Photography

[ew2x4]

Anyone here into photography? I've always been interested. I'm thinking about picking up a cheap DSLR. Amazon has a good deal on a Rebel XS. Basically a free telephoto lens with it. What do you guys have? Any recommendations?

[pissclams]

you should talk to cyclist - he's into it.

i want a camera but just haven't dropped the coin yet, i will before this winter holiday season though.

[HeinBallz]

I've got a Canon 20D; but now I have kids and can't upgrade  (hear that SD?  kids are expensive) .   We shoot Nikon at work - and I think both brands have the selling points.   I'm sticking with canon 'cause I've dropped about a grand on Canon lenses and I don't want to switch. I've never shot with a rebel; but I know they basically have the same sensor, so with prime lenses, you should be able to get just as good of an image, it's just slower and may not have the ISO bump.
My advice, spend more $$ on the lens than your camera.   Camera's come and go, but a good lens will make or break a shot.


Here's a shot I've been working lately - Need some new wall art for the living room.

[pissclams]

I want to take a sweet pix of a chick with nice chongas.

CALIENTE!

[ew2x4]

I've got a Canon 20D; but now I have kids and can't upgrade  (hear that SD?  kids are expensive) .   We shoot Nikon at work - and I think both brands have the selling points.   I'm sticking with canon 'cause I've dropped about a grand on Canon lenses and I don't want to switch. I've never shot with a rebel; but I know they basically have the same sensor, so with prime lenses, you should be able to get just as good of an image, it's just slower and may not have the ISO bump.
My advice, spend more $$ on the lens than your camera.   Camera's come and go, but a good lens will make or break a shot.


Here's a shot I've been working lately - Need some new wall art for the living room.

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to decide on either a low-end DSLR or get a high-end advanced point and shoot. I mean, I don't want to sink my life saving into a hobby that I may or may not be doing for years to come, ya know? What's your opinion on that? I'll probably use it most for landscapes and architecture (and chicks with nice chongas), so wide angle, macro, and telephoto are things I'd want to do. Do I just settle for a high end Nikon PandS or get a cheapo Olympus DSLR from Walmart?

[Trim]

I want to take a sweet pix of a chick with nice chongas.

CALIENTE!

That's a really funny joke to play on that chick.

[pissclams]

I want to take a sweet pix of a chick with nice chongas.

CALIENTE!

That's a really funny joke to play on that chick.

that's a great idea, i'll tell her it's a joke!

[ew2x4]

I've got a Canon 20D; but now I have kids and can't upgrade  (hear that SD?  kids are expensive) .   We shoot Nikon at work - and I think both brands have the selling points.   I'm sticking with canon 'cause I've dropped about a grand on Canon lenses and I don't want to switch. I've never shot with a rebel; but I know they basically have the same sensor, so with prime lenses, you should be able to get just as good of an image, it's just slower and may not have the ISO bump.
My advice, spend more $$ on the lens than your camera.   Camera's come and go, but a good lens will make or break a shot.


Here's a shot I've been working lately - Need some new wall art for the living room.

This is a great shot, btw.

[Duncan]

I've got a Canon 20D; but now I have kids and can't upgrade  (hear that SD?  kids are expensive) .   We shoot Nikon at work - and I think both brands have the selling points.   I'm sticking with canon 'cause I've dropped about a grand on Canon lenses and I don't want to switch. I've never shot with a rebel; but I know they basically have the same sensor, so with prime lenses, you should be able to get just as good of an image, it's just slower and may not have the ISO bump.
My advice, spend more $$ on the lens than your camera.   Camera's come and go, but a good lens will make or break a shot.


Here's a shot I've been working lately - Need some new wall art for the living room.

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to decide on either a low-end DSLR or get a high-end advanced point and shoot. I mean, I don't want to sink my life saving into a hobby that I may or may not be doing for years to come, ya know? What's your opinion on that? I'll probably use it most for landscapes and architecture (and chicks with nice chongas), so wide angle, macro, and telephoto are things I'd want to do. Do I just settle for a high end Nikon PandS or get a cheapo Olympus DSLR from Walmart?

Typically, P&S cameras aren't ideal for wide angle shots.  They do have an enormous depth of field, so getting everything in a landscape shot in focus.  But if you ever want to isolate a subject and blur the background, not that great.  P&S cameras do have a macro setting, but nowhere near as striking as a DSLR with a macro lens.

