Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Any photo buff's out there? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
2005-12-03 9:54 PM

User image

Expert
893
500100100100252525
Livermore, Ca
Subject: Any photo buff's out there?
Hi all,
I thinking about getting a SLR camera 35mm, digital slr are a little pricey still. But I know nothing about all things I need, lenses. filters.... I plan on shooting mostly outdoor secenes and family events. Does anyone have any recommendations? Thanks


2005-12-03 10:05 PM
in reply to: #298164

User image

Master
1867
10005001001001002525
The real USC, in the ghetto of LA
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
go digital.. worth every penny!

edit: film is so passe!

Edited by tyrant 2005-12-03 10:05 PM
2005-12-04 12:18 AM
in reply to: #298168

Elite
3650
200010005001002525
Laurium, MI
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
how much you planning to spend? I'm a big fan of Canon SLR's. They have mid-level and high end stuff. Some of their high end stuff has changable format bodies. You can load in 35mm, most of the larger formats and a digital pack, so it's pretty flexible.

For lenses, I have a 35-80mm zoom for normal use (50mm will give 1:1 reproduction of what the eye sees) and a 200mm macro zoom lens. I usually carry the 35-80, as it's a heck of alot lighter and deosn't need a tripod for close ups. I have used some lenses with canon's image stability system and it is amazing. It moves the mirror to compensate for vibration. It's expensive tho. I find at 35mm, I get enough panorama with minimal fish-eye effect to make it good for landscapes (or family reunions).

For filters I keep a ND-5 on the lens almost all the time and keep other various grades on hand. Especially for shooting outdoors. It's always a good idea to keep a filter on the lens to protect it, even if it's just a transparent UV filter. I also keep a circular polarizer on hand if I'm outdoors. It would be a good idea to just talk to a guy at a camera store and ask about the different filters. There are a million-bajillion different kinds.

I love digital, but film is so much more alive. Especially when you start to process it yourself. There are things you can control in the dark room that Adobe will never be able to reproduce.

Edited by vortmax 2005-12-04 12:20 AM
2005-12-04 8:43 AM
in reply to: #298164

Champion
8903
500020001000500100100100100
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
I agree on the digital. You'll never go back to film if you haven't tried it yet. Take a look at the Canon Rebel digital SLR...it accepts all the standard Canon lenses. The equivalent in the Nikon is nice too, but I think the Canon is a better value. It's bulky stuff for quick point and shoot, you won't be stuffing it in your cycling jersey pocket and it's really made for the photo nut who likes spending time taking a picture, fiddling with exposure settings, swapping out lenses, etc. I was that person a while back, with my old film-based Nikon. Haven't done it in years. It really needs to be a separate hobby in its own!

2005-12-04 9:11 AM
in reply to: #298207

User image

Master
2136
200010025
A Prairie Home
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
vortmax - 2005-12-04 12:18 AM

I love digital, but film is so much more alive. Especially when you start to process it yourself. There are things you can control in the dark room that Adobe will never be able to reproduce.


I agree. I think it's similar to the debate on CD vs vinyl, or mp3 vr CD audio. Newer technology might be more convenient but the older technology is more real. Slides, large format, 35mm, instant... I love them all. May be I am biase cus' my family used to be in the photograhic product business.
2005-12-04 9:21 AM
in reply to: #298164

User image

Pro
4612
20002000500100
MA
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?

Depends on how serious you are about photography.  I'm no photographer and am perfectly happy with an all auto camera.  I have to say my old film camera gives me better pictures but it has a Leica lense.  It gave me a false impression that I WAS a photographer   

For digital, Sony is good at electronics, so they make tiny camera that looks cool.  But their lenses are not as good.  Panasonic teams up with Leica,  you can get those particular models and take excellent pictures.  Very expensive and the body of the camera does look as "cool".  My photographer friends told me to stay away from Nikkon.  Don't remember why.  I have a Canon A80 I got couple years ago.  Happy with it.  Several friends has different models from Canon.  All happy.   



