Hi Friends,
Almost all my life I've wanted a camera that I could actually control. The childhood birthday and Santa list always resulted in point and shoot cameras. And I always managed to wear them out fairly quickly. Anyway, I'm finally making my dream come true, before it's too late.
Really the dream has always been for what I've recently learned is now called full frame (the old 35mm). I know it will be a huge learning curve, so I don't think I'm kidding myself about that part. But so far, I haven't found an entry level full frame type of dslr. So I'm hoping some of you might be able to give me some tips and guidance about how to jump in, as far as the basic equipment. I expect I'll be using the new camera both indoors and outdoors.
I'm really not a "craig's list" type of shopper. If it was a friend, who had a used camera for sale, I might go for that, if it was the right camera for me. So I think I'm basically looking at brand new, unless you all might know of some other reliable resource for a used full frame dslr. The problem with going new, is the price tag -- omg, right?!
So anyway, if anyone has any tips for a nice, very basic dslr for a beginner, which unless I just get crazy into photography, will probably also be the last camera I buy, I would certainly appreciate hearing any comments. I actually don't quite understand how a still camera can also be a video or movie camera, but it looks like it might actually be hard to find a dslr that's just for stills. Anyway, I have no need for video, if that would affect the price of the camera not to have video.
And still under the topic of equipment, it looks like you can buy just the camera, and then get a lens separately, or I see a lot of "kits" which look like camera plus lens. Is buying them separately any cheaper than buying a kit? Is there any advantage of buying them separately, other than price?
One spec that I haven't found explained yet, is the mm description of the lens. It might be 18 - 140 mm or 50 - 300, or something like that. What is that a measure of? I guess the wider the range of mm, the better, or more versatile the lens. But I'm not sure how important that is. I've been reading a lot in Wikipedia, and this and several other websites, to learn the basics. But just haven't come across that info yet. Could someone point me in the right direction for that info? Or maybe it's not really important? I realize how marketing and advertising often provide useless info about products, especially electronics, to try and sell the product.
And I probably have some more questions which are not about equipment. I guess I'll ask them somewhere else....maybe I'll post an introduction (since I'm not sure how strict this forum is about on/off topic).
Anyway, thanks for any comments or suggestions for dslr equipment for a beginner.
All best :)
Hi Brynn, and welcome to CC. You finally managed to get over here then. :tup:
Do you have a budget in mind for your camera, and lens? Bare in mind that entering into the world of DSLR doesn't normally stop at buying a Body and lens, you'll probably want more than one lens, and a pile of accessories to go with it.
At first I was thinking an upper limit of $1000. But so far, I haven't found a full frame for anything close to that. So the budget is the cheapest one I can find, that has all the basic controls. Then watch the internet and local store ads for a good sale
I know I'll have to get a...I forget, some kind of little thing....maybe called a card reader? Or whatever I need to get the photos onto my computer. Maybe a simple cleaning kit and/or case/cover.
I'm still not clear about lenses. I understand wide angle or zoom, but not so sure about others. Just to start, I think I'll be fine with just 1 lens.
Of course, I don't want to walk into the electronics store without having done a good deal of research!
Welcome to CameraCraniums. We are very easy here and will answer any questions we are asked, even if other sites consider them off topic. I'm a Nikon man myself whilst others are in the Canon camp. Why are you looking at full frame? The crop cameras produce just as good images as full frame and the lenses for them are cheaper. If you want full frame then look at secondhand. A Nikon D3 will cost around £1,800 whilst D600 or D700 will cost around £1,300 or less. A mm is the focal length of the lens, so for example a 600mm lens will produce a image twice as big as a 300mm from the same distance. See this: http://johnlind.tripod.com/science/scienceframe.html for more information. :tup:
Thanks Oldboy :)
Yes, that looks like a very informative site. Thanks for sharing!
Hi Brynn, and welcome.
I think that most of us would like to have a full frame DSLR, but as you are discovering they are very expensive, even used. Fortunately for those of us who are more financially constrained the modern slightly smaller APS sensor cameras are very good now. Myself and Simon are two manufacturer outliers here - we have Pentax cameras, in my case because of weatherproofing, ruggedness, and 'bangs for your buck'. Abers, who is one of our most experienced and not to put to fine a point on it excellent members, hardly uses a DSLR at all - he prefers his Sony hybrid camera.
