Well, it's probably worth considering which system you want to buy into-- do you fancy a specific lens only available in a specific mount? Are your local used-camera shops stocked with 5,000 lenses for one camera type.
I didn't pick Nikon because there's no motor inside the body.
I was considering Sony because of the image stabilization on the sensor but the lens felt very cheap.
So at the end, I chose Canon.
My friend also advised me to get a couple accessories like a UV filter, battery grip, etc. I know this is different for everyone since everyone uses a camera for different applications but accessories do you guys recommend?
thanks for all the input guys and I'm most likely going to stick with the 500D. I've checked out the D5000 and I just don't think I like it because it doesn't have enough dedicated buttons for the settings. I don't want to rely on that DPAD forever just to change the ISO or something.
50mm is too long for a digital SLR. 35mm is what you want or you'll never be able to take a group photo indoors. Most of the pics I am posting here are with either the 35mm or a 105 mm macro lens. The 105 macro also is a killer portrait lens - the sharpest lens in my kit.
In the end Nikon or Canon doesn't matter but spend a LOT of time getting the right lens.
As a beginner, I'm not sure why you'd really need a battery grip.
If for no other reason, you need that UV filter to protect your camera lens from damage. It's better to break your UV filter than to crack your lens.
If you have big hands, the battery grip makes the body much easier to handle. (At the sacrifice of size, of course.)
Also they have an extra shutter release button that falls under your finger when you take portrait shots. (Well - some do.)
keep everything as lightweight as possible - don't be one of these bozos.
I shudder to think what an Apple Camera would look like.
As a beginner, I'm not sure why you'd really need a battery grip. If you're doing marathon shoots or you do extensive shooting in portrait orientation, it can be handy. It can also be handy to add weight to your camera if you need to shoot in low light and need to use a slower shutter speed.
If for no other reason, you need that UV filter to protect your camera lens from damage. It's better to break your UV filter than to crack your lens.
As you stated, the accessories you need depend on what you want to shoot, but whatever you're shooting, get a USB 2.0 card reader. Don't rely on hooking a cable from your camera to your PC... takes way too damn long that way.
I have a Lowepro sling bag. I love that thing. It's a one shoulder backpack that sits securely on your back and you can quickly swing it to your front to access your camera.
I wouldn't mind owning a 500D or any Cannon camera for that matter. If that's what you like, no need to justify.
Anyway, the ISO's on Nikons are easily accessed by holding down an ISO button and turning one of the dials. At least that's how it is on all the Nikon models I know. You only need to DPAD esoteric settings that usually aren't critical for composing a shot.
All threads inquiring about newness to SLR bodies will have some guy telling you that the body matters less than the lense. The common advice is that for shooting objects, if you're on a budget (like most people) you should want to get a fast prime lense; for Canon there is a 50mm F/1.8 or a 50mm F/1.4.
Yeah, what exactly do you intend to shoot? I just assumed, keyboards, lol.
Such is human nature of wanting to try different things: I'm a Canon 350D user who could've equally wanted to be a Nikon user instead but listened to a Nikon user who wanted to try Canon.
50mm is too long for a digital SLR. 35mm is what you want or you'll never be able to take a group photo indoors. Most of the pics I am posting here are with either the 35mm or a 105 mm macro lens. The 105 macro also is a killer portrait lens - the sharpest lens in my kit.
In the end Nikon or Canon doesn't matter but spend a LOT of time getting the right lens.
Get a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Don't think about it, just do it. They are the highest resolution lenses you can get. They are also the cheapest.
I have some nice glass, but the Canon 50mm1.8 Mk.2 has among the best optics, despite being a cheap pile of crap in every other sense.
Yes the focal length multiplying effect of small image sensors can be a pain. But you won't find a bargain like the 50f1.8 at any other focal length.
Not a cheap pile of crap:
What camera bags do you guys recommend?
I like the Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Bag. Small and light. Best of all it doesn't look like a camera bag. If someone mugs me it won't be because of the bag.
Another reason I never wear white buds with my iPod Touch. Plus they sound like crap.
InSanCen - You da man, a Bronica. I always wanted one of those. These 35mm wannabees are toys!
Another reason I never wear white buds with my iPod Touch. Plus they sound like crap.
You succeeded. What's your address again?Show Image(http://www.thebongplace.com/piss.jpg)
I was eyeing up the 60mm and 100mm Canon, but possibly tempted by the 105mm Sigma.
See. Shoulda stuck it in a diaper bag.
My ex gf and I joke about that very thing! Except we hover around the trash bag idea. (wont go too much into detail there, I wouldn't want ya to find my good stuff now would I?) hahaaa!
But in all seriousness, I had about 10k in gear stolen in a horrible car accident a couple of years ago. I went to the emergency room and the tow company stole all the gear in my car! @#$%ing BASTARDS!!! Only a sick person steals from someone in that situation! I am still recovering too! :( I hope he dropped that D!X and 70-200 on his toe and broke it! =P so there!
I use a D60 for most of my outdoor shots too. Great little camera.
Yeah, that's why I said go filterless on a cheapo lens since a really good filter like the B&W ones cost almost as much as your lens is worth.
ClickClack... you make some great points there. What do you shoot for work? Sports?
