Author |
Message |
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 5:41 pm
Ive done my camera body research, and I have my heart set on the Nikon D80, over any Canons or Pentax. If there was a second place, I would have looked at the Canon Rebel XTi, but from what I read, people are giving that added edge to the Nikon. I have also read that Nikon bodies work with more 3rd party lenses, than do the Canon. So I figure if I get a good enough body, than I can always upgrade the lenses, once I know what I'm talking about. The more I read, the more I don't know WHAT I'm going to do. I'm a big time cautious buyer, and I look up the scams and the sellers and stuff before I'm going to part with that much money. So I won't make any hasty decisions. It's too big an investment.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 8:09 am
Although I have all Canon equipment I will quite happily say that you are making a fine choice with Nikon. I would say that Nikon's lower priced bodies are as good or better than Canon's and Nikon makes a fine camera system. I'd be surprised if there are more third party lenses available for the Nikons (probably about the same for each) but that is neither here nor there. LOL – Just a note that some people (not me) become very attached and personally invested in their purchase choices. You can start an endless argument among some people on photography boards by asking which brand is better. Ultimately, the most important thing is the skill of the photographer. The camera doesn't walk around and take pictures by itself (though some people who spend thousands of dollars almost seem to think it will).
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 2:49 pm
I agree wholeheartedly, Jimmer. I look up some canon s nikon, or sigma vs tamron stuff online, and those people on the boards can sometimes be really uh...PASSIONATE with their opinions. I have to say, Canon has really nice color in their point and shoots. My girlfriend went to Mexico with her family, and lots of the shots she took were beautiful and very colorful and sharp. I asked her what camera she was using, and she said they had JUST bought the Nikon D40 before they left on the trip, and figured out the basics while they were down there, but the pics were all mostly auto-settings. Those auto-settings were gorgeous. Disgusting. Somehow I manage to screw up auto-settings. LOL I think that with SLR cameras, majority of people stat out with one brand, and tend to stay loyal. Maybe because of similarity in settings, or because of transferability of equipment. But many people seem to be loyal to whatever they have started with.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 8:31 pm
Jimmer....I'm trying to find a quick and easy place that tells me what millimeters match up with what I'm shooting. I know the smaller the millimeters, the wider the shot, like landscapes. The higher the MM, the closer. But I just want to know what things are GENERALLY taken at what distance. For example: Cityscapes or buildings - is 28 mm OK? Or do I need to get down to 10mm? I'm talking for the average photographer. People - me in front of a sign,my boyfriend and I at a party - what MM is that? 50? 80? Again, I'm not assuming this is ALWAYS the case, but in general, everyday photos, pics of friends at a party would be...? Sports - I'm on the sidelines, and would like to at least get half way across the field, to have the rugby scrum be most of the shot - is 300mm enough? At 10 megapixels, I know I can still crop and get a good photo. But for the most part, can I get a good shot of my bf playing rugby at 300 distance? I have been hunting the internet for some kind of approximate chart, but can't find anything. Like a cheat chart. Also, a fixed 50 mm lens. What is that good for? Are you not able to focus? Why do people use fixed lenses? Thanks in advance, Jimmmer. :-)
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 9:52 pm
I think you've got all of those about right. One thing to keep in mind is something in digital cameras called a multiplier effect, which is caused by the sensor not covering the full frame. Most of the Nikon SLR cameras have a 1.5 multiplier. So at 28 mm it acts like a 42 mm. At 135 mm it acts like a 202 mm. It's confusing but trust me on this one. It is always multiplied by 1.5 times. The above is great for anyone who wants to do telephoto shots (like sports or birds etc.) but it is not so good for someone who wants to do wide angle landscapes. Still, most people just live with it and while you can't get really wide angle with a 28 mm it isn't all that bad. A 50 mm lens isn't fixed in the sense of fixed focus. It focuses to all different focal distances. What it can't do is zoom. LOL – So you have to zoom with your feet (i.e. walk closer