Anybody here into photography

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu May 26, 2005 11:38 am

I'm just a beginner to photography but I'm starting to develop a love for it. Right now, I have a Kodak 6.1 megapixel digital camera and it's suits my general purposes (get togethers, close shots, etc..) but when I was at a graduation held outside in a stadium during a sunset with me up in the bleachers, I found out just how lacking my camera was. Especially when a LOT of grain started showing up on images with an ISO of 400 to compensate for the lack of lighting (sun had fallen at this point). And when the sun was up, I had a huge problem with lens flare. I apparently found out that I was more serious about taking pictures than I initially thought I was since I was pretty irked at my lack of being able to take a decent picture from a distance of the graduation.

I started looking at other higher end camera (semi-pro but not all the way pro) and I stumled across this one.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/contro ... elid=11154

I looked at a lot of reviews and sample pictures and I like what saw. Especially in the areas of lighting conditions. I was also thinking about getting a telephoto lens as well, but I'm still learning terminology when it comes to lenses so I first have to see if the 18-55mm can provide what I'm looking for or if I'm going to have to go telephoto to get those faraway shots. I was pretty damn surprised to see just how expensive some of those lenses can be. Wow!

What I'm wanting to know from any of you who are into photography, is do you think that camera would be a good starting camera for someone who's starting to get serious about photography? I'm also thinking about taking some basic (and maybe advanced) photography classes so that I can learn the terminology and learn to adjust for things like white balance, proper settings for different situations, ethics, etc...

suicide eddie · Post by **suicide eddie** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:18 pm

for learning how to compose pics i recon a digital cam is the best way to go. the best quality is still film but digital is getting close, you be able to take hundreds of pics to find that `just right`pic. get a neutral or polarised filter to add to your main lens (saves a lot of dough if you accident stratch it and makes cleaning easier)and a lens shade to help with avoiding stray light/shadows etc and a decent stand can do wonders in setting up your shot. the eos range have a neat pre-set image modes. depth of view, motion blur etc and are fun to play with to give different results. with my old one i usally took one pic in each mode and selected the best to print. i find 200/250 tends to be the max with lenses of upto 35mm, for better results with `faster` film use a bigger lense to capture more light. for good pics of say closeups of players on a football pitch use a lense of about 400+.

hope this is of some use to you.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Thu May 26, 2005 3:55 pm

My friend has the Canon EOS 300D (Rebel) and it's a great camera. I have the older non-digital Canon Rebel G and a more recent Canon G3. All are awesome camera's.

The Nikon D70 or D100 are also good camera's but don't have the options for simple point n shoot modes.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu May 26, 2005 4:26 pm

Excellent camera, Kor. A little pricey, imo, but that's based on my budget, not yours.

Digital cameras are like fruit right now until they reach a resolution plateau, meaning it will not hold it's resale value very well, but ya gotta jump in sometime and that's a fine prosumer-level camera to begin with from all the reviews I've seen. Nikon still has a bit more brand cache but Canons are every bit as good it appears. If you haven't already gone here, http://www.dpreview.com is probably the finest digital photography review site on the Web. A nice feature there is you can download raw photo samples at full resolution and the shots were taken by folks who know what they're doing.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu May 26, 2005 7:23 pm

I'm gonna tell you one thing dude, auto-focus will be your best friend for a good while. I can also honestly say that 10x optical zoom is not enough if you're trying to get close-ups of objects more than a hundered or so feet away. Even on a 3.2Mpixel camera. Your best bet, if you're wanting to get any good up-close shots is to get a lens with a large zoom multiplier.

As for shooting at night, if your target is more than a few feet away, simply forget about getting a decent shot with a digital camera. My experience (which is only with two digital cameras FYI, if I'm wrong about this, then please say so.) is that they have a hard time picking up targets in a low-light environment. You could probably get nightvision lenses, but I don't think you want your pitures to be shades of green.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Thu May 26, 2005 7:30 pm

The simple digi cams don't take night pics well or at all unless the subject is lit from behind. Taking shots of the moon aren't good.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Thu May 26, 2005 7:39 pm

Take a photography class.

The Internet is ruined with "know it all's" in every creative aspect. Photography is an art form and a science; treat it as one. Take a class, and laugh at their composition theory, color theory, and technical jargon. But you will have a framework. (I assume we are not typing about taking pictures of the newborn 50,000 times).

Everyone knows there are no shortcuts... and technology is a crutch.