I rarely shoot sports (some auto sports though, still uncommon for me). Mostly events (all kinds) and models (scale models for architectural and SFX), portraiture, weddings (although I am steering clear of those now too, haahaa), Documentation, product, general commissioned work, art and fine art.
I have really, really slowed down on the photography since my accident. I am in pretty poor shape still.
While not a "Pro" photog, I do make a fair bit of change from it, but not enough to give up the day job. Family portraits and Model Portfolios are still surprisingly steady even in the current economic climate. I avoid Weddings like the plague though... (a mates wedding, ended up taking him to court for a new camera when 400 drunk guests went on the rampage and my 5D+100-400 ended up dead) far too much stress.
WOW!!!! haahaa (not to be rude, please forgive me)
I don't particuarly like the stress of making sure that my assistant and I dont miss an important moment. And I hate, hate, hate ruining the mood of that beautiful moment if we did by chance miss it (by re-shooting it if the client really wanted it captured. They dont seem to mind but I hate it!)
I too get bogged down with gear, depnding on what I'm shooting. Motorsport is a particular bug-bear, (but a passion of mine), as the 500mm comes out (although the smallest Prime 500mm I could find, it's still heavy), as does the hefty Tripod (Benbo Trekker MKI with a multi-angle platform head on it). Add to that smaller lenses for slower closer corners (70-200), and I'm goosed by the Time I have set up, let alone a days stint shooting. I much prefer tramping over the hills with the 50mm and some velvia.
I just got rid of a 400 2.8 and life just sucked with it! great lens, but bad for health! Word of advice (I may have been the only person dumb enough to do this) don't carry your tripod infront of you, if you trip...it aint pretty! I feel like I can't get by with just one body and lens combo at a time when shooting (unless its studio or fine art, but even then...) but it does take its toll after a full day. When I have an assistant I find that I still carry just as much because then I have more at my disposal...more is better right??? haahaa FAIL!
I do love just relaxing with a film body and shooting though. I dont shoot much velvia anymore (and I cant find it at the local shops anymore, just recently this year!)
I find myself shooting more B&W film now. And from time to time shooting med and large format
I too use Grips (The 1Ds doesn't need one, but was a given purchase with the D60), as I have large hands (The second time I've used that phrase on GH today... weird!).
I find it funny with my D2X that it lasts longer on one batt than any of the cameras I have with grips and batts in them! Although I must admit my D100's last forever too (I am constantly surprised by that)
LARGE HANDS = .... (congrats!) haahaa
I spent a good few years working in the retail side of photography, and learnt most of what I know from there (Working with Pro's and retired pro's helps, instant free lessons!). I am debating a Macro lens when I sell the "lesser" lenses I've grown out of. At the moment, I use an old Zenit M42 with bellows, and while it does the job okay, and teaches you how to get keepers (Film costs), it's just too slow for anything but Still-life. Any suggestions in that area? I was eyeing up the 60mm and 100mm Canon, but possibly tempted by the 105mm Sigma.
I love bellows but I amn constantly frustrated by them. Since you can use so many lenses on bellows or equivalent extension tubes (electronic/chiped or not) I find myself always wanting to see what I can do with a different lens. It makes doing some of my fine art tedious at best. I guess I am not a good fit for it, yet somehow I love large format! haahaa go figure.
The Sigma 150mm 2.8 is really nice! It's hard to go wrong with macro lenses truthfully. But honestly one of the most exciting lenses I have used for macro in the Canon range (althoug not a macro lens) is the Canon 90mm TS-E f/2.8. Yes it is all manual and yes its a tilt shift, and yes it is not a macro, but GOOD GAWD it's incredible!!! If you want to go a bit closer a extension tube is good on it too!
With macro though you should eye up (no pun intended) what you want out of it the most (or a combination there of) Just 1:1, working distance, nice portraiture too, speed, focus travel (since much 1:1 is done manually), sharpness wide open and stopped down.
70-150max is nice for working distance, shake, and isolation. Any shorter or longer and versatility seems a bit of a compromise.
This is the one passion of mine that will always* come ahead of my Keyboard obsession. New Glass or New Board? Hmmm... Macro Lenses... Drool...
haahaa, glass can be very evil! =P
*Yes, I realise this is heresy here on GH!
Yo Welsh Bro, he's an artist.
Personally I think Photography is highly over-rated as an Art form.
I shudder to think what an Apple Camera would look like.
I do most of my shooting indoors. I want a battery grip because I don't want the batteries to die on me. If I do get the battery grip, I can have 2 of the lithium and 6xAA before anything dies on me =) I got the SDHC card reader so I'm set on that but I just need to get some Class 6 cards.
Dont get sucked too far into fast memory cards, ALL new cameras have good buffers for the average person/enthusiast. Faster ones cost more and you hardly use them to their full advantage. They are great for extended burst depth and video though. But honestly cards could not be more overrated if they tried.
I wish I cared more about photography. You guys do some great work. These days, I hire Mr. Blurrycam for photography duties.
That guy's got the right idea - take along a Siamese twin. They can carry your gear AND act as a tripod.
I like the Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Bag. Small and light. Best of all it doesn't look like a camera bag. If someone mugs me it won't be because of the bag.Show Image(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41E1o1kRK9L._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
I sorta disagree. I don't think he needs to shell out for top of the line memory cards, but he may gain some performance at a very low price by avoiding the bargain basement cards.
