I need some opinions from photogs

[fiend44444]

I'm looking into getting a new camera pretty soon. More than likely I will purchase a low end DSLR or a highend point and shoot. The main features that I am looking for is at least 10MP, and a camera that I will take pictures as I click the button, not 2 or 3 seconds later. I am thinking about taking a photography class to learn all the extra settings and all that stuff. I know enough about photography to get me into trouble, but really interested in learning more.

[BUBBA]

I always say buy a cheaper DSLR and save your money for the glass (lenses). I think the Canon rebel is a good first SLR to get started with. Believe it or don't the megapixel is not as important as you may think, low ISO is also important. Some of my best landscape shots are from a 4MP point and shoot. But, as you stated, the shutter lag is most annoying.

Just my 2, hope it helps.
Bubba

[Phil96]

You can have a lot of MP's and a crummy lens. I like my Sony Cybershot 12mp had
it for a couple of years. takes good movies. Karl Zeiss lens

[BUBBA]

Originally Posted by Phil96

You can have a lot of MP's and a crummy lens. I like my Sony Cybershot 12mp had
it for a couple of years. takes good movies. Karl Zeiss lens

Best lenses by far.

[slash]

mp are only important in larger print applications. a slr will allow more light and flexibility. if you want to learn about photography and really get into creative picture taking forget the pas and get a low end dslr. I suggest a Nikon D40. It is one of the most advanced entry level camera imo. they can be had used cheap too. Before buying a used one check how many shutter actions is has and check the sensor for clarity. the best way to check the sensor is to take a picture of a bright blue sky, or a bright white papar then when looking at the results see if there is any dust spots in the picture. This can be cleaned, but do not attempt it yourself the first time. best of luck and if you have q's please feel free to ask my

[Projekt]

Nikon DSLR's are the ONLY way to go.

[GPW]

I am looking for tips as well..

[BUBBA]

I am planning on buying another camera today.
Casio Exilim EX-FH20, I will let you know soon how well it performs. I am adding this to the arsenal because my wife wants to start taking pics again (she is the real photographer in the family) and she does not want the DSLR. I want this for the 1000 frames per second video. Should prove interesting and is only 500 clams.
I will try to post some pics Monday from this camera if I can find one to buy.
Bubba

[slash]

Originally Posted by GPW

I am looking for tips as well..

ask away, or ask F=MA, he has some of the best work i have seen on this site...


besides mine...lol

[F=MA]

low end dSLR v. high end point & shoot...In my opinion, there's no debate here. Certainly you can get some good shots from a high end point & shoot if you know what you're doing, but in the end the point & shoot is as good as it's ever going to be straight out of the box. It's like using a claw hammer for every job that arises. Certainly the claw hammer might do an okay job cutting masonry blocks, but an engineer's hammer would do much better. With a dSLR you have to option to swap lenses for one that is more appropriate for the task at hand.

The ability to choose what type of exposure you want is much enhanced with a dSLR. If you take the time to learn how, you'll find there are a number of ways to take a photo of the same subject and achieve a number of different results based solely on what you, the artist, have chosen to use. I don't know if there are any P&S cameras that will allow you to take a twenty or thirty second exposure if the need arises.

Just about all the advice here is correct.

There's no point arguing the Canon v. Nikon debate. That's like the Ford v. Chevy debate. Both build great cameras. Both build great entry-level cameras. Now that Nikon has finally caught up in the world of full frame sensors that limitation is gone. Your best option here is to just go to a local photography equipment retailer and ask to handle entry level dSLR's from both Canon and Nikon. They'll both produce phenomenal images if you know what you're doing.

Phil is right that good lenses are more important than megapixel count. I think a Carl Zeiss lense the size of a dime coupled with a sensor the size of a pencil eraser might be stretching that a bit though.

8 megapixels will give you plenty of resolution for printing 8X10 at 300 pixels per inch (National Geographic type print resolution) You could probably get away with 16x20 and 99% of people who saw your print wouldn't find any issues with it.

Any dSLR is going to take a photo faster than the average P&S. They'll also allow you to take multi-shot bursts if you desire.

It is much easier to get a good photo from a P&S if you are the average person who uses a camera. These cameras are designed to allow 100% of us to think we are at least marginal photographers. Take that same level of skill into the world of dSLR equipment and you might find yourself a little frustrated with the results if you aren't willing to improve.

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions.

[F=MA]

Originally Posted by slash

ask away, or ask F=MA, he has some of the best work i have seen on this site...


besides mine...lol

You're too kind.

[headrash]

My wife works for a camera repair company and says you must do plenty of research before spending the money. Lots of cameras have various problems and you should get the best for your money. I always say-buy nothing but the best and you'll never be dissappointed. thats why I ride a BUSA>

[SnowBeltChamp]

Side note : If your going digital you should look into some photoshop classes as well... its amazing what you can do to pictures these days

[Mr Bogus]

Originally Posted by headrash

My wife works for a camera repair company and says you must do plenty of research before spending the money. Lots of cameras have various problems and you should get the best for your money. I always say-buy nothing but the best and you'll never be dissappointed. thats why I ride a BUSA>

threadjack.... can you see if they can replace the top rotary switch on my D100? hate to toss it out (got banged on bike ride) it is the multi switch on the top left side..

back you your thread..

[slash]

Originally Posted by Mr Bogus

threadjack.... can you see if they can replace the top rotary switch on my D100? hate to toss it out (got banged on bike ride) it is the multi switch on the top left side..

back you your thread..

central camera, chicago. il. best repair dept for older cameras. i go there very often, it is like the mecca. if you want me to take it there for you let me know.

