Portrait photography.

.
.
I have an interesting in taking pictures of people as well as landscapes.  There might be other interests, but for now, those are my focus.  And yet there is a great deal of range in there.  I doubt if you could cover every type of each, even in a long career as a professional.  You might do all types of work, but you just won't perfect each are.  Between natural talent and interest limits, personal preferences, and the simple eye to work in various formats.  Oh, I suppose, there might be a genius out there who really does have it all down.

I really have been interested in black and white.  So, when one of the guru's of youtube suggested to start with black and white, the learning assignment was not a terrible burden.  Long ago I saw the potential for black and white, and dug into what could be done with it.  Both with the camera, using certain lenses, and in post process.  In many ways, I am a strong believer in man.  Not in self-salvation, but in them being the only things worth saving.  The rest, while valuable and precious, is merely here to see men through to their fate, and salvation or otherwise.  Here is a video example of what can be done in post processing.  Now, you could do this to people before hand, if they had make-up skills or you had a make-up artist on set.  But that just doesn't work for most people, even pro photographers always.  So, there is Lightroom and some other programs.

How to find gear?

.
.
I look, listen, and read when I consider gear, or even what gear to consider.  I don't need gear that is designed specifically for macro photography, for example.  Sure, as I explore my camera, if I end up enjoying that sort of thing, then I might consider adding the notion more into the consideration of what gear to buy in the first place, and what features for gear.  So, knowing what you want to do, and for me it is rather simple photography, will lead me to choices of gear and features on that gear.  Cool.

As to narrowing things down, experts can be useful, with limits.  They will spend a fortune on glass, bodies, and gear as much for a tax write-off as for experimenting.  A really successful photographer can spend, and probably should spend, a fortune on gear.  Tax write-offs are dear for high income earners (and their accountant(s)).  The risk they take is minimized by write-offs and high income shoots.  As a non-pro, my risk is that I might get stuck with a less than optimal gear setup.  However, the artistic and casual shooters have their limits as well.  They are less likely to take a risk on a higher priced gear rig, and so really might not know.  It's sort of the difference between haute cuisine and hotdogs.  Neither, really, fits for daily daily.  By needs or artificial inducements, both can work.

So, what I do, is read, watch, listen.  I listen to the pros, I seek amateurs with some experience, I look at the art set.  Then I look at what features each likes, rather than the actual gear they are suggesting is best.  One thing you find is that gear gets better each year, at the high end.  It just does.  How long that takes to filter down to amateur use is another thing.  Of course, at the bottom of the amateur (Chinese junk) rating, you will be very unhappy.  Perhaps worse, if for example you purchase a pod mount which is rated to handle your camera, but doesn't at the cost of some pricey glass.  While that can happen at every level, it is more likely at the lower levels.  As well, suing a big name is more likely to produce returns, if a win can be had, than suing some Chinese company that, when enough lawsuits accrue, will simply sell out to someone else in the family, scrubbing lawsuits in the transaction.

I end up looking for the features, learning brand names, looking for new higher quality brands, and seeking feature sets.  Sometimes it takes a very long time to find just the right kit.  Sometimes reading reviews, especially negative ones, will path the way to better gear.  Quite often I end up choosing gear that has the features, but is being produced by a new company that has to sell for less in order to compete.  Avoid first gen stuff, more so but not completely from new companies.  I would not buy, for example, a Nikon d900 (if that were to pop).  A d910, maybe.  A d950 more like.  I like a gen or two beyond the first.  Though, with some things, with enough positives, some risk is worth it.

Oh, I have decided on the lens.  Too late for Christmass.  And I won't be able to buy it, I would guess, for at least three months.  I will be saving money for it, a third each month.  Or as I may.  Until I have two-thirds rolled, and money for the other things, such as the beef to half a beef this spring and a pig shortly, I won't plan on buying it.  It's a 28-300 mm f/4.5-5.6.  There is better, there is worse.  It is, essentially a literal lensatic swiss army knife.  Definitely not pro.  Some limits on a fx body (made for dx-crop sensor).  Between this and that it is a single, relatively light, reasonably sharp, cross-sensor possible, lens.  I want something for when I really can't work a field with my legs from exhaustion or illness.  I will usually, when I travel, take a number of lenses.  Some will be much sharper than this.  But they will require focusing with my feet, setting up the shot a bit to a lot more functionally, and such.  And I will probably use them.  But only when I can.  Funny thing?  This lens is far and away better than many of the lenses they have used up to even 20 years ago.

Decisions.

.
.
I decided to make photography the object of my Christmas purchase this year.  I really wanted to buy a better long zoom lens.  I have been doing minor research regarding them for a while and was almost sure I had one that would work.  As the time to grit my teeth, pull the plug, and spend the money arrived I simply couldn't do it.  There are 28-300mm, 70-300, 80-300, 70-200, pick one.  Prices range from $4-500 new on up to... how much do you have?  I have below 70 covered, well.  I have one prime, though would like to purchase several more primes.  But the next lens I want is that larger long zoom.

I have been considering, in time, another camera.  Initially I was considering a step down, a toss and go camera.  There are a number problems with that, more than solutions.  So I have decided that a step up will be the way I go, which means the glass (lenses) need to be better, and won't need internal drives.  While pictures will turn out better, crisper, cleaner, the price for the glass that proofs the body also goes up.  And goes up by a lot.  The camera I am considering, unless they come out with a step up (I like) between now and then, is the d750.  And, very possibly, as often as dogs are released, or gimmick cameras, I may stick with the d750 regardless.  The next gen might be offering, say, 50mp.  The cards for those, if they are quite out yet, are running at $500.  And... can you imagine how much cropping you might well need to do?  Printing won't catch up with that well enough to truly use that much... anything.  So, lens focus, not the focus of the lens mind you, has changed a bit.  And that through the decision making process just a bit off.

As is, though, there is another piece of equipment I have been considering.  I have a tripod.  Cheap but effective.  It is good for static shooting.  There is better, and in time perhaps, if I prove out in photography more, I might consider better.  But what I really have been looking for is a monopod that has it all.  Though I didn't have a lot of time to consider, I spent that time well, wisely.  There are more expensive monopods.  I don't think there is much better.  None have all of the features, even more expensive monopods.  Of those which have similar features, usually costing more to much more, those features are weaker.  Not only can this "monopod" act as a sort of tripod, and double as both a short 'tripod' and stick pod, it has all the best features of any kit I've seen, and then some.  Here is a review.