I know what you mean, but I never said bargain basement cards (bargain basement camera gear is not "usually" a good idea).
A decent card could be $30 as opposed to $5-15(bargain basement) and not be $75-200+ for newer and high speed cards and up to $500+ for highspeed large cards.
I have no idea how much card a 500D is able to take advantage of though.
It has more to do with how much the person can take advantage of it more than the camera (and its silly by and large to have a card that out performs a camera)
I know you can find some comparison charts online about how various DSLRs perform with different memory cards. I can't find that site right now and I can't remember what it was either. I just know that with my older low end cards, I can get off 5 or so continuous shots in RAW format on my D300 before the camera has to pause to shoot again. On the higher end cards, I get between 20 and 30 continuous shots before it hiccups at all.
Do you mean "burst" when you say continuous mode? Because 5 is kinda low. Even then, that most likely won't hinder most people. And as a last resort you can always change quality setting to bring it up a bit.
Sure, an enthusiast isn't likely to need much burst capability, but it could be handy to have, especially if it only means paying another $5 to $10 for a card.
Yo Welsh Bro, he's an artist.
Personally I think Photography is highly over-rated as an Art form.
I really like my 105mm Nikon VR. The VR is Nikon's vibration reduction system which theoretically should not work for Macros but I have found that it allows me to handhold a lot of shots.
It's a nice lens! VR is an incredibly useful tool in general, and although not know for its useful "macro-ness" if you are in a slight rolling and not shakey/jittery it can work at times for macro too. If nothing else and you like to hand hold macro (or near macro) it can help keep you from getting dizzy. Move too much though and it has the reverse effect...barf!
Australian Pygmy Sundew from the Perth area. Bug eating acidy bloodsucking monsters.
anybody else think those look delicious?
Time for Nikon trashtalk. I find the Nikons really excels in three things:
- Better flash system. I generally use a three flash system all handheld macros because I'm too lazy to use a tripod.
They really do have a great flash system, you might like their front ring mounted system if that is your style. (R1C1 or just R1)- Better plastics. Yep, there is a difference in feel just like keyboards.
Many times it has to do with the way the plastic is ribbed, and many times it has to do with the plastic being metal mounted or plastic to plastic mounted.
- Lots of history in the Scientific field so they have lots of lenses and specialized equipment. Think CSI taking photos of blood splatter. Canon has the super long sports lenses - think Super Bowl.
Nikon has great legacy compatability, rare/unique gems, and great updated lenses. Canon has great updated lenses, HUGE selection of updated lenses, and has been in the onboard lens motor game very long time with great support. Nikon has a vast array of manual lenses at its disposal, Canon does not, but canon has very exotic new glass.
Plus if you want to piss people off you go around correcting them to say "KneeCone." I don't do dat. I don't tell them to use mechanical keyboards either.
Well, each to their own. I do think that a lot of crap pictures have the "art" tag slapped on them.
Just like every other art form
I know that it is subjective, but wonky horizons on a landscape picture? I'm trying to remember where I saw this so I can link you up, but the price tag was way high, the picture underexposed (Not in a good way... very "grey"), and generally lacking in any form of technical competence whatsoever. Most others from the same person were in a similar vein.
No need to post the pic, we have all seen such stuff, haahaa. But in all honesty technical competence "craftsmanship" does not necessarily make it art either. Some art sucks, its ok! It is still "art", just crappy art =P (many times art is an intention, and not just a product)
Some people can get away with breaking the "rules" and score great pictures, but they are few and far between. When done well, I can't see it as a "lesser" art form than say painting.
YAY! That made me happy :) painting IS overrated though =P With my coworkers and colleagues we joke that whe people hear art they just think "painting" haahaa.
Are my drawings "art"? No, I struggle to do a stick man. Are my pictures good? Well, they sell. Would I call myself an artist? Not by a long shot, but I don't shoot that kind of picture for the most part.
Dammit, I will call your work art if I want to! =P
Do I think some Photographers should be considered Artists? ...
.... I couldn't tell you if modern or abstract art is good, but I certainly don't think it's "less" of an art form than photography.
Do you mean "burst" when you say continuous mode? Because 5 is kinda low. Even then, that most likely won't hinder most people. And as a last resort you can always change quality setting to bring it up a bit.I think the Nikon dials have "C" for continuous, but yeah "burst" or whatever any other name we want to call this horse...
Indeed it could be handy, especially at only a $5-$10 dollar increase (over bargain basement). But that is mostly a small increase when you are already at a "decent'' card.I think we're in agreement. This is all probably a moot point anyway as it doesn't appear like you can even easily buy the low end Type I cards I was thinking of as the bargain level cards... so yeah, just buy what appears to be a good deal and don't worry about getting that fastest speed possible for that card.
BTW, I think someone already commented on this but NONE of the current Canon models have an in body focus motor (the importance of which is a moot point). They switched that out years and years ago iirc. For a bit of trivia (and its ironic) you can't really use any of Canon's old lenses on the new models...BUT you can practically use any other manufacturers lenses on newer Canon's!
Canon never used in-body focus motors in the EOS range. They learned their mistake from the T80 and decided to do things the right way.