to your subject if you want it bigger in the frame). There are a number of things that make lenses expensive. Wider aperture lenses (sometimes referred to as fast lenses) are more expensive because they gather more light. The more extreme the length of the lens (either very wide angle or very telephoto), the more expensive. Great build quality is more expensive. Great well designed glass in the lens makes it more expensive. Finally, zoom lenses are more expensive than fixed length lenses. Put those things all together in one lens and you have a pro lens. The 50 mm lens is the easiest lens for a manufacturer to make. It is not extreme in any sense. So you can get a great quality lens optically at a very cheap price. And that is why some people like them.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:14 pm
Thanks so much Jimmer. I read a great beginner's site, that explained lenses from a zoom/aperture/features angle, but most sites don't really *prescribe* specific lenses for types of photos. My problem when I am buying something technical that I am not comfortable or familiar with, is that I tend to OVERCOMPENSATE by buying super great things. Like, I bought a computer with waaaay more speed or RAM than I would ever need to surf the internet, under the idea that I would be getting a BAD computer if I got something lesser. I read one site where a guy was saying that his Nikon, combined with his Nikon 18-200VR lens was all that he needed, because of the large range, and the VR. He said he rarely changed lenses once he bought that lens. It makes sense to me. But then I read this OTHER site that started explaining aperture, and how it's better to have a lower f-stop number because lenses are only limited at the lower end of that scale, but can be as high an f-stop as you want. So then I started looking for VR lenses that had like....1.6 for an f-stop. I found they don't exist. But part of me wonders if learning more is making me TOO picky for my own talent level. Honestly, I am just trying to balance price, with what my true needs are. I think I'm trying too hard to get overly-good gear, that I won't personally see the benefits from. Is the Nikon 1.5 stuff what others refer to at the SLR crop factor? How SLRs don't have as large of sensors as film SLRs....?
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Friday, October 26, 2007 - 5:36 am
Yep that is the SLR crop factor. The sensor in many digital SLRs is smaller than 35 mm so it doesn't cover the whole frame and you get the crop factor. You don't have to worry about it when taking the picture though. What you see through the viewfinder is still what you get – it's just that everything looks closer than it would with the same lens on a camera with a full frame sensor. They do make SLRs with full frame sensors as well but they are very expensive. And, even the so called cropped sensor on the SLRs is much much bigger than the sensor on point and shoots which is one reason why the image looks better and you get a cleaner image with the SLR. Even the pro zoom lenses only open as wide as f 2.8. Usually with the pro lenses the wide aperture is constant throughout the entire zoom range whereas the consumer lenses "cheat" by reducing the aperture at longer focal lengths. That's when you see lenses labeled 3.5 – 5.6. It is all compromise of course. You are always giving something up in return for something else. Better optics = more $ Big zoom range = not as good optics Wider aperture and faster lens = more $ Better build = more $ Better build, better optics, faster lens = bigger and heavier More extreme ranges = more $ Name brand lens = usually better but more $
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Friday, October 26, 2007 - 8:02 am
One other thing to consider is that they make some special lenses for the crop cameras. They can make these lenses lighter and for less money and still retain fairly good optical quality. The reason for that is that because the sensor is smaller, they can just concentrate their efforts on making glass that only covers the smaller sensor area. The downside of these lenses is they usually aren't at the same quality level as the pro lenses (not for Canon anyway – though I think Nikon's are better in that respect than Canons because up until recently Nikon only offered cropped sensor SLRs). The other big big downside is these lenses will never work on a camera with a full sized sensor. So if the sensors keep getting cheaper and eventually all cameras use full size sensors, these lenses will not work on the new full size sensor cameras (they currently don't work on film SLRs for that matter). The full size lenses will work on both crop and full frame cameras. Of course, that is a trade-off so you have to decide how important that is to you.
