|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Wayne
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Huntsville, AL
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: Digital Photography? |
|
|
We have any resident Digital photographers? I have a strong desire (some in my circle would call it a spit fit) to buy a digital SLR (like a Nikon D70 or Canon Digital Rebel XT) and would love some opinions. You can only gauge so much by specs.
Wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
cecilia
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 18
Location: South Park
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm not an expert, but you can get a good camera that has at least 2 to 3 megapixels and get some very nice pics.
I have a Fuji FinePix A200 (which I doubt they make anymore). I get great landscapes with this camera. And if i do it right I can get some very nice Up-close pics (like from 4 inches. I do all my pics of flowers that way).
however, i can't change any lenses. it's not made for any of that.
"pro" cameras will let you use a variety of lenses. that's way out of my price range. "pro" cams also go up to about 8 megapixels. Pro photographers are very critical of their kits, so, if you like I can check my mailing lists for particular models.
my camera also uses the xD memory card (the smallest size made to date. and I mean it's like one inch by one inch or so)
_________________
Political correctness is the language of cowards - Billy Connelly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
metalman
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 26
Location: Laredo, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:38 am Post subject: Re: Digital Photography? |
|
|
| Wayne wrote: | We have any resident Digital photographers? I have a strong desire (some in my circle would call it a spit fit) to buy a digital SLR (like a Nikon D70 or Canon Digital Rebel XT) and would love some opinions. You can only gauge so much by specs.
Wayne |
If you learned to frame your shot using a regular film camera, then a good digital camera coupled with a good optical zoom lens will work great. However if you are going to snap a wide angle shot without any thought of framing, then crop and adjust it later in photoshop, you need the high mega-pixel camera's to compensate for the pixels you throw away when editing.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Vincent
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 20
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've got a Concord 3042 AF camera (I don't think they make them anymore, even though I only bought this brand new last November).
Not had a single problem with it at all. The LCD display on the back is crisp and clear. Battery usage is great aswell, I use the camera every other day and I'm still on the first pair of batteries.
_________________
aka VinAC, VincentAC, Shelob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Karlos
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 22
Location: Manchester UK!
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can any of you reccomend a good digicam for a relative n00b in the world of photography?
_________________
Woo a varchar(255) signature!
A whole 12KB of avatar space to play with too Let the good times roll! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Wayne
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Huntsville, AL
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:53 am Post subject: Re: Digital Photography? |
|
|
| metalman wrote: | | If you learned to frame your shot using a regular film camera, then a good digital camera coupled with a good optical zoom lens will work great. However if you are going to snap a wide angle shot without any thought of framing, then crop and adjust it later in photoshop, you need the high mega-pixel camera's to compensate for the pixels you throw away when editing.. |
Though I apologize if I misunderstand your response, it's not as simple as saying "if you need a high-end digital camera, you must suck". I specifically want a digital SLR (single-lens-reflex) camera because I grew up taking pictures with a SLR (Minolta X-700) and in my mind, the SLR aspect (looking through the lense) is what makes a "real camera". I was, in fact, a great amateur photographer with my Minolta all those years ago and there's simply something about me that misses being out and about to take such pictures.
It really doesn't matter to me if it's 6 megapixels or 106 megapixels. Looking through the body in such a way as to circumvent the lense, or looking at the LCD to frame the shot just isn't the same for me as looking through the lense. I've had both a decent "pocket digital camera" and a great camera (Fuji 602) with an Electronic Viewfinder but it's really not the same to me. I crave a good, digital Single Lens Reflex camera like the Canon XT or the Nikon D70 so that I can get back into photography.
_________________
Remember kids... "Gun control" is being able to hit what you're shooting at... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Malkier
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3
Location: North of Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Karlos wrote: | | Can any of you reccomend a good digicam for a relative n00b in the world of photography? |
The new cameras by Sony are very good imho. I've owned two so far (one got stolen in Kambodja) and I am very happy with my current P93. It has 5.1MP which is what you need to get a good A4-photo. It is very easy to use and you can also record in 640x480 (30fps (or maybe 25.. ?)) if you're using the proper memory. It's got a 3x optical zoom.