Aside from that, I thought Canon's DSLR's "all" lacked in-body focus motors.
You can use Canon's old lenses on their new cameras, it just isn't worth it. Focusing manually isn't a problem, but having to stop down manually is too much work for me.
But I did take this snapshot using an old FD lens on a D30 camera:
Megapixels are not a measure of quality.
Pentax just released a new entry-level offering today if you're interested: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16272if you live in Japan you can get a million colours as well: http://www.camera-pentax.jp/k-x/
I didn't say anything about megapixels.
I still play with film as well with my EOS3 and Elan 7NE--mostly B&W stuff with my trusty 24mm fixed length lens and trusty walkabout lens 28-135IS. Saving up for the 70-200/2.8 L/IS though. Kind of weird walking around with that big white lens though. All about the glass though. I rented one once. Wow.
If you can realistically use it, you won't regret it.Great glass. But don't buy one just because it's "White Glass". A very expensive way to show off.
The Canon 1200/5.6L USM for a mere USD120,000. For those special sports and wildlife shots.
So...when will DSLRs actually come down in price to reflect that they really aren't that much better than most point-and-shoots?
Talking about white glass though, here's one.
Show Image(http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/big-lens-sigma.jpg)
I use my 18-200mm a lot for travel - versatile lens and since I'm not blowing up travel pics to wall size the quality is fine.
Man, I'd hate to drop that thing while climbing up a rock embankment trying to get a shot.
So...when will DSLRs actually come down in price to reflect that they really aren't that much better than most point-and-shoots?
I didn't say anything about megapixels. What I'm saying is you can take pretty decent pictures with a point-and-shoot camera. It can't be worth at least $300 more just to get raw format?
Great>good>decent. Decent? General picture quality and sensitivity> megapixels. There are many, many PS's that are excelent, and can take professional pictures, even more so in a professionals hand. The speed, build, versatility, clarity, quality, longevity/reliability, are far, far superior in most DSLR's.
Raw format is pretty low on that list of features (although many times desirable) Many PS's now are incorporating RAW format as well, so that wouldn't be the difference anyway (it's mostly software/firmware and not hardware anyways, hacks even exist!)
And lenses? At least the ones that cost a reasonable amount, they feel super cheap. Lenses actually used to feel mechanical, like precision instruments.
That was an inevitable progression, not always desireable but needed none the less. The technology was not as readily available or cost effective (or even in existed) back then. I have many manual lenses that are sturdy and made of metal, but most new lenses do actually operate smoother, they may not be a tank but the bodies of them give and don't dent or scratch flake like they used to. They are way lighter many times, and can be made cheaper. These are not things to sneeze at. Many things can be improved true, but things have come a long way...and mostly in a good way.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but it's a lot easier to find good quality in film camera than digital cameras...at least in terms of build quality.
I couldn't agree less, honestly. I see what you mean, but I truly think that people are overly romanticizing the equipment side of the equation. I have many film cameras and have had many, and used many. Of these at worst they are the same, but mostly the plastics are sturdier and less brittle, the metal is thicker or has a much more robust design in DSLR's. The irony to me seems that many PS's (film) seem sturdier than many digital PS's of today, especially with longevity.
Too bad you usually can't use film camera lenses on DSLRs...
I can't think of any other way a P&S comes close to the quality of a DSLR.
But the bottom line is interchangable lenses.
I would say general versatility and capability, but you cant escape the specific versatility of different lenses. But honestly I would take an SLR with a glued on lens over a PS with interchangeble lenses any day :)
And DSLR lenses ARE film camera lenses. I believe you are thinking more of auto focus vs manual focus lenses. The old manual focus lenses were solid and should last forever if treated well. New ones are more plasticy. Even the quality ones will fail eventually because of the electronics and motors.
Are there any DSLRs that fit old Minolta lenses?
Man, I'd hate to drop that thing while climbing up a rock embankment trying to get a shot.
The prices actually have already come to a meeting point. I haven't checked out any point and shoots in a while, but I'd suspect that high end point and shoots can cost more than low end DSLRs now.
Easily! I know many people have an aversion to buying used equipment, but that can be a very worth while option too, and very good one at that.
A point and shoot could be better than a DSLR, but they're really two different types of cameras and are optimized for different types of uses.
And if you are masterful at circles then you can draw one with the lead dust on your elbow. (ok so it got a little weird at the end sue me =P )
Ok, THAT'S IT!!!1!!1 I'm going 2 sue, type & spel badly, an d
I'm quittinngf this site because of U!!!!!
When I need a good quality picture, I use my Dad's Canon Powershot Pro 1. I'm sure it's nowhere near as good as some of the aforementioned cameras, but the quality is more than sufficient for me.
For you pros out there: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/29/phase-one-645df-medium-format-unveiled-its-invasion-set-for-q4/
Makes sense. It's flexible, to be sure, but it sounds like it can be damn-expensive. I guess it's like anything, though, if you need this level of performance, the money is secondary.
Or, more likely, its a high-margin item for the camera manufacturer.
I was just thinking what an insane bargain that is, then I realised it doesn't include a camera back. D'oh!
He could but he just bought a Canon Rebel.
Are you one of the guys that recommends people get a Model F AT as soon as they post "I just got a new keyboard!".