Weak knees.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 26, 2005 8:12 pm

Thrawn, while digital photography is convienent my suggestion is to get a good film camera. I've seen Nikon F4's going for 300-400 dollars and that is a camera that will give you all the tools you'll ever need to take good pics. What is nice is the lens that work on the F4 will also work on the new Nikon digital cameras. Good picture go beyond just the camera. You will have to understand light and shadow, color saturation and speed, and depth of field. So many things to learn but it is a lot of fun and the satisfaction in taking a good pic is immense.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:02 pm

Well, the majority of what I do is for posting on the web/emails, etc... and when I do print, it's typically no larger than 8 1/2 x 11 prints. Which even at 6 megapixels, they come out pretty damn good looking. I've thought about film, but digital has just completely spoiled me. And at 8 megapixels, the quality compared to 35 mm film is acceptable to me. Couple that with the fact that I'm just impatient, not to mention relatively new to photography. Wasting film via countless newbie mistakes just doesn't appeal to me.

Recently though, with my current consumer camera, I've been taking shots indoors at distances outside of flash range, and outdoors during evening/sundown situations at medium range distances. Through countless blunders, I've kinda found out what I've been looking for.

1. Lens flare has been killing me. A lens with a hood would help out a whole lot.

2. Distance shots (like shooting a field from the bleachers) with my current camera suck. Needed something that was capable of a telephoto lens attachment.

3. Viewfinders and lcd screens for previewing the shot COMMONLY lie. I wanted a camera where I can actually see what the camera is seeing to help me better compose the shot.

4. Manual focus. Yes, autofocus is good, but I want to do manual focus situations where I'm looking through the camera lens. Mainly for some creative artistic shots. Pain in the ass to set it up with a consumer camera.

4. ISO!!!!!!!! My digital camera has a max of 400 iso and at that iso, the images are GRAIIIIIINNYY! I needed a camera with a larger iso range, and at the same time, very little grain when using higher iso's.

5. Need something that I can grow with. Which is why I want something with detachable lenses, something with TONS of features that so I can actually learn and develop my skills with.

6. I want to stay digital. I'm just spoiled with going straight to the computer or to a printing place and dumping images off of my flash memory card and getting pictures in a quick turnaround manner. Or for immediate editing on the computer.

7. Need something that can handle an external flash, tripod, and remote shutter. I'll be doing lots of shots at night, and at the same time, I want to play with long exposers 10+ seconds so a tripod is a must and I don't want to shake the camera by pressing the button with my finger which causes a slight movement and ends up blurring the non moving parts of my image.

Those are the main things that have been irking me about my current camera. Plus, I DO want to take some classes and learn more about photography and really hang out with photographers who show a great deal of creative wisdom. There are shots that I look at out there and I just go wow!!!! I want to be able to do shots like that!!! And as I get better and start to learn more techniques and terminology, I want to have a camera that's actually able to handle the more advanced areas of photography once I'm at that level. (don't want to buy a new camera just because I learned how to deal with white balancing, etc....)

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:17 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote: 4. ISO!!!!!!!! My digital camera has a max of 400 iso and at that iso, the images are GRAIIIIIINNYY! I needed a camera with a larger iso range, and at the same time, very little grain when using higher iso's.

I'm no expert (ditto on the advice to take some classes), but what I think you need for good non-grainy night shots is longer exposure at lower ISO. At least for film - I don't have a digital camera, but do have two manual SLR's.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 pm

In this case my subjects were moving on the field. Adjusting the shutter speed was causing blurry shots although the lighting did improve a bit. Bring the shutter to normal speeds and Upping the iso helped, but the picture just had a lot more noise than what I was comfortable with. At the same time, the max iso was 400

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:27 pm

I think you're just being old-fashoned, woodchip.

Have you ever taken a good look at some of the newer digital cameras? There's some pretty amazing stuff: manual and automatic shutter, apature, focus, and color control (just to name a few). Also, if one gets a film camera there is the added expense of film and film developement and/or a film or flatbed scanner.

Of course with a digital camera you would have to pay if you wanted prints, either purchasing a photo printer or having it done at the store (a really cool process my sister told me about--insert card, choose pics you want printed, etc (Meijer)).

It seems like it would be a big convenience to be able to easily select and discard shots with a digital camera.

It may just be spin, but I read somewhere that digital cameras have caught up to and surpassed film cameras in the industry.

Personally, I'm going in with my brother for my very first (dad had two, though low quality) digital camera next month. I did a lot of looking around online, and finally settled on the Canon PowerShot S2 IS. It's amazing how many digital cameras have one feature but lack another--the PowerShot S2 IS has the majority of the key features that we were looking for, and a few really nice ones beside.
The Rebel XT sounds like a really nice choice for semi-professional photography. You might try checking out some of the reviews at CNet.com, if you haven't already. Google is even more useful; try to find out what the people who own the camera are saying, and check out some of their pictures.