|
Karen
Member
09-07-2004
| Monday, November 05, 2007 - 12:19 pm
New question: I dusted off an old box of photos I've been holding onto for years. Turns out I don't have nearly as many pictures as I thought, but damn, was I good about keeping ALL the negatives. So now I have 10+ years of pictures, on 35mm negatives, that I'd like to scan onto my computer. Any recommendations on a simple DIY scanner? Inexpensive would be nice, but I can afford to pay a bit. TIA for any info.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, November 05, 2007 - 1:09 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "DIY"? I laughed when you said that you "dusted off" a box of old photos. If you are scanning 35mm negs, get used to the idea of dusting them off! You can get spectacular scans from 35 mm negatives if you use a good scanner. Let me tell you though that while you can get wonderful results it is not for the faint of heart. There are dedicated film scanners and flatbeds that will scan film. The dedicated film scanners used to be significantly better but the flatbeds are getting pretty good. Maybe try one of the Epsons? Epson Scanners
|
Landileigh
Member
07-29-2002
| Monday, November 05, 2007 - 1:37 pm
DIY = Do It Yourself
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, November 05, 2007 - 1:45 pm
Thanks. LOL - I thought it was some kind of scanner that I hadn't heard of somehow.
|
Karen
Member
09-07-2004
| Monday, November 05, 2007 - 3:51 pm
Thanks, Jimmer... I have a flatbed scanner already, though when I tried to scan my negs, all I ended up with was a scan of a negative, LOL. Mind you, I never did install the software that came with the printer - I just use PS to do a twain import when I need to scan something. I wonder if it has film scanning settings in there somewhere, if I actually use the software. Doubt it, as it's an HP... I'll take a look, thanks!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, November 05, 2007 - 4:41 pm
You have to scan negatives in a special way. Unless your flatbed scanner has a specific device for doing it, all you will get is something that looks like your negative.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:52 am
Question: My new camera has arrived. I have a Nikon D80, and a Nikon 18-135 lens, and a Nikon 70-300 lens. So now I'm doing some research on filters. Most stuff is easy to understand, and it seems a lot of personal opinion is involved in what should be on your camera at all times. I know the difference btwn polarizing and UV filters, etc. Here is my question; if the front of the lens is 67mm, but slots of people complain about vignetting at wide-angles, how do you get a "bigger" filter on your lens?? I see a lot of people in forums saying stuff like "put a 72mm on your 67 if you experience vignetting". But if it screws onto the front, how would a 72mm fit? Is there something I am missing here? To be honest, I am interested in getting something to just protect the front of my two lenses, but I honestly don't like the look of the UV filter, and I am afraid of losing light with a polarizing filter. Any suggestions? I see many of the articles saying in the mountains and by the sea are two areas where the UV filter is good. I am in Vancouver, so....it seems like it is a good thing. I personally prefer bluer pictures than pinker pictures (from UV and skylight filters I've seen). So I'm pretty torn as to what to do for protection and filtering. I think I will definitely get a circular polarizing filter closer to summer, when we have sunlight again, but it's so grey and cloudy all the time through the winter months, that it doesn't seem like it's all that necessary right now. My main desire is protection, for the moment. Any suggestions or ideas would be helpful.....
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 7:06 am
LOL good question! What you are missing are the "step up rings". I'm not sure why people would recommend putting an oversized filter on a lens to avoid vignetting. The reason I'm not sure is that you would have to do it using step up rings. Most people use step up rings so that they can use the same filter on different sized lenses, but in this situation I would think that the step up rings would cause the same sort of vignetting as the correctly sized filter would in the first place (assuming that it even causes vignetting in the first place). As far as UV or haze filters, people just use them to protect their lens. I can't see that they make much of a difference in the resulting image. You can get into another one of those favorite debates on photography sites as to whether this is a good idea or not. Obviously, if you put a filter between the lens and your subject, it increases the likelihood that your image won't be as clear. I use them but if you decide to use one, make sure that it is high quality. I wouldn't leave a polarizing filter on a lens full time, though they can be great in certain situations. We're a little spoiled now though with digital photography in that we can do so much in the post-processing that people are not using filters nearly as often as they used to use them. ----------------------------------------------- I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun with that camera! One thing you haven't mentioned is have you bought a good external flash that will allow you to bounce the flash? Having a good external flash will make a huge difference to your photography.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:19 pm
I haven't gotten a GOOD external flash, but the kit cam with a flash that also included this long piece that connects to the slave flash bracket, and then the external flash connects to it, and you can slide the flash up to about 6 inches away from the camera's second bracket, and turn it however you want. But, the flash itself doesn't have a tilt to it, so I'll probably get a REAL flash or mention I want one for Xmas. Probably just go with the Nikon SB600. Seems like a good entry level external flash. I kinda want a remote too. LOL That's just the kid in me though. I'm crazy about researching gear before buying, and I go on sites and compare the big name brands and then decide which features people mention that are more likely to fit with me. For example, some people prefer the multi-coat Hoya lenses, but others say they are harder to keep clean, and easier to damage that the single coat brass-ringed B+W lenses. I think that is more my style. I really liked the lens