again stop being such a child. It's an OPTION. If you notice zellleonhart's original question, he's shooting macro... which means that asides from the lens having to be near the subject, the flash doesn't have to be in-your-face distance does it?

Did you know that adjusting shutter speed and aperture even during flash firing operations can reduce the exposure of the shot? If you do know, again, why make your earlier absolute statement?

This post has been edited by darthbaboon: May 14 2009, 03:28 PM

Marah??? Nah... just comical to see you make a fool of yourself. Need to put you back in the small little box where you belong before you mislead the mob.

And no... I don't own a flash, I hardly use my built-in flash and I don't claim to know all about lighting. Even then I can see that your replies are full of anything but substance.

This post has been edited by darthbaboon: May 14 2009, 06:12 PM

Naw... no problems caused. It's perfectly alright to ask questions. You just have to learn to distinguish between pure bullsh|t replies by wannabes and those with substance.

All those three lenses can be used to shoot sports and outdoors.

And it depends on what other lenses you already have. If you have the 17-50, 18-70, 18-105, it doesn't make sense to get the 18-270, 18-200 jack of all trades, master of none lenses because the range overlaps.

In my example, since I already have the 24-70, I'd supplement my lens with an ultra wide (14-24, 10-24, 11-16) and a telephoto (70-200, 70-300, 80-400, 150-500)

Here's my comment/critique...

There's too much hill slope from the left. It eats into the focal subject in the photo which I believe is the pagoda. The cloud formation is nice, but might wanna apply the rule of third when framing the pagoda. As it is, the pagoda is too much to the left... move it to the center a little (might have to sacrifice some of the nicer cloud formations on the right). You got too little of the buildings at the bottom to allow them to compliment the photo. In fact, that long stick-thing coming out in the middle annoys me as it seems out of place. Overall, with a little work on framing and composition, this can be improved further. The catch is, you might be standing on a cliff or edge while shooting this so can't move any much further to the right... so...

Alternatively, I'll do a vertical crop of just the pagoda and the temple below it, ending right before the annoying stick.

The pagoda's still too much to the left. Again rule of thirds need to come in play. Here's what I had in mind. There's still too much of the hill, but at least focal attention is on the pagoda now.

Hey hey... finally someone merged the threads. Interesting...

Go nearer to your subject, wide open aperture. Make sure your camera is focusing on the near subject. The further the background relative to your subject, the more apparent the bokeh.

Long time to visit this place... here's one post for old times sake... and also to celebrate the 1 year anniversary of my 50mm f1.8 lens which I am selling off soon.

I title this one "N.B.E. 1"

Yeap... Bangunan Perbadanan Putrajaya. The one with the big ass arch.

Errr no... 24-70mm f2.8 covers all ranges between 24 and 70... why would I wanna buy back something that falls within that range.

Selling to buy.... errr... nothing at the moment. I don't see myself needing anything any time soon... unless it's the 200mm f2, or a 500mm, or a 60mm Macro, or a SB-800/900 flash.... or a UWA.