It's funny, I had always liked the Canon digital cameras better, largly due to the way they looked. After purposefully discarding any prejudices, and searching through several of the different brands (almost settling on an Olympus), I find myself right back at Canon, just for the specs/features.

On a different note, I discovered that Canon has an SDK (C/C++) for some of its cameras, the PowerShot S2 IS included... this could get interesting.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:32 pm

I'm happy w/ my Minolta A1. The Minolta A2 sounds like what you're looking for. Both cameras can everything you listed except:

Admiral Thrawn wrote:4. ISO!!!!!!!! My digital camera has a max of 400 iso and at that iso, the images are GRAIIIIIINNYY! I needed a camera with a larger iso range, and at the same time, very little grain when using higher iso's.

5. Need something that I can grow with. Which is why I want something with detachable lenses, something with TONS of features that so I can actually learn and develop my skills with.

4. that's the crux of digital photography. Has to do w/ the way CCDs work. Rule of Thumb: leave ISO on AUTO (usually 50-200) or find a cam w/ a good build-in de-noise program (Canons are good, Minolta is ok).

Edit: the A2 has 64-800 ISO

5. Personally I don't like detachable lenses for digi-cams, the CCDs are EXTREMLY sensitive to dirt. The A2 lens covers a wide range tho and you can get add-on lenses.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:32 pm

Thrawn, that's a great starter camera, so is the old D30, D10 etc.
I started with the D30 and now have the 1D for super fast capture 8+ frames per second. I like shooting wildlife, birds of prey etc.
I'm thinking of getting that camera for the convienience factor, it's smaller than my 1D but it uses the same lenses. I'd be more likely to take it on short trips away from the house when I wasn't planning to take any shots but then wish I had it with me.
you can get used lenses on ebay sometimes for decent prices and you can rent them too to figure out what you really want.
Using digital was the only way to learn for me because you get to see the results of what you try as soon as you load the files into the computer instead of waiting to get them back from the lab where your experiments cost too much to keep trying day after day and by the time you get them back you forgot what you were doing...
With digital the exif info is stored in the file so if you tried a different aperature setting or shutter speed it's all there in the info embedded into the file as well as lens and lens setting (if its a zoom) /iso, flash or no flash, etc. etc.

digital=fast learning for less money

DPReview is a great site with some really good photogs hanging about to help too.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri May 27, 2005 5:11 am

Canon 10D or 20D will be one of your best choices. They are full SLR digital camera's. The 20D is newer and is 8MP while the 10D is 6.3MP.

Both are excellent camera's.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri May 27, 2005 11:06 am

When I did photography, a good rule of thumb is to have a higher F-stop for a brighter setting. When I worked with Black and White, I usually had my SLR set at either F10 or a little higher when I was working with subjects under daylight.

Just for the record, film speed is measured in ASA. ASA 100 is good for stills and studio work. ASA 200 and 300 is good for normal 'weekend' photography. ASA 400 is best for action shots, such as sporting events.

ISO is the film sensitivity to light. If you use a high ISO in a bright setting your image will wash out. So go as low as possible. ISO 100 is a good setting to start with.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Fri May 27, 2005 9:11 pm

For all intents and purposes ISO and ASA are the same thing.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri May 27, 2005 10:11 pm

ASA & ISO are the same.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:20 am

yea.. film speed and light sensitivity are the same thing..

did you do any semi-professional photography Tetrad? Grendel?

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:08 am

"semi-professional" ? Definition please.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Sat May 28, 2005 7:16 am

Grendel wrote:"semi-professional" ? Definition please.

For money but not actually owning a business.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Sat May 28, 2005 7:50 am

ISO - The speed or specific light-sensitivity of a camera is rated by ISO numbers such as 100, 400, etc. The higher the number, the more sensitive it is to light. As with film, the higher speeds usually induce more electronic noise so the image gets grainier. ISO is the abbreviation for International Standards Organization. (In the good old days it was known as the "ASA film speed.")

It makes sense when you think of film speed as it's ability to "see the light in the scene". More or less time it will need in order to gather an accurately lighted shot.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 28, 2005 6:44 pm

that's correct AT. I've also used films with a low ASA and high ISO ratings. Subjects I've photographed under a sunset turned out to be quite interesting. If I still had my portfilio, I'd show you some of my best work.

They just lump together the ISO and ASA ratings to make it easier for people to use. You don't exactly have an action scene under low light most of the time.