Sorry, it was a "what do you guys use" thread so I deleted my comment.
Ok, Wat, I think you mean you want an wide aperature zoom in the 18-55mm range. Not cheap and although sharper you're lugging around a LOT of weight. I'd go with a 50mm 1.8mm or a 35 1.8mm fixed focal. Use your feet to zoom. To decide whether 50mm or 35mm is better I'd first take a couple of hundred pictures then look back at your EXIF data and pick the focal length you use more often. In my case it's 35mm. Trying to take group shots in your living room favors the wider lens. Taking head and shoulders shots of one person favors the 50mm.
The camera I use is called a cell phone. Its 1.8 megapixels, it is enough to get the job done.
Donny, did you say indoor bowling?Show Image(http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/big-lebowski-bowling.jpg)
Well, that precludes flash. I dunno, wide aperature long lens means big bucks and heavy. Gaining a stop at 2.8 isn't buying you all that much either. And believe it or not a kit lens can take pro quality pics if you are creative. All lenses look remarkably good at f8.
Most people churn through lenses too fast IMHO - I'd take it slow and really analyze your EXIF data for patterns.
The only reason I don't mind my cell phone is because I am too lazy and too cheap to buy and use a decent digital camera. With Verizon phones, you can just take a picture and send it to PIX Place and save them directly to your computer. Easier than running around finding a USB cable to work with the camera...Standard procedure here is: Take out memory card, stuff into card reader, plug that one in if necessary (USB cable is already there from the hub), voilà. Dead easy.
Standard procedure here is: Take out memory card, stuff into card reader, plug that one in if necessary (USB cable is already there from the hub), voilà. Dead easy.
I'd think that it should be possible to find something decent on the used market for, say, 50 bucks max. It might not set any world records for speed, may not be ultra compact or have a huge screen, possibly uses some obscure old memory cards, and some Eneloops with matching charger would definitely be handy to have around, but you can bet that a decent camera from 5 or 6 years ago will still snap some perfectly reasonable pictures. Something like, say, our trusty old Minolta Dimage S414 (first digicam here back in 2003).
Or just buy a suitable cable for your phone off eBay.
The problem with cellphone cameras isn't getting the images out - it's capturing decent-quality ones in the first place. I wonder how many can even beat a good ol' Canon Powershot A60, a general purpose 2 megapixel model (1/2.7" sensor) from 2003.
Incidentally, I used the cable for my camera (Olympus SP-310) exactly once, namely to upgrade the firmware to the last version.
I'd like to get something that allows me to shoot in RAW and at least aperture/shutter priority.
Yes! I've been looking at both the Panasonic and Olympus Four Thirds. They're awfully expensive right now though, so I'm looking ... and not buying. :sad:
What Olympus do you currently have?
It'll be interesting to see what 2010 and 2011 bring as far as new technology in digital cameras goes.
Do you mean the viewfinderless ones (DMC-GH1, E-P1 and such)? Yep, these are kinda spendy. It's definitely a niche though, and it doesn't take much to predict that there will be some more "bridge cameras" with DSLR sensors coming out.
And honestly, does anyone really need a super high resolution from a compact?)No! I was able to get pretty decent photos from my Canon SD630 at 6MPs, and I still had plenty of room for cropping. But ... the SD630 is lacking image stabilization, so in low light, I have a hard time getting sharp photos. The ZS3 does much better in low-light, even using a fair amount of zoom.
I hope we will be seeing a trend towards further reduced resolution and increased dynamic range in compact camera sensors - 12 MP on 1/2.33" is just nuts.Canon's G11 reduced the number of pixels compared to the G10, apparently for this very reason. I wouldn't expect to see anything less than 10MPs though.
Topre's main business is whaaaaa???
Get creative with the on-camera flash by sticking a white piece of paper in front of it as a diffuser.
In other words, just beat the heck out of that camera before buying any extra junk. Get an extra battery. You need that.
Lenses to match the resolution are gonna get spendy.Yep, tho I have to get a faster prime (for filming) first...
It's my mom actually... :D
P.S. Tell your GF I like her socks.
and i found a stuck pixel on my camera the other day.
not hot, stuck.
not the lcd, the sensor.
very sad moment.
and it wasn't there before, because that is the reason i exchanged the FIRST one i got.
just looked it up, no, but someone has made a CHDK script to do it. i just am sure it will only work when i run chdk... oh well.
they say you can send it to canon to remap, i might, since wont need it that much soon.
Just got this baby...Show Image(http://soulhunter.razorbb.net/misc/EOS7d.jpg)
I'm especially amazed by its low light capabilities:Show Image(http://soulhunter.razorbb.net/misc/EOS7d-LowLight-01.jpg)
(best thread to put it in, i guess)
i made a cable release =D
So far, without looking at shots overly critically, it doesn't appear to be appreciably sharper.
That Canon 70-200mm f/4L is over 4 lbs!
See if you can take any pics of those Pink ALPS. Specifically the springs.
I'm trying to establish a conspiracy theory.
Hypothesis:
- Blue ALPS is just an older version of White ALPS but other than the color is identical
- Pink ALPS is just a Black ALPS in drag
In the absence of sunlight, a solid tripod, cable release or self-timer, and mirror lockup can do wonders. Macro shots are ones where mirror lock up can make a big difference.