So while you are looking around for an interchangeable lens camera, don forget to check out the hybrids from especially Sony and Panasonic. They key things to take away from this are that the camera is just a tool for collecting light, and that nowadays there aren't really any bad choices.
As Jinky said on the other thread the limiting item in a setup is usually the lenses. But good quality prime lenses do not have to be that expensive. The various sizes of sensors need different focal lengths - for example a 50mm full frame lens has the same field of view as a 35mm lens on an APC camera. One of my neighbours is a frequently published (here in France at least) wildlife photographer. He eschews full frame for Canon APS because of the multiplier effect of the smaller sensor on his long lenses (now those ARE expensive!)
The other thing, as mentioned by others, is that you will need your digital 'darkroom', or library and editing software. The clear market leader is Adobe with their Photoshop products. Elements is an excellent first choice as it includes library functions and guided editing while you learn. The industry standard library management software is another Adobe product, Lightroom. Most of use here use that.
Going up a notch in editing sophistication from Elements, although not ease of use, is Serif's Photoplus which is brilliant for monochrome work especially, and the big daddy is Photoshop CC which only available on monthly subscription. My advice would be to start with Elements. You may very well find it is the only digital darkroom and library manager you'll ever need.
I'm sure that whatever you decide upon you are going to have a wonderful time learning and creating images. :tup:
Hi Brynn,
It seems H and I are in very close agreement. I got a new PC a couple of years back which came with Elements 9, and I find it very good indeed for cataloguing photos so I can find them again, and for doing all the editing I'll ever want. I expect the latest version will be even better. (But I have to say Adobe have a special offer 30% off on Lightroom, only till 9th January - and I am tempted to try it.)
And I bought my Pentax K10D about seven years back and am still very pleased with it (though now enviously eyeing up their new K3). Its kit lens was really very good for the price but I've since added a decent telephoto lens (50mm to 300mm zoom) and polariser and ND filters. I like the ruggedness and weatherproofing, and the way all the controls are laid out. It is APS-C sized and so quite a bit lighter and less bulky than full frame, but still too much to carry all the time so I also have a decent compact camera which I'm never without.
You might look at the current Pentax K50, but you MUST "play" with one in a shop, and compare it with APS-C DSLRS from the likes of Sony, Nikon and Canon. You might find them slightly less weight - they might fit your fingers better and so on. And then re-try the Pentax. Do not buy without trying!
I'm told it is so cheap to add video capability to current camera designs that it really costs nothing. So the manufacturers do so even though they know only a few people will use it.
Good Luck.
Simon
I'm always a little loathe to give equipment advice since if it is taken there's always the chance it could come back and bite you. No matter how many gizmos and assorted bells and whistles any camera has unless you can first take a well composed, well exposed sharpish imagee you could be wasting large amounts of cash and end up with a bit of a white elephant.
If it's possible join a club, learn the basics, get some second hand equipment, practise and learn, just like taking up golf you won't become a scratch player overnight.
I've been down the road of bulky DSLR' s,lugging all the equipment around becomes a bit of a chore , have a look at the smaller cameras that have have an interchangeable lens
facility before you make any decisions.
The Sony NEX range is well worth a look.
Good luck with your endeavours :tup:
See this for more advice. http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/canon-and-nikon-vs-everyone-else-buying-your-first-dslr--photo-12291 :tup:
Oh wow, thanks for all that info! A few questions:
Quote from: Hinfrance on December 23, 2013, 11:21:03 AM
Hi Brynn, and welcome.
I think that most of us would like to have a full frame DSLR, but as you are discovering they are very expensive, even used. Fortunately for those of us who are more financially constrained the modern slightly smaller APS sensor cameras are very good now. Myself and Simon are two manufacturer outliers here - we have Pentax cameras, in my case because of weatherproofing, ruggedness, and 'bangs for your buck'. Abers, who is one of our most experienced and not to put to fine a point on it excellent members, hardly uses a DSLR at all - he prefers his Sony hybrid camera.