guide the B+W put out on their website, and I'm looking at getting their UV 010 lens, just to protect my lenses. I'll fully admit that I am careless, and I will be trucking my new camera to rugby games and don't think I am immune to accidents. So a good little protective filter will probably help me in my situation. Other photographers who have a more "trained eye" might be able to spot differences when there is another layer of glass, but I know I can't. Plus, they probably work in an environment where their lenses are more protected, and their actions are more routine and controlled, like a studio. I'm interested to see a circular polarizing filter in action, based on the description that you can "turn it" to get graduated levels of filtration. I think this sounds good, because I look at those "comparison pictures" and I don't like water that looks TOTALLY flat black. I'd rather see a few of the waves, and I think the polarizer takes that away. But I am still researching polarizing lenses, because I don't quite understand the "angles" they talk about. You have to stand at a 90 degree angle from the sun? Huh? *** On a different note, I have a few girls I know from varying social circles (work, school, outside friends, etc.) and I am trying to get us together once a month. We pick a single location, and then get together and take pictures with each other. Kinda like a photo study group? Then we could always compare each other's shots, and different creative vision, for new ideas, etc. Once exams are over for a couple of us, not to mention the Xmas holidays, we will start that up. So far everyone I've asked has been pretty interested. :-)
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:50 pm
I use B+W filters on all my lenses. It's a good idea to have a filter on the lens if you get into any sort of messy situation as you are cleaning the filter and not the lens (messy situations including fingerprints and wedding cake!). I wouldn't worry to much about how to use a polarizing filter. It's one of the big advantages of SLRs that you see through the lens. Once you put the filter on the lens you can experiment and see what it is doing. What it can do with clouds and water is truly amazing. I like your idea of getting together with friends. It's like you are setting up your own little photography club. I don't want to sound cynical but I'm not a huge fan of photography clubs in that they sometimes get very cliquish and the critiques for new members can be quite unfair and frustrating at times. What you are doing sounds like fun. The other suggestion that I have is just walk around and look at things. Sounds silly but look at the light. Look at the light on people's faces and in their eyes (LOL - just don't get arrested or end up with a date). Look at pros pictures including advertising. Some advertising shots are awesome. Oh and some of the lighting and cinematography in movies is just stunning. I don't know if you've watched the new King Kong movie for example, but if you have it (or something similar) just freeze the frames occasionally and look at how they photographed and lighted it. These guys know their stuff!
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 3:42 pm
Yeah, I'm pretty afraid of photography people, for the most part. I have one friend who likes taking photos, and plays around on her own, and has taken one basic photo course from a photography school, but that's it. She has a lot of artistic vision. My second friend just got the same camera, took a university photo course, but is still pretty green. My good friend's girlfriend is a fairly decent photographer and is thinking of going into business, but isn't quite there yet; I think she might like it because it will help her with any rustiness, and it won't feel like too much pressure for her, but more like practice. The thing I like about getting these girls with different abilities together, is that we are all good and bad in some ways, and we might be able to learn from each other in a non-threatening sort of way. And I fantasize about being at a location, and maybe ME wanting to set up a shot, but having trouble getting it, and another person can come over and help out, and vice versa. Just a lot of collaboration and helping each other, but each of us doing our "own" creative shots. When you have a group of friends working with each other, there is more respect for a person's ability level (or lack thereof). Nobody will be harsh on me because I don't know how to work with depth of field, or I won't be a burden on others because I am asking about it. Especially in these elementary stages. Also, I think for the girls who DO know a bit more about basic photography, it will give them a chance to solidify what they already know, and maybe give them confidence that they can be helpful. An all-around good situation. Judging from the discussions of the internet photo enthusiasts out there, there really is a lot of division on various issues, and people seem very set in their ways. If you aren't a Canon lover, they look down on you, or they mock your inability to spend 200 dollars on a single filter or something. A lot of scoffing at other people's choices within the hobby. I don't mind. It's one of the more passionate hobbies and all of the arguments in various forums tell me a lot of information I can use to make educated guesses about what I want to buy to add to my equipment. I downloaded a TON of photography PDF e-books a while ago (thanks God, because Demonoid shut down, and it was an amazing torrent source for educational material). I am reading in-depth about composition, exposure, etc. The composition books are most interesting, because exposure and lighting are changeable, but if you don't have an interesting shot in the first place, it isn't a nice picture. Ideally, I'd love to take some great sports pictures. I love going and watching my boyfriend play rugby, so it would be nice to get some more professional looking shots of him. Is there somewhere to find how millimeter zoom translates into optical zoom? Point and shoot cameras talk in terms of "3X optical zoom", but what is the equivalent of that in SLR millimeters? 18 to 64mm? I often wish my point and shoot would zoom more, but now that I have my SLR, I am hoping 300 mm is enough zoom to get up close, despite being on the sidelines. Oh, one more question. When shooting in cloudy grassy areas, should you still use the UV filter? Any other type or recommendation?