Just by the wide gamut of shots you want to take, a DSLR with dedicated lenses for each type of shot, is the ideal (although most expensive) setup.  $500 for the body + 18-55mm kit lens.  You can save $100 by getting the body only, but the kit lens is good for a walk-about lens, when you don't want to carry multiple lenses.    $400 for the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro.  $500 for the Tamron 10-24 Ultrawide zoom.  $600 for Canon 70-200mm f/4 telephoto (no IS).  You can find cheaper lenses out there, but as has been said, the lenses are the real workhorse in the setup, so you get what you pay for.  I would also throw in the Canon 50mm f/1.8, as it is cheap and a great portrait lens.  Fast, tack sharp, great images.  Also, being a prime lens, it forces you to move instead of zooming in or out, teaching you composition and framing techniques.  You'll also need a tripod (whether you buy a P&S or DSLR) for macro, landscape and architecture shots.  You'll be amazed at how bad holding a camera by hand makes your photos turn out.

P&S cameras are slower to focus and take the actual shot.  But for landscape and architecture shots, not really an issue. Definitely annoying for sports and events.

If you really want to get into photography, DSLR's offer the best avenue for learning as you go.  They have simple "program' modes all the way up to full manual controls.  P&S's offer some manual controls, but really never to the extent that you want/need.

But, P&S's are cheaper, smaller, simpler.

[SleepFighter]

Honestly giving camera advice on a message board is pretty hard.  Mostly you need to get a camera that you're going to be willing to take with you, and that you're comfortable using. 

[06wildcat]

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to decide on either a low-end DSLR or get a high-end advanced point and shoot PaS camera that will limit what I want to do. I mean, I don't want to sink my life saving into a hobby that I may or may not be doing for years to come, ya know? What's your opinion on that? I'll probably use it most for landscapes and architecture (and chicks with nice chongas), so wide angle, macro, and telephoto are things I'd want to do. Do I just settle for a high end Nikon PandS or get a cheapo Olympus DSLR from Walmart?

Fixed that first sentence for you. High-end advanced point and shoot cameras are marketing gimmicks aimed at novice photogs like yourself. That's not to say they don't serve a purpose, but you're still very limited with the type of shots you can get with them. A PaS camera can only be so "advanced" before it defeats the purpose of being PaS.

You could search around for an old camera body (Nikon or Cannon), which will be available in a range of $200-1k-plus, probably want to be in the $500 range. Anything in the last 5 years is going to have good auto sensors and will handle most of the stuff that a PaS will do but you'll also have the ability to keep adding lenses and experiment with filters. If you're seriously considering getting into photography, you shouldn't be treating this as a one-time investment. Like most hobbies, you start small and gradually keep adding to the collection. You can't really do that with a PaS.

If you're intent on shooting mostly still-life photos, you can probably get a decent rig (body and 18-200ish lens) for $700-1k. And you'll be using that body lens for the next 20 years.

In the Cannon/Nikon debate, Cannons are very user friendly and take excellent pictures but no all lenses fit all bodys. That's the one really big advantage of Nikon. The new versions of each are pretty much identical though.

[06wildcat]

Damn...I could have just put a simple THIS after Duncan's post.

[Duncan]

Honestly giving camera advice on a message board is pretty hard.  Mostly you need to get a camera that you're going to be willing to take with you, and that you're comfortable using. 

Yep.  Lugging around a DSLR is a commitment.  If you are not willing to do that, than you'll just end up hating to use it.

In the end, you are the reason the photo is great, not the camera.  I've seen pretty amazing photos taken with cell phones.  Probably not the best image quality, but composition/subject/lighting etc.  Cameras are just tools, what is important is how you use them.  You also see pretty boring photos taken with Canon 5dmII's.

[ew2x4]

Ok, so the Canon is out of stock. So no go on that deal. What do you guys think of Olympus e-620? Obviously not a 5dmII or anything, but I've read some pretty positive reviews. I found a decent deal for one and the kit lens and a telephoto lens 40-150mm.

Thanks for the tips guys. Most of it is reaffirming what I think, but I'd rather hear it from guys that know what they're talking about.

[06wildcat]

Can't tell you anything about Olympus DSLR, wouldn't hurt to go to a store and look at these as well. Get a feel for the weight, see how it feels in your hands etc. You may want to visit an actually camera shop before making the purchase and talk to someone there. They'll be able to give you much better information on different brands. I know nothing outside of Nikon and Cannon because those are the only ones I come across at work.

[Duncan]

Ok, so the Canon is out of stock. So no go on that deal. What do you guys think of Olympus e-620? Obviously not a 5dmII or anything, but I've read some pretty positive reviews. I found a decent deal for one and the kit lens and a telephoto lens 40-150mm.

Thanks for the tips guys. Most of it is reaffirming what I think, but I'd rather hear it from guys that know what they're talking about.

I've never held/used an Olympus, but I do hear that they are good cameras.  Although from what I've read, they tend to be slightly expensive for what you get, when compared to Canons/Nikons.  The E-620 i think is comparable to the Canon XSi, which, with a kit lens, is around $100 cheaper.

I have no clue how the cost of 4/3 lenses are to other lenses.