I can also recommend the P100 which is basically the same camera but smaller and with a bigger screen - it wont set you back too much. Another camera is the P150 (i belive) which has 7.1MP - I'd like one of those.
//Malkier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Karlos
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 22
Location: Manchester UK!
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@malkier
Cheers, I'll look out for that.
_________________
Woo a varchar(255) signature!
A whole 12KB of avatar space to play with too Let the good times roll! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
metalman
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 26
Location: Laredo, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Digital Photography? |
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
Though I apologize if I misunderstand your response, it's not as simple as saying "if you need a high-end digital camera, you must suck". I specifically want a digital SLR (single-lens-reflex) camera because I grew up taking pictures with a SLR (Minolta X-700) and in my mind, the SLR aspect (looking through the lense) is what makes a "real camera". I was, in fact, a great amateur photographer with my Minolta all those years ago and there's simply something about me that misses being out and about to take such pictures.
It really doesn't matter to me if it's 6 megapixels or 106 megapixels. Looking through the body in such a way as to circumvent the lense, or looking at the LCD to frame the shot just isn't the same for me as looking through the lense. I've had both a decent "pocket digital camera" and a great camera (Fuji 602) with an Electronic Viewfinder but it's really not the same to me. I crave a good, digital Single Lens Reflex camera like the Canon XT or the Nikon D70 so that I can get back into photography. |
I still use a X700 myself. People who learned photography using SLR's don't NEED high end digital camera's to take great photos.
A mid- price range camera with an good optical zoom will take execellent photos. The optical zoom lens and the total pixels saved are whats important comparing digital cameras. Using the digital zoom throws away pixels and should be avoided'
Since you have a X700, scanning film photos gives the highest digital quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
HMetal
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ooh! Great topic to start things off, Wayne.
I've owned a number of digital cameras, from point-and-shoot to digital SLRs. While I've owned cheapie film cameras, I've never done anything in a darkroom, other than electronic/cct-board schematics. I'm quite at home with my digital darkroom -> Photoshop.
My latest body is a Canon EOS 20D, which is a godsend to photography. Before this particular model, I owned a Canon Digital Rebel (AKA "KISS Digital" in Japan, "300D" in the good ol' US of A), a Sony DSC-F707 and my first digital camera; a Fuji Finepix 1400Zoom.
I don't get the comment about someone wanting a high end camera "sucking." If you want to print at any decent sized resolution, you need a hi resolution camera, unless you want to use methods like the 10% increase trick on Photoshop. I guess most pros "suck" since most of them use either Canon 1Ds or 1D MarkII models..
I don't get into those brand debates but I'm pretty sure if you get the Nikon, you'll be quite happy. Me, I would be hard pressed to part with my Canon now since I've amassed quite a kit of Canon "L" glass and a few other lenses of lesser quality.
Have you looked at samples on pBase, Wayne? They have a Camera database page where you can browse by camera/lens. Most of the photos there are done by regular Joes. Try this one for the D70:
PBase Nikon D70 database
Oh, if you want to see Canon Digital Rebel and 20D photos, check out my new photography galleries. This is my site for my photography but also contain separate galleries for my family's snapshots. We all love photography.
_________________
Me, just Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Wayne
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Huntsville, AL
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: Re: Digital Photography? |
|
|
| metalman wrote: | | Since you have a X700, scanning film photos gives the highest digital quality. |
It is with great possibility that I mis-spoke. When I was in high school, some 20 odd years ago, I used to have an X370, then an X700. I went into the Air Force trying to do it professionally and that didn't work out so I kinda sold all that stuff and walked away out of frustration. Wish I hadn't, but that's life.