I you want trashy, watch the weather forecast. Not sure what this lady (http://webwit.nl/fb2011a0_helga3.gif) is trying to say.
Ouch! Gentlemen, there's a lady in this thread.
Edit: Whoah Daddy (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/128537/Peaches-Geldof-dumped-by-underwear-label-Ultimo/), take that back. Now I have to figure out how to add the Daily Star to my Google home page next to the Wall Street Journal and NY Times.
Just saw him on the ABC news and found out he uses a $75 6MP Sony Point and shoot. Reminds me that photography is all about taking lots of pictures of interesting stuff.
Nice! I was wondering how he got the dirt to fly. Motorized model.
The first frame reminds me - Lightroom 3 beta 2 just added tethered laptop support - Woohoo!
..
Now...*this* would be fun to play with...
http://dvice.com/archives/2009/12/man-builds-his.php (http://dvice.com/archives/2009/12/man-builds-his.php)Show Image(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8864&stc=1&d=1270221173)
............
Spec_57
steampunk camera
ClickClack, nice. Didn't know that you took those pics.
When I saw the first set of pics, I didn't realize the car was a model. Good work. You might want to re-evaluate the snow shot if you do another one, though. A few things in the pic don't quite add up.
California salt flats near LA.
Gotta use your imagination when you look at ART!!!Show Image(http://www.stupid.com/mm5/graphics/products/modernart-1.jpg)
@ClickClack: It's all in the URL's (http://www.stupid.com/fun/MODN.html) ;)
Here you go... You like old camera's?
This was made between 1946-1949, and as I said, I still use it...
@ClickClack: It's all in the URL's (http://www.stupid.com/fun/MODN.html) ;)
What a wonderful example of a pre TLR camera! I love how its so simple yet robust, almost tank like (like its gunna headbutt its subject). Thanks for the informative link too! =)
There is something so calming and romantic when shooting and planning with vintage equipment.
Even when they are just sitting on your shelf they are inspiring, so much more magical.
Photoshop CS5 upgrade is $199. Upgrade time since I'm on CS2, the oldest version eligible for the upgrade.
Yep, I pay for software. After having a recording engineer as a roommate once I even pay for my music. Archaic, I know.
Canon for compacts and camcorders. Nikon is the SLR choice of the pros though.
Nikon is the SLR choice of the pros though.
My main camera is a Canon EOS 300D. Love Canon, I'd sooner use a disposable than a Nikon...
Ouch, then you would be missing out, heehee =P
There was a famous fashion photographer who would use a disposable, ballz baby gots ballz... ok and maybe skills =D
I Personally I don't rely on what any clown says on some website to tell me what camera I should use, and Nikon also irks me because they won't stop showing that idiot Ashton Kutcher in their commercials (I really hate him...)
Haahaa! Yeah I am not the biggest fan of his, although I won Nikons/ Ashtons national photography contest. So I can't be hating too much ;)
too busy advertising gimmicks like touch the screen to take a picture instead of actual quality features...
I know, those successful stupid ipod/iphone/ipad people... oh...we were talking about nikon... no wait!
I'll take picture and build quality over gimmicks every time.
Professional what? Professional Poseurs?
Haahaa, ouch! Actually if you say "Poseurs" just right (and improperly) it sounds elite!
Huh, I guess the three photography studios I've been to in my area that have multiple photographers and large studios that do photo shoots for universities and all the schools in a six county area aren't professionals since they're using Canon cameras.
How seriously did you take his comment again? Wait were is that darn pic of Akbar when you need it??? And some of the studios I have worked for and do switched to Nikon recently. And that's only because one had something the other one didn't at that time. Many are just sticking with some MF or a Hassy setup for "studio" shots.
Image quality between Canon and Nikon with DSLRs are COMPLETELY indiscernible - if you say otherwise you're just lying to argue.
Says you but that doesn't neccessarily mean it's always significant or even matters. But then again I do this for a chunk of my income.
I'll agree to that. Take two IDENTICAL photos with similar featured cameras (Two base models or two top end - not top end of one vs bottom end of another or anything) and scale them to the same size - in a blind test you
OMG!!!! Haahaahaaa... "Blind test", I think I am getting your sense of humor now! That's damn hysterical!!!! lolz =D
won't definitively get a consistent answer. A photo journal did one in the late 80's between Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and I think one other - none of their readers could tell.
That is one funny factoid to mention doncha think? In the 80's when we shot "film" the "film" was the same in any camera you put it in. The main differences was the lenses that you used and the difference then was far less descernable than it is today.
The only difference between brands is price, build quality, and how easy it is to use and outfit. It's the same today, it hasn't changed - it's just digital instead of film now.
I dissagree, are you surprised though? I think you buy more into a system now than ever, because everything in that "system" is more or less optimized for it. I don't price is a significant factor between Canon and nikon now, but it certainly is between their competitors. I also think build quality is moot at this point also. A pro level body is certainly more than capable in any brand for the most part (little features aside). Ease of use can vary even within ones own brand. The digital difference between brands (photodiode, interpolation, and management wise) can be very significant.
I have a cousin who has had three Nikon cameras and all of those POSes broke and she couldn't use them anymore.