[Projekt]

Originally Posted by F=MA

There's no point arguing the Canon v. Nikon debate. That's like the Ford v. Chevy debate. Both build great cameras.

Wrong... Nikon is the only option for the true enthusiast.

[theskaz]

Originally Posted by Projekt

Wrong... Nikon is the only option for the true enthusiast.

your nuts, chevy is the way to go.

[fiend44444]

OK a few more questions. Are the lenses that I can purchase seperately going to fit either a Nikon or Canon, or do they have their own lenses. Also if I decide to upgrade to a better body later on will the lenses interchange between models of the same brand. I am leaning towards the Nikon D40 or D60 at the moment. Are there any good forums about these cameras that you guys are members of?

[blusmbl]

I have a D50, the precursor to the D40. Absolutely love it, you can't go wrong with any of the major DSLR's. Lenses are manufacturer specific, though.

A nice feature, the vast majority of Nikon lenses will fit on their DSLR's. You may lose some of the metering/af features, but almost all of the lenses will fit on the body and you'll be able to take pictures.

[F=MA]

Originally Posted by fiend44444

OK a few more questions. Are the lenses that I can purchase seperately going to fit either a Nikon or Canon, or do they have their own lenses. Also if I decide to upgrade to a better body later on will the lenses interchange between models of the same brand. I am leaning towards the Nikon D40 or D60 at the moment. Are there any good forums about these cameras that you guys are members of?

Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ

fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom

Those are two of the biggest I'm aware of.

I can't speak for Nikon. Canon lenses may or may not be interchangeable - depending on what you buy. Lenses designed for APS-C or APS-H sensor sizes will not produce acceptable results if someday you decide to make the move into full frame sensors (currently the 5dmkII is the entry level full frame from Canon at ~$2700). On the other hand, lenses capable of producing acceptable images on Canon's full frame models will interchange and perform well with either APS-C or APS-H sensor models (we call them "crop" frame cameras for short).

Nikon is relatively new to the full frame sensor level. Nikon shooters here can advise whether there is a seperate line of lenses for the 700d.

If price is an issue, good lenses are usually a better investment than a more expensive camera body. Never skimp on glass to get the latest whiz-bang feature on a camera.

When you look to purchase lenses, don't fixate only on the focal length (the mm number). That's only part of what the lense does. The second number, the "f-number" is also important.

Focal length breaks down kind of like this for a crop frame camera:

10-17mm extra wide angle, with "fish-eye" effect at the widest end. Be careful taking photos in this focal length range, as it's easy to get your toes in the shot.

18-35mm wide angle...good for landscape shots.

35-50mm...pretty normal, undistorted view similar to what one's eyes see.

50mm-70mm...pretty good range for headshots and up close portrait work. Tends to not "flatten" features on the face as much as wider focal lengths.

70mm-200mm...telephoto range - good for "zooming in" to magnify an object. Compression of distance between objects can be noticed at the long end of this range.

200mm-$$$$$mm...super telephoto, limited only by budget.

But remember, focal length is only part of what is important.

Maximum aperture is another big part..the "f-number" that is published behind the focal length e.g. 700-200 f2.8 . To keep it simple, think of a camera lense as a pipe, and light as water.

Because a photograph is nothing more than a record of light that reflected off an object at a particular point and duration of time, the amount of light a lense will "flow" can at times be a very limiting factor. It's not unlike an exhaust system on a motorcycle...bigger is usually better.

We've all seen the front element of a camera lense...the part we see when someone is taking a picture of us. The part most of us never think about is the back end of the lense...out of sight, out of mind.

Maximum aperture refers to the "opening" (it's not really open, but for simplicity's sake) at the back of the lense, which is smaller than the glass in the front. The more "open" the aperture is capable of achieving, the more light we can "flow" through our "pipe". This allows the shutter to open and close faster, which can help us take more photos that are sharply focused. Alternatively, it can allow us to take photos at lower ISO ratings, which can help reduce or eliminate "noise" (similar to film grain) in our photos.

A large maximum aperture can also help us achieve bokeh...the word for that wonderful out of focus background that really gives our two-dimensional photographs depth. Here are a couple of examples:


Or a little more extreme...



To complicate things a bit, aperture numbers are inversely and exponentially related to the actual size of the "opening" in the back of the lense. f1 would be about maximum, though you won't find many lenses in that regime. f1.2 is about the largest you'll find, though it comes with a very high price. Both Nikon and Canon have a 50mm, non zoom lense, with an aperture of f1.8 . These lenses are very affordable and can produce great results for the money.

f2.8 will "flow" twice as much light at f4. f4 will "flow" twice as much light as f5.6 f5.6 will "flow" twice as much light as f8.

f2.8 will "flow" eight times as much light as f8. What does that do for us? Let's say we have an example subject that will require a 1/15th second shutter speed to capture enough light to make a correct exposure. At that shutter speed, it is highly unlikely even the best photographer out there could get consistently sharp photos without using a tripod. Most of us will end up with a blurry mess. Allowing more light to pass through our lense by opening the aperture up to f2.8 will allow us to get the same exposure level by shortening the amount of time the shutter is open to 1/250th of a second. Even after drinking seven cups of coffee most of us could get consistently sharp photos at 1/250.

There is a trade off here, but that is beyond the scope of this writing. For now, keep in mind that the maximum aperture of a lense makes it more useful, in more conditions. The "second number" behind the more popular focal length range is important also.