Now, having recently sold my Fuji S602 -- a great camera, but not an SLR -- to pay the attorney's fees for my divorce, I really would like to get back into photography. Problem is I could never afford the cost of developing prints at the rate I take them. One trip to Texas (to see the World Premier of Freddy vs Jason) alone, I took almost 500 shots.
Early adage that stuck with me when learning photography was "Shoot early, shoot often. You get your best shots when you have hundreds to choose from." Now that the digital camera arena has ALMOST caught up with film, perhaps it's time to give it another try.
Now all I need is the seed money to get the body and basic lense. I think I've decided on a Digital Rebel XT (the 2nd Generation DR) because until I decide that I want to "get serious" or I can start making money off of it like I did in school, anything more would be overkill.
Wayne
_________________
Remember kids... "Gun control" is being able to hit what you're shooting at... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Seer
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
You wouldn't happen to have a website where we can see a few of your photo's ?
I believe Christian of ANN.lu is also into digital photography, maybe it's worth contacting him ?
_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
whabang
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 7
Location: Helsheborch, Schweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I tried the new Epson RD1 digital rangefinder camera at work, and needless to say, it's awesome. Too bad it's expensive as hell. :\ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Wayne
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Huntsville, AL
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seer wrote: | You wouldn't happen to have a website where we can see a few of your photo's ?
I believe Christian of ANN.lu is also into digital photography, maybe it's worth contacting him ? |
No. Sadly I don't. Most of my actual work has been lost in the last 20 years and the few samples that remain are in one of those giant "photo albums" (remember those?) somewhere.
I did just print out about digital 20 pics from the WWE event we attended (front row) a couple of years ago for a friend's 9 year old nephew. Taken with my former Fuji S602, they worked out rather well, but most still have that "digital camera in a dark room" syndrome.
In fact, low light situations are the only place I've found where digital cameras (in general) have a lot of work to do to catch up to old film cameras.
Wayne
_________________
Remember kids... "Gun control" is being able to hit what you're shooting at... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
minator
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Paris
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've got a 10D in 2003. I'd previously had a few 35mm and SLRs (still got a Minolta XD5 here).
I had lost interest in the hobby for a good while as well but I got a camcorder about 5 years ago and found that I was taking loads of pictures with it so eventually decided to get a digital SLR - the reason I wanted an SLR was quality, the lenses are much larger than any pocket camera and it makes the world of difference.
The number of megapixels is irrelevant if the lens is no good. I noticed this very much with the Camcorder which has a fairly good lens. I've seen pictures taken with many more pixels than the camcorder (which is picture mode only has 1 meg) but the camcorder pics came out much better.
It is nothing however compared to the 10D which cost me a small fortune but is worth every penny. I don't have an "L" lens but the picture quality is absolutely astounding (see H Metal's gallery if you don't believe me...).
The second gen Rebel has a similar spec to the 10D except I believe the Rebel has an extra 2 million pixels and a lower price.
| Quote: | | Since you have a X700, scanning film photos gives the highest digital quality. |
I remember readng a post by a 1D (mk 1) owner who said it's got to the stage now that you can no longer tell the difference between digital and drum-scanned transparancies...
When I've compared the 10D prints (printed on a Epson stylus Photo 1290) to the prints I've had from my Minolta the digital is actually considerably better. You used to be able to tell digital photos just by looking at them but not on modern digital SLRs.
--
For capacity I don't know about the Rebel but I assume it still takes CF cards. Capacity goes up to 10+ GB these days in CF format so you're not going to run out of room anytime soon.
The only thing I would say is check the data trasnfer rate of the card, I think I have the slowest CF card ever made...
1GB should be fine for close to 400 pics (max quality JPEGs).
--
My (out of date) Gallery:
http://www.blachford.info/gallery/index.html
And a few more:
http://www.blachford.info/computer/begeistert012/pics1.html
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Apple-ExpoFr04/pics1.html
_________________
If your sister is your aunt and your mother marries your uncle you're your own granpa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
P.M.
Log in