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 4:56 pm
UV or Haze filters don't do much of anything that I can ever see. Maybe if you compared two shots side by side you might see a difference. Just leave it on all the time. It's mostly just lens protection. 300 mm with your camera should be a great zoom. The only question is whether or not you can hold it steady enough to get good shots. What is the widest aperture on that lens? And shoot using a higher ISO. The zoom ratio is just the longest length divided by the shortest length. So a 70-210 zoom would be a three times zoom. The zoom ratio is just how much the lens zooms from wide to long. For example, a 300mm fixed length lens has no zoom at all but it has a lot of magnification. A lot of great portrait, and photojournalism style photography and sports photography involves anticipation. A good sports photographer can sense how the play is progressing and anticipate the shots. Same thing with a pro wedding photographer. He can sense a good picture coming and unobtrusively gets into position and gets set to take it before it happens. It's seeing the flower girl heading over to the bride to chat or seeing the bride having a quiet conversation with her Dad. So much of photography is just seeing things.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:57 pm
I wish there was a site where they had activities set up, to progress through learning photography. Like, lessons on aperture, or lessons on lighting. It's one thing to learn the theory, but it's a whole different thing to try to figure it out on your camera. I know what I WANT to try on my camera, but I have NO CLUE how to do it on my camera. 
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 11:01 pm
PS - My lenses are: AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G I know that the 3.5-5.6 aren't the fastest of speeds. But it's what I could afford, and still get the zooms and wide angles that I wanted. I think good enough for entry level, and learning it.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 1:17 pm
I found this site, and I have to say, if you follow it through, you learn a lot more than just the repetitive basics that are on every other site. I like the part on choosing a lens. I recommend it for anyone who has (or is considering) an SLR camera. http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/index.html
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 1:48 pm
New question: Here is a quote from a photo post - I boosted my ISO setting to 800 to make the sensor absorb a lot of light, and made sure that my shutter speed (1/40th of a second) was faster than the focal length of my lens (30mm) so that the photo didn't turn out completely blurry. What is this speed relationship between shutter speed and focal length? Is there some kind of rule type thing I should know about? I have been reading a lot, but never heard anything put quite like that, so I don't know what this shutter speed/focal length relationship is....can you possibly explain, or tell me terms to Google, to find places that talk about these relationships?
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 2:23 pm
As a general rule, to avoid camera shake, which becomes more of a problem the more telephoto the lens, you should at least use a shutter speed that is about the reciprocal of the lens length. So if you are shooting with a lens that is zoomed to 200mm you should use a shutter speed of at least 1/200 of second to avoid camera shake. If you are shooting with a lens at 60mm you could use 1/60 of a second. Remember though that your sensor (on the Nikon SLR you have) makes the magnification larger, so you have to do the 1.5 times the lens length first. All of the above is just a rough suggestion. With good camera holding technique and/or a vibration reduction lens or camera, you can use slower shutter speeds.
|
|