Also Merlin, semi-professionally can also mean you've gone hardcore with the hobby, own high-end cameras, flash setups, and a studio, but not bother with making money.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Sat May 28, 2005 7:42 pm

Holy crap, I got to play with a Canon Rebel Film camera to see how it feels, focusing the lens, etc... I ABSOLUTELY love it. The fact that I can focus and actually SEE the focus rather than hoping the camera can autofocus is a wonderful plus to me.

I'll have to have a lot of practice during action shots going away or toward me, but other than that, I might be in manual focus all of the time just to make sure I got a clear shot. I just didn't think it was that easy on a film camera, but it's actually a LOT easier than on camera with a viewfinder because you don't actually have to judge the distance by an estimated guess. You can actually SEE the picture clear up during the focus. Can't wait till I get my hands on a digital version of that camera. Most likely in July.

Phantasmagirl · Post by **Phantasmagirl** » Tue May 31, 2005 2:47 pm

You can't go wrong with a Canon DSLR. And really, most of the major brands are making exceptional DSLRs today. I have a Nikon D70 and it's pretty amazing. Just remember, your camera is only going to be as good as whatever lenses you put on it.. so make sure you get high quality fast lenses.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:04 am

Phantasmagirl wrote:You can't go wrong with a Canon DSLR. And really, most of the major brands are making exceptional DSLRs today. I have a Nikon D70 and it's pretty amazing. Just remember, your camera is only going to be as good as whatever lenses you put on it.. so make sure you get high quality fast lenses.

agreed. I swear by SLR's.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:19 am

Well, the lenses that I'm looking to get with this camera are the sigma lenses as long as I still got it in the budget to get them.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:40 am

From what I've heard, Sigma lenses aren' that good. If you own a Canon, stick with Canon lenses and same for NIkon.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:26 am

Well, I've been hearing bad things about the "Kit" lens that come with the camera. Now the actual Canon lenses that are out there are good, but they are expensive! With everything that I want so far, I'm already going to be blowing a $1500 dollar wad for this stuff.

Perhaps after my class and after I get pretty damn good at Photography. Here's an unedited jpeg from my current camera. Kodak 7630 6MP.

http://www.korrupted.net/candyshop/siblings.jpg

On a side note, I've been looking at shots from DPReview and one of the guys has a BEAUTIFUL shot of a hummingbird which looks to be real close, but the guy was actually 20 feet away using the Sigma 50-500mm lens. I've been told to stay away from cameras with THAT much zoom since the two extremes don't have as good of a quality as it would in the middle, but they say that lens is an exception. I looked at the price on Ebay and it comes out to just under a grand from most sellers (Ouch).

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:31 am

i love playb.. err, photography.

bbs.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:12 am

The L series of Canon lenses are expensive but you get what you pay for. The other lenses are good for amateur stuff and can be very good.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:20 pm

I've got the 17-35, the 100-400 and the 28-135.
The 28-135 isn't an L but it's surprisingly good! It's all I had for a while and it's not too expensive.
That pretty much covers it for me although I'd love a good macro lens.
I also have a the two canon teleconverters 1.5X and 2X...

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:52 am

Will, after doing some research, I'm not going to get the Sigma lens that's included in the package. There are some good sigmas out there, but not the ones in the package on Ebay. I have been looking at some of the higher end sigma lenses and some of the Canon lenses with IS built in, which became a strong want after playing with the camera at Best Buy.

Do you know of any good online sites with GREAT prices for Canon EOS system lenses?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:02 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Do you know of any good online sites with GREAT prices for Canon EOS system lenses?

Sorry, lost track of this thread. ebay, but you just have to be patient. Also the DPReview forums or Luminous Landscape has some forums where a lot of pro's and others hang out. You can find some people there will trade or sell off lenses at reasonable prices to get funds to buy the next greatest thing...
Photography gear...It's worse than a crack habit!

If you can find a 70~200 f/2.8L IS used somewhere or even an older one without the IS..that alone would get you through a long way.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:36 pm

I'd like to get myself a nice Digital SLR... one with lots of options, and lots of control. Here's what I'll be looking for:

Detachable lens
Exposure time control, probably at least up to 800
Both auto and manual focus options
Good close-up handling
Handcontrolled optical zoom
Decent battery life
Viewfinder that sees through the lens
At least 6 MP

As far as I can tell, pretty much any SLR camera will do it, but the problem is that they're in a completely different price range as the point and shoot ones. I guess you get what you pay for. I'd go for an SLR, though, if you're going to be playing with photography at all.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:55 pm

Canon 300D (Digital Rebel) is actually not that expensive anymore. Probably around 500$ US now. The lenses are what will cost. it's a 6.3MP and a buddy of mine ahs it and takes wonderful pics.

Do a search for that or the higher priced Canon 10D and 20D.