Bummer, but atleast I know who I won't be lending gear too =P
I think she has a Samsung camera now or something. My father still uses a Canon Powershot he bought in I think 2001 or 2000 and pictures still look great and it works good as ever, just not 12 megapixels or anything (2 to be exact). Cousin bought her first Nikon in 2003 and went through them and had to buy a new one in '04, then in '05 and for awhile she just used her cell phone for pics (I never said they were picky on quality...)
Any chance they throw emm up on ebay for cheap, gotta feed the addiction ya know, thats a pretty impressive rate to run through them for a non Pro! =)
This is the problem I have with you Nikon people - if anyone ever asks about cameras in even a general sense the first bash some idiot always has to quip is "HUR HUR NIKON FUR DE PROFSIONALL CUZ I TAK PRO PICZ OF MAH KAT !!!!11ne1337!"
I kindly go "ahem" not "HUR, HUR" but I just might switch now! And btw you would go crazy for the puss..."ahem" cat shots that I take. Oh no you dih-ent!
whereas I don't see Canon people starting it (at least on average).
Then you need to get around more my pixelated friend =)
I wouldn't have said anything about Nikon if some idiots on the front page didn't feel the necessity to do just what I said they always do.
Good thing there are no cliffs around =P
Ooooo I musta missed something in those first posts... *scurries off to go reread*
It's the same problem you get with Mac users. They pop up out of no where like little trolls "HUR HUR MAC R TEH BEST HAH I IZ L33tZ WINNR!!1!1on1"
Hey, kinda like Japanese tourists at Disneyland! HI Snap-Snap, checks pictures, Snap-Snap!
even though no one asked for their snarky little comments. Stupidness like this means no respect for you, and since silly trolls never learn it will continue to happen.
(insert Soup Nazi picture...)
Besides, Nikon cameras are cheaper than Canon on average because they're cheaper built.
hmmm... I must have miss that memo...My wallet never seemed to agree with that, nor has my experience.
Entry Nikon DSLR is 6.3 megapixels, entry Canon is 8 megapixels -
Some years off there son =) Perhaps its best that you don't look up the new cameras or age old trends.
when we're comparing new DSLRs this does begin to matter as downscaling will have higher quality the larger the RAW image.
What about other types of interpolation... like idunno... the more popular one "upscaling"? But I thought image quality didn't matter? You can only swap that one so many times in one thread. But I feel ya man, emotions run strong *hits chest and throws up a peace sign.
I prefer Canon's method of grading quality of lenses better too, Nikon's don't make sense to me
Aside from a circumnavigating overly glorified red/gold pinstripe hint that Canon/Nikon use the extra "L" designation perhaps does help the people who don't know or understand what makes the characteristics a good or versatile lens. We tend to look at specs, and then test them. There are plenty of "lower end" lenses in their respective lineups that spank their higher end lenses. not that I care all that much since I won't own one. It's easy to tell the highest quality Canon lenses are the L-series typically with the white and red on the lens.
You do strike me as the pesrson who would need an extra hint to know the difference though. j/k Sorry, but I had to though, that one was way too easy to pass up
But I've come to realization that much of society is so foolish they need to assert their superiority to you in anyway they think possible, even if no one cares or if what they assert as a sign of superiority is simply a difference of opinion.
You certainly have proved you point in that respect =)
Someone will say "Hey I just bought this new car and I love it" and the "better" person will come by and quip "HAHA, my car cost what three of your cars would - WHAT ARE YOU POOR? HAW HAW HAW". It's this self-believed superiority complex that so many people have that they can't STFU about what stupid BS they think is better. How about a thread asking a question about a PC issue? "HA you should've bought a Mac - I obviously have more money than common sense and it's what I did and TV and Movies say I'm cool if I do it so take that you conformist - I'm so different because I assert my difference by doing the same thing all the other people who are different do". It happens with cameras, computer stuff, cars, everything. This idea of difference is simply conformity of non-conformity - even though it never amounts to anything, the bloody fools.
You indeed have proved that well
I'll sum it up with a picture that captures this concept nicely (I've rambled [ranted?] along far too long anyway, but I'm famous for long posts - anyone want to tell me I'm inferior for using a membrane keyboard? Here's your chance...because I love typing on mine)
No worries, there is always someone who cant sleep too (like me today)
Is that membrane in the form of a Model M keyboard? If not, don't worry nobody is perfect =P
I was just talking about the lenscap. Pinch cap FTW!
Oh, wait, this isn't the trolling thread.
If I could afford to buy a complete set of Nikon gear and a complete set of Canon gear, I would. And I'd still take more bad pictures than good ones. :rofl:
Sorry about your thumb. Are you a tree frog?
Happy Nikon User. Be sure to zoom in!Show Image(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_m4DOMYdTrY8/SSPXfR5UzII/AAAAAAAAB98/nc4rvmxuRwk/Nikon.jpg)
The nikon person on the right (right as in facing the photo) has strabismus.
That lens is pretty crazy. Looks like it would fit over his head!
What's the difference between Roy Rogers and Walt Disney?
...
Well, Tiger Woods, but Walt Disnae!
Hang on, I may have messed up that punchline.
Just scored 2 new lenses.
80-200 2.8 L (Precursor to the legendary 70-200 208 L IS) for very little money.