So while you are looking around for an interchangeable lens camera, don forget to check out the hybrids from especially Sony and Panasonic. They key things to take away from this are that the camera is just a tool for collecting light, and that nowadays there aren't really any bad choices.
As Jinky said on the other thread the limiting item in a setup is usually the lenses. But good quality prime lenses do not have to be that expensive. The various sizes of sensors need different focal lengths - for example a 50mm full frame lens has the same field of view as a 35mm lens on an APC camera. One of my neighbours is a frequently published (here in France at least) wildlife photographer. He eschews full frame for Canon APS because of the multiplier effect of the smaller sensor on his long lenses (now those ARE expensive!)
What's a hybrid camera?
I'm still a little confused with all the terminology. APS and APC are the same thing? I've seen it written APS-C, I think? "Field of view" means what? The size of the original photo? Or what you see through viewfinder? Do you mean to say that even professional photographers don't necessarily use full frame cameras?
When you said your neighbor uses "...full frame for Canon APS..." do you mean he has a certain kind of lens on an APS camera, which gives the same size of photo as a full frame camera?
And some of you have mentioned various kinds of software. Do photographers on the slr level often take photos that they know they will need to edit? I've had the impression, all this time I've been wanting a slr camera, that the real challenge is to take an original photo that doesn't need editing. And since, with a digital camera, you can see the photo before you decide to keep it, can't you just keep trying until you get all the settings correct? Of course I realize in some cases the subject is fleeting, but I wouldn't be trying that until I have more experience.
I'm somewhat familiar with computer graphics. I use the vector editor Inkscape on a regular basis (just opened a new forum actually). And I'm a little familiar with The GIMP, and a few other raster editors. But I've never used them to actually edit a photo. I'm more familiar with their features for artistic purposes.....I guess I mean for drawing graphics, since photography is an art as well. So it will be a new experience to use GIMP to actually edit a photo that I take!
I'm not clear why you would need software for cataloging photos. Can't a regular file manager handle that? I don't expect I'll ever be a professional photographer, so there won't be thousands of files.
QuoteI'm always a little loathe to give equipment advice since if it is taken there's always the chance it could come back and bite you.
Don't worry. I never take advice, unless I'm prepared for the consequences. I will study all the info I'm given, and all that I can find, and make my own decision ;)
Thanks again for all your comments. They have been very helpful!
Re catalogues: I worked for years by using quite descriptive file names, but a catalogue is so much easier. You can add any keywords (one or several) you like to your photo files then easily find them later.
for example if you have a People keyword and a sub-key John, and another keyword Trees, you can later find all the photos which ahve John in, or just those with John and a tree. and so on....
Quote from: brynn on December 23, 2013, 11:34:16 PM
Oh wow, thanks for all that info! A few questions:
And some of you have mentioned various kinds of software. Do photographers on the slr level often take photos that they know they will need to edit? I've had the impression, all this time I've been wanting a slr camera, that the real challenge is to take an original photo that doesn't need editing. And since, with a digital camera, you can see the photo before you decide to keep it, can't you just keep trying until you get all the settings correct? Of course I realize in some cases the subject is fleeting, but I wouldn't be trying that until I have more experience.
It all depends what sort of photography you want to get into. There are those that are content with 'getting it right in the camera' and in fact set themselves the task of doing so, that's their take on photography. However, you will find that most, if not nearly all, serious photographers tweak their images to put right those things that are nigh on impossible to achieve in camera. Details in the shadows and highlights in a particularly contrasty scene, the ability to remove objects or tone down unnecessarily intrusive backgrounds and most of all give the image you've taken a bit of Oomph or conversely an air of peaceful quiet and tranquility are just some of the many and varied opportunities that post production gives you.
For me that's the most exciting and satisfying part of producing an image that I and hopefully others will think is worth looking at.
Your computer graphic experience will stand you in good stead in this area.
So just buying a DSLR doesn't mean you will be able to just run around taking wonderful pictures ad infinitum, that's not unless you want just to be a snapper! ;)
Hi again.