2005-12-04 9:23 AM
in reply to: #298164

User image

Champion
7704
50002000500100100
Williamston, Michigan
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
I have a Nikon D70 (digital camera of the year 2004)  I totally LOVE IT.  It was worth it with out reservation.  I was really into photography in undergrad.  I got away from it when my film SLR broke and was reduced to a regular digital.  the D70 is totally amazing.  Its great for taking pictures of your freinds in races.  NO DELAY Picture quality is amazing.
2005-12-04 9:29 AM
in reply to: #298207

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
vortmax - I love digital, but film is so much more alive. Especially when you start to process it yourself. There are things you can control in the dark room that Adobe will never be able to reproduce.


Use whatever format (film/digital) you need to get the image that you want.

I spent over twenty five years in the darkroom, but haven't been in one in over five years. Even when I'm looking to make a black and white photograph, I now prefer to shoot in color. Using photoshop post shooting is like having a bazillion filters at your disposal to get just the right tonality.

Couple that with the advance in printers and it's pretty hard to beat shooting digitally. I'd still like to go back to the darkroom to make platinum prints. May take me a while to carve out the time to do that. I also like to work large, so I'm still shooting film for prints that are going to be up to 40X28 inches.

Adobe photoshop is the most amazing program. The possibilites are endless.

Buying a camera system now is a lot like choosing components for your bike. They will all get you a good quality image, but the more you spend the better the quality and the faster you can work.

The biggest line for me is between cameras that use electronic shutters and those that use mechanical shutters. The latter is better. So the higher end canon and nikon cameras all use mechanical shutters. The chips also are larger. All megapixels are not created equal.

Here's a great place to compare cameras. Also, check out robgalbraith.com for reviews on pro level and prosumer cameras.
2005-12-04 10:07 AM
in reply to: #298164

User image

Elite
2863
20005001001001002525
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?

nbo10 - 2005-12-03 9:54 PM Hi all, I thinking about getting a SLR camera 35mm, digital slr are a little pricey still. But I know nothing about all things I need, lenses. filters.... I plan on shooting mostly outdoor secenes and family events. Does anyone have any recommendations? Thanks

Everyone had some great advice.  Let me just add a few things. 

First of all, I too recomend going Digital.  For several reasons, some stated above.

If you buy a digital SLR keep in mind that the consumer level cameras have a "Crop Factor" of 1.6x, which means that if you get a camera with a 50mm lens it will actually have the effect of a 80mm lens because the CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35m format.  On higher end pro cameras the CMOS chip is the same size as a 35mm so there is no "crop factor".  I had to spend mega bucks on a 24mm wide-angle to get a 35mm lens view, which is w.y.s.i.w.y.g. (what you see is what you get).  This might all be confusing, sorry. 

Keep in mind the size and weight of a digital slr.  You can't stuff them in a purse or pocket.

Batteries and Memory:  Plan on buying extra.  Didgital SLR batteries are pricey ($40-$80).

If you just plan on taking travel photos or family portraits and don't plan on getting carried away with D.O.F. (depth of field) or need crazy exposure settings, then a pocket sized point-and-shoot might do the trick.  A lot of the newer high mega-pixel cameras out today are amazingly small and can fit in a pocket and go anywhere.  They also have identical image quality as most digital slr's.  What you lose is the lens options and some adjustablities.  But most effects such as D.O.F., exposure, etc can be done in Photoshop.

Before you drop $$$ try out both point-and-shoot and SLR.  But deffinately you must go digital.

2005-12-05 8:11 AM
in reply to: #298164

User image

Extreme Veteran
527
50025
Jacksonville, FL
Subject: RE: Any photo buff's out there?
I just purchased a Nikon D50 digital slr & am very pleased and surprised with the features. Aware of the "crop factor" I really am not the discriminating pro so that doesn't bother me. What I do like is the versatility of various lenses along with the conveniences of digital format.  One of the great features is the ability to adjust on the fly & shoot at high ISO setting...this was frustrating with normal digital camera; if you shoot often in low light the pic was always blurry & need  a tripod. Anyway, I'm still learning the D50 but so far, am real pleased. HTH
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Any photo buff's out there? Rss Feed