What type of photo's would you take with a Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm F1.8D standard lens ?
Firstly I must tell that you have an amazing and most versatile lens with you. 50 mm are also called normal prime lens, because the magnification you see in the viewfinder is same as human eye in real world. I guess you have an APS-C (DX) size type dslr.If yes then it makes a fantastic portrait lens with effective wavelength of 75mm with is near perfect for portrait. Also it goes all the way to f1.8 which will give you a fantastic buttery smooth Blur background on tight headshot you always wanted to take. Due to its very large aperture it will allow you to take great pics even in low light situations. If you have full frame camera then it's an all purpose lens for walk around , street photography , mild portraits , low light photography list is endless... I this is the cheapest lens with excellent optics but 50mm 1.8D will not autofocus on entry level NikonDSLR e.g D3xxx,D5xxx series body for those bodies go for AF-S 50mm 1.8 little expensive but totally worth. Otherwise another prime you can choose is AF-S 35mm,1.8 DX also has excellent optics.50mm is the most versatile focal length in camera history for 35mm format camera. If you ask a pro if they are allowed only one lens for everything then 9 out of 10 will choose 50mm. Some of my images from my Nikon 50mm,1.8 and Minolta 50mm,1.7..@Enjoy
What do you think about these photos? Do you find them good\interesting enough for the first exposition of an amateur photographer?
Now that the photos are posted. I can comment on them. I definitely think these photos show a lot of promise as unlike many photographers I already can feel a bit of your artistic voice. That is how you see the world and what you personally find interesting. Too many people just just kind of randomly take a lot of photos with no focus or theme.I also really like your minimal style of composition. Again, I feel that many photographers try too hard to "cram" everything into the frame and end up with a busy, cluttered mess of an image.I like your repetition of form, it is a favorite theme of mine as well. Some of my favorite photographers in this area are Chris Honeysett (The Essence of Form), Mark Citret (Mark Citret | Photographs ) and Carlton Watkins (Watkins Exhibit at the Cantor Arts Center )I do think you might need to work on polishing/honing your composition as little more to emphasize and accentuate the concepts in each of these images. In particular I think your diagonals hit the corners a little too flush and split the image too statically (I'm not sure I'm making sense). Let me post some alternative crops to show you what I meant. I made this in about 30 seconds of editing for each so they aren't the best, but I think they give an idea of what I'm talking about.In the first photo, you split the image too evenly between the subject of interest on top and the sand below. Now negative space can throw more attention on a subject more... but in this case I think a tighter framing of the doorways works betterIn the second photo again I don't like that the diagonal hits the corner exactly. It really makes the image feel very rigid and static. Sometime less perfect or slightly askew adds a little more tension or "anticipation" to the composition. For instance I personally prefer the below cropping better (don't be afraid to cut things out of the image).Same thing with the last image.
What images best display the extraordinary beauty/wonders of nature?
I agree with most of the answers here and would like to add few more. Meteor showers (also, it is a great pleasure to be able to see a clear sky from a place which is pollution free and really dark)RaindropsFor me, raindrops means a multitude of good things such as petrichor, coolness and relief (specially after a dry summer), freshness (everything looks washed and clean after a rain) and vibrant rainbows. And one of the best display is when these sparkly little diamond like droplets settle on leaves, grasses, flowers or spider webs, giving a sublime feeling.BioluminiscenceBioluminiscent marine life seems something ethereal, non-earthly. The beauty is just majestic.Guttation (exudation of drops of xylem sap on the tips or edges of leaves of some vascular plants, such as grasses)Frost flowers (a condition in which thin layers of ice are extruded from long-stemmed plants in autumn or early winter)Peacocks and butterfliesPeacocks are one of the most beautiful birds of paradise. The best stance of a peacock is when he is in a mood to mate. He raises his long colorful tail feathers into the air and shakes them.Butterflies are very vibrant species. Their colorful wings are a treat to the eyes.There are many more such examples , some of them being snowfall, salt marshes, canyons, etc. Clearly, nothing can match nature when it comes to beauty and wonder.
For blurring the background, what lens do you prefer?
Blurring your background is going to depend more on the distance to your subject and their distance to the background. I’m going to assume you are after what the Japanese call “bokeh” if you want to do it in-camera.The most practical and affordable way to isolate a subject from its background and “blur” it you’ll want to shoot at least with a 50mm (full frame equivalent) lens that’s has a maximum aperture of at least f/1.4, f/1.8 or even f/2.A decent 50mm f/1.8 lens is very affordable. Just make sure you are buying the 50mm equivalent for your camera. On a micro 4/3rd camera that would be a 25mm lens; 35mm lens for an APS-C crop like the Fuji X and Sony a6xxx series and of course 50mm lens for full-frame cameras like Canon 5D, Nikon D7/8xx series, Sony Alpha a7 series etc.If you’re doing portraiture and want to isolate your subject but want to capture more of them like a head and shoulders shot, a longer focal length like 75/85/90mm will be better. Keep in mind though that at these longer focal lengths, large apertures like f/2 and f/1.4 will only give a very thin plane of focus. Even a 90mm f/2.8 lens will have a very narrow part of the image in focus so make sure you shoot with the correct aperture for the intended effect.Here’s a 50mm lens on a full frame camera where the background just melts away:Here’s another shot at night with street lamps, store signage and car lights in the background:Shooting an 85mm lens at f/1.4 or f/1.2 may have beautiful “bokeh” but if only the tips of your subject’s eyelashes are in focus then you’re not doing it right.One final note: you can still “blur” the background with wider lenses but it definitely becomes more challenging once you start going wider than a 50mm field of view. Remember that wider focal lengths = more depth of field. That means a 28mm lens will make it almost impossible for you to separate a subject and still have that “blur” you’re looking for. There are exceptions though and if money is no object, try searching Google for 24mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/1.4 lenses.TL;DR: get a 50mm (equivalent) lens for your camera of choice. Pay attention to your distance from the subject and their distance relative to the background as these will have a large effect on your final image.
Is the new Leica Monochrom worth the Investment?
I’ve been shooting grownup cameras for 30 years, and the M typ 246 is harder than any film camera I have ever owned. It is also more difficult to use than any other digital camera. The tough parts are metering (the mono sensor is unforgiving of overexposure because it lacks color channels that can reconstruct a blown one) and tone relationships (because when unfiltered, the camera is essentially like shooting with a yellow-green filter all the time). The resolution is high enough that you can easily spot the focus shifts that contrast filters cause. It takes practice.That said, there is nothing like it. Color sensors are slower by virtue of the RGB filter (losing a stop of sensitivity right off the bat), and this camera can comfortably shoot at ISO 25,000 with less grain than 35mm Tri-X generates at 400. As to the mode of operation, DSLRs are far clunkier, and things like the Sigma DP series require you to shoot like a soccer mom. And at the end of the day, using colored glass contrast filters is far more effective than trying to use channel mixer sliders to make b/w. Finally, the M series gives you access to more lenses than pretty much anything.If by “investment,” you mean practice, yes, the investment is worth it. It’s just a spectacular camera. In money terms, whether this merits a $7k downstroke really depends on you. If you can’t commit to learning the camera, it’s a waste of money. But look around the net, and you’ll see that people who have actually used it overwhelmingly enjoy it.Calling it a toy for rich people is a little off. The depreciation on a Leica is no different from the cost of having a Starbucks coffee every day. If you want one, you will find a way to afford it.