Olympus uses the four-thirds sensor system (whereas a camera like the XSi is APS-C).  It is a smaller sensor than an APS-C sensor.  So compared to a full-size 35mm sensor, the Canon APS-C has a crop factor of 1.6x, while the 4/3 is 2x.  Nikon APS-C is 1.5x.  Basically, it is the scale factor you would need to enlarge to have the same image size as a full-frame sensor.



So while bigger than a P&S sensor, it still is on the smaller end of DSLR.  So again, the smaller the sensor, the more noise you'll have, and less control over depth of field.

But it does make the camera smaller and lighter.  And lenses are smaller and lighter, especially longer telephoto lenses.

Overall, larger sensors generally provide more control and greater artistic flexibility, but at the cost of requiring larger lenses and more expensive equipment.  This flexibility allows one to create a shallower depth of field than possible with a smaller sensor (if desired), but yet still achieve a comparable depth of field to a smaller sensor by using a higher ISO speed and smaller aperture (or when using a tripod).

(link for complete article on this)

[HeinBallz]

I've shot with olympus before and it was the suck compared to Canon/Nikon.   It could have been because it was a lower end Olympus, but since that's what you're considering, it would probably be similar.  I've shot with Canons & Nikon's lower end, and they're solid cameras.   SLR's are obviously better, but I wouldn't skimp and buy the cheapest DSLR you can find - IMO, a high end P&S would be better.   We've got some old P&S cameras at work that take some pretty great shots.   These were like $500 P&S camera's though - which, for not much more you could get a DSLR. 

Someone pointed out above though, If you're wanting to "learn" photography, you absolutely need something that you can shoot in manual mode.  All those program functions are great for not thinking & just shooting - but camera's are stupid and don't know WHAT you're photographing - it's only seeing light.  You can't make it do what you want if there isn't some sort of manual mode; even the ability to specify at least the shutter speed or at least the aperture.   A P&S won't even give you the ability to understand the basics of photography. 

My advice, if you're not wanting to sink a ton of $$ into, just get a simple DSLR kit with one lens.   Just the basic lenses that typically comes with the camera is pretty much going to work for everything if you're just starting out.  You don't have to buy it all at once - spend $700 now, and add to it later in lenses.  Maybe spend $1500 on a lens here in 2-3 years or so if you're still into it.

[ew2x4]

I've shot with olympus before and it was the suck compared to Canon/Nikon.   It could have been because it was a lower end Olympus, but since that's what you're considering, it would probably be similar.  I've shot with Canons & Nikon's lower end, and they're solid cameras.   SLR's are obviously better, but I wouldn't skimp and buy the cheapest DSLR you can find - IMO, a high end P&S would be better.   We've got some old P&S cameras at work that take some pretty great shots.   These were like $500 P&S camera's though - which, for not much more you could get a DSLR.  

Someone pointed out above though, If you're wanting to "learn" photography, you absolutely need something that you can shoot in manual mode.  All those program functions are great for not thinking & just shooting - but camera's are stupid and don't know WHAT you're photographing - it's only seeing light.  You can't make it do what you want if there isn't some sort of manual mode; even the ability to specify at least the shutter speed or at least the aperture.   A P&S won't even give you the ability to understand the basics of photography.  

My advice, if you're not wanting to sink a ton of $$ into, just get a simple DSLR kit with one lens.   Just the basic lenses that typically comes with the camera is pretty much going to work for everything if you're just starting out.  You don't have to buy it all at once - spend $700 now, and add to it later in lenses.  Maybe spend $1500 on a lens here in 2-3 years or so if you're still into it.

Thanks for the tips, guys. I've read really good things about the Olympus, but it's not overall as positive as the Canon, obviously. I played with the same model yesterday in the store and it was comfortable and fairly easy to navigate menu. The quality seemed to be good enough, but it's hard to tell until you get it on the computer screen and are able to really pick apart the stuff.

Also, what are your guys' take on the Pentax K-X?

[ew2x4]

Ok, so the Canon is out of stock. So no go on that deal. What do you guys think of Olympus e-620? Obviously not a 5dmII or anything, but I've read some pretty positive reviews. I found a decent deal for one and the kit lens and a telephoto lens 40-150mm.

Thanks for the tips guys. Most of it is reaffirming what I think, but I'd rather hear it from guys that know what they're talking about.

I've never held/used an Olympus, but I do hear that they are good cameras.  Although from what I've read, they tend to be slightly expensive for what you get, when compared to Canons/Nikons.  The E-620 i think is comparable to the Canon XSi, which, with a kit lens, is around $100 cheaper.

I have no clue how the cost of 4/3 lenses are to other lenses.

Olympus uses the four-thirds sensor system (whereas a camera like the XSi is APS-C).  It is a smaller sensor than an APS-C sensor.  So compared to a full-size 35mm sensor, the Canon APS-C has a crop factor of 1.6x, while the 4/3 is 2x.  Nikon APS-C is 1.5x.  Basically, it is the scale factor you would need to enlarge to have the same image size as a full-frame sensor.