24mm Sigma... free (It needed de-fungus-ing, and now works perfectly, with full aperture control, contrary to every review I've ever read when it's on a digital body.... though I'm wondering if it's because it's on an old D60).
80-200 2.8 L for the Kishy approved price of £120! Perfect condition too.
and yup.. Canon.
And I'm expecting an M42-->EOS adaptor in the post so I can use my beloved Pentacon 300/4 that has bokeh to die for.
some pron for you camera guysShow Image(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/enthauptet/pho/eqp/16-35L2_1D2b.jpg)
I guess it would the XT/AT keyboard of the camera world? solid as a rock
it's a 1D mark 2, I plan on getting a 1V at some point to shoot film
haha yeah the white does stand out a lot and will probably get you problems when going to take photos in an event, concert or show ... that kind of stuff "you're a pro, why do you have this pro gear...etc."
my photo of him out cold on the floor
I'm fine with that (Usually got me into the press pen, regardless of my possession of a press pass). It's when decidedly dodgy people "casually" comment on how much it's worth that you decide to move on. After an incident with someone attempting to deprive me of it, it got sold. I came off the better, but that was this time, there was only one chav, and I knew that my 1DS was stronger than his head. I wasn't risking there being a next time. He got concussion and a 3 month sentence though. Made me grin when I saw it in the local paper, as they published my photo of him out cold on the floor with comments about there being no need for a lineup. I didn't even invoice them for it.
Taking possession of a 5D Mark II, which appears to be quite the step up from my T1i, so looking forward to that! Any suggestions of good online training or videos would be great.
Later..............
I always recommend this book:
Great! That is the kind of info I am looking for, but would also appreciate any information specific to my new acquisition.
Glad I'm not the only one interested in photography :)
Later........
Taking possession of a 5D Mark II, which appears to be quite the step up from my T1i, so looking forward to that! Any suggestions of good online training or videos would be great.
Later..............
You passed the "Am I a real photographer" test! :thumb:
Show Image(http://www.phsc.ca/matt/first.dag.camera.jpg)
It was screaming out to be shot. Later I found out that he took a huge amount of pisstaking from his equally dodgy circle of friends. He's currently doing time for burgling someone's house... trouble is, that someone is one of the local Martial Arts instructors... he knows how to choose em.
I'll see if I can find a link to the relevant stories online.
I tried Googling every variation of "photographer hits robber" (like strikes, knocks out cold, thief, burglar, cameraman, etc.). No luck.
I tried Googling every variation of "photographer hits robber" (like strikes, knocks out cold, thief, burglar, cameraman, etc.). No luck.
focusing in low light is always tricky, usually a focus assist lamp helps from a flash device
And/or use a wide angle lens, they have greater depth of field. Once you get under 20mm focal length, it is barely worth focusing.
And/or use a wide angle lens, they have greater depth of field. Once you get under 20mm focal length, it is barely worth focusing.
The cost of wasting film though IMO drives you to be better in a way. It kinda drives you to shoot better precisely because you don't want to waste film. E.g. if you're on your absolute last frame on your last roll, you know you're gonna try hard to get a keeper.
The cost of wasting film though IMO drives you to be better in a way. It kinda drives you to shoot better precisely because you don't want to waste film. E.g. if you're on your absolute last frame on your last roll, you know you're gonna try hard to get a keeper.
I took 80GB of SD cards with me to Japan. More capacity than MW's computer collection COMBINED.
As soon as they glanced over at the booth I knew I had the shot.
Wikipedia says that the Canon T80 used in-lens motors, not an in-body motor, on the FD mount.
At least they got something right with the T80. Canon still uses in-lens motors of various types in the EOS range too, but it is now the body that controls the focusing. Only Nikon were stupid enough to think putting the lens motor in the body was a good idea. (/trollattemp.)
Lenses yellow? Man...
Sorry to hear about that Canon thing.
How do you find the GF1 compares to the Nikons? As in how distinguishable is the end quality?
I was referring to the Nikons he mentioned using, obviously. Also you can compare them and just did in fact.
Also, if I was being vague, I don't mean how the RAW files compare on a technical level - clearly, a full frame is going to perform better than a 4/3. I meant the end results in his work (prints, JPEGs, etc.). Since he referred to the GF1 as a "perfect camera for everything", I was interested in how he felt it measured up to the DSLRs he had experience with professionally.
Which Nikon are you referring to? You can't really compare micro 3/4 sensor to the larger ones. They are in complete different leagues. In general larger sensors allow better image qualities (in particular the higher ISO range). Not to mention GF series so far has rather not so impressive image processing unit (but great quality for 300bucks!).
I was referring to the Nikons he mentioned using, obviously. Also you can compare them and just did in fact.
Also, if I was being vague, I don't mean how the RAW files compare on a technical level - clearly, a full frame is going to perform better than a 4/3. I meant the end results in his work (prints, JPEGs, etc.). Since he referred to the GF1 as a "perfect camera for everything", I was interested in how he felt it measured up to the DSLRs he had experience with professionally.
MW still there or has he been let go for that cheerleader incident? Just curious.
iphone4 :-(
Never underestimate the power of mobility when it comes to photo taking. :)
kick-ass recipe card as a flash diffuser