So while bigger than a P&S sensor, it still is on the smaller end of DSLR.  So again, the smaller the sensor, the more noise you'll have, and less control over depth of field.

But it does make the camera smaller and lighter.  And lenses are smaller and lighter, especially longer telephoto lenses.

Overall, larger sensors generally provide more control and greater artistic flexibility, but at the cost of requiring larger lenses and more expensive equipment.  This flexibility allows one to create a shallower depth of field than possible with a smaller sensor (if desired), but yet still achieve a comparable depth of field to a smaller sensor by using a higher ISO speed and smaller aperture (or when using a tripod).

(link for complete article on this)

Honestly, the 4/3 is what is making me the most hesitant. The availability of lenses is a concern.

[06wildcat]

I've shot with olympus before and it was the suck compared to Canon/Nikon.   It could have been because it was a lower end Olympus, but since that's what you're considering, it would probably be similar.  I've shot with Canons & Nikon's lower end, and they're solid cameras.   SLR's are obviously better, but I wouldn't skimp and buy the cheapest DSLR you can find - IMO, a high end P&S would be better.   We've got some old P&S cameras at work that take some pretty great shots.   These were like $500 P&S camera's though - which, for not much more you could get a DSLR.  

Someone pointed out above though, If you're wanting to "learn" photography, you absolutely need something that you can shoot in manual mode.  All those program functions are great for not thinking & just shooting - but camera's are stupid and don't know WHAT you're photographing - it's only seeing light.  You can't make it do what you want if there isn't some sort of manual mode; even the ability to specify at least the shutter speed or at least the aperture.   A P&S won't even give you the ability to understand the basics of photography.  

My advice, if you're not wanting to sink a ton of $$ into, just get a simple DSLR kit with one lens.   Just the basic lenses that typically comes with the camera is pretty much going to work for everything if you're just starting out.  You don't have to buy it all at once - spend $700 now, and add to it later in lenses.  Maybe spend $1500 on a lens here in 2-3 years or so if you're still into it.

Thanks for the tips, guys. I've read really good things about the Olympus, but it's not overall as positive as the Canon, obviously. I played with the same model yesterday in the store and it was comfortable and fairly easy to navigate menu. The quality seemed to be good enough, but it's hard to tell until you get it on the computer screen and are able to really pick apart the stuff.

Also, what are your guys' take on the Pentax K-X?

Pentax K-X is decent according to the one photographer I know that uses Pentax cameras. Of course, I generally only care about how well something will reproduce in print so just about any camera will work given you're using it in a proper manner. Nothing I love more than getting a 1x2, 72dpi photo in an e-mail then getting a call the next day as to why it wasn't in the paper. The answer is all the same, it would look like an image from an Atari in print, but I digress.

[HeinBallz]

...Nothing I love more than getting a 1x2, 72dpi photo in an e-mail then getting a call the next day as to why it wasn't in the paper. The answer is all the same, it would look like an image from an Atari in print, but I digress.

or when people embed an image into powerpoint, compress it, throw away the original image, because this new .ppt file is so much smaller and looks just as good on the screen, then want the image to be blown up for a poster.    I rough ridin' hate powerpoint.    and old people.

[ew2x4]

I hear you guys on this one. I have to put together a lot of marketing boards. I ask for a logo. What do I get? The jpeg off their website. Not an eps, gif, or any other acceptable image.

Anyways, I went ahead and picked up the Rebel XS. I figure I'll used the kit lens for a while to learn the camera. After that, I'll decide what path to go down. I have a trip to Yellowstone here in a couple weeks. I'll let you guys know what I come up with.

[jtksu]

Sorta OT, but eff it:  I've always wanted to take like a month one summer and visit all the fields in the Cape Cod league.  Sports Illustrated did an awesome article about them about 10 years ago and the pictures were incredible.  I kinda figured I would take my own pics and frame some of the good ones for my man cave.  Is that something a novice can even do, or should I just forget about the framing part now and just save them digitally in hopes that I can bore future guests with a slide show?

[jtksu]

Also, I have a buddy that is huge into the outdoors but just takes pictures, rather than hunting.  Dude has had several pics published (?) in some fairly major magazines.  Anyway, dude rough ridin' loves Yellowstone.  He goes like twice a year, winter and summer.  The wildlife and scenery make for some incredible photos. 

[ew2x4]

Also, I have a buddy that is huge into the outdoors but just takes pictures, rather than hunting.  Dude has had several pics published (?) in some fairly major magazines.  Anyway, dude rough ridin' loves Yellowstone.  He goes like twice a year, winter and summer.  The wildlife and scenery make for some incredible photos. 

Thanks for really helping me focus on work this week. Just what I needed.