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse. My neighbour uses a Canon APS-C camera body. Being smaller they have a 'magnifying' effect. Canon APS sensors are slightly smaller than most other manufacturer's versions, giving a multiplier effect of 1.6x. This means that the 500mm lens he uses is the equivalent of an 800mm lens on a full frame camera.
The image size actually has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. In digital photography the image size is measured in mega pixels. The more mega pixels the larger the image. Some APS cameras therefore produce larger images than some full frame cameras do. What the larger sensor area in a full frame camera offer is a lower pixel density; this in turn means the individual pixels can be bigger, gathering more light. So what you get is superior low light performance. However, all modern DSLRs and Hybrid cameras have much better low light performance than film cameras did (without very expensive specialist film stock).
Field of view describes how many degrees of a view can be captured by a lens. The lower the focal length the wider the field of view. On a 35mm camera a 50mm lens gives approximately the same field of view as the human eye. On an APS camera this is achieved with a 35mm lens, on a full format (larger than full frame) camera that would be an 85mm lens.
A hybrid camera is one which has interchangeable lenses like a DSLR, but is smaller as it does not have an optical viewfinder and therefore all the gubbins that goes with it; they have electronic viewfinders and large LCD screens for seeing what the lens is seeing instead.
Right I'm off grid for a while now. Our Christmas guests are now halfway down France on their way from the UK, travelling through what they have described as biblical weather. Have a very Merry Christmas everyone, catch you on the other side. :)
Hi Brynn, and welcome aboard.
I've been a little reluctant to respond here as it's such a tough question, but we get these questions at our camera club regularly and we usually answer the questions with a list of questions you need to answer first...
1. What do you want to do with your photography - just take better pictures of your family and travels, or learn to move towards photographs as art?
2. Do you have the time and interest to learn about your camera, and all the amazing functions it has, or would you prefer the camera to be able to do these things for you?
3. Are you prepared to spend the time to learn a program that will enable you to enhance your photos (ie Elements, PS)?
4. Are you brave enough to put your work up for comments so that others may support you and provide you with some education or direction?
5. How much do you have to spend (you talked bout $1000, is that US$) as this can be an expensive hobby?
6. Do you have the manual dexterity to hold or carry a heavy camera/ lens?
The technology today is amazing, and the entry level DSLR's take amazing pictures, but once you move to a full frame you are looking at big $$$ and heavy equipment. We (our club) always advise that you have a good lens (kit lenses are also good, but they have limitations) and that you negotiate with the store for a package with the camera body and lens you want, rather than be tempted with some kit lenses that you will have to change all the time.
As a Canon user I can't suggest any other brands, (and I'm not sure I am allowed to suggest any particular model) but as a start you might want to look at a 650D with a zoom (such as a Sigma 18-250 or Tamron 18-270) which you can get for under $1000 Aust. I don't know what the Nikon equivalent is but a camera kit like this will meet all your needs as a new, emerging and amazing photographer. Check out what cameras and lenses are used by photographers in magazines and you will find that many use cameras like this. And don't forget you will also need to buy a UV filter to protect your lens (and then the door opens and you will want a camera bag, tripod, other filters, a cable release......)
And as for becoming a crazy and obsessed photographer... welcome aboard.
You can get all the software you need for free. I use XnView. I shoot in raw (a picture format that is basically all the information from the sensor untouched) and use XnView to make adjustments, crop, resize, rotate, etc. and final save to a format (jpg) I can upload to my gallery. If I want to 'shop and image, I use the Gimp.
You camera will come with a usb cord to connect to the computer. I don't have any of the software that came with the camera installed. Windows knows what to do as soon as I connect my camera and turn it on.
My first DSLR was a Cannon 400D, with the kit lens, that I bought for $180 off E-Bay. It came with everything a new camera would, plus some memory cards and an extra battery. It was like new when I got it, now the paint is all worn off from use, but it still works great. I'm now using a 60D that I picked up as a body only (no lens) for $400. It came with a memory card, cord, and a battery handle, and not much else. It looks like a brand new camera though, I think I got a really great deal. Anyway, my point is, if you are on a tight budget, I would recommend you seriously think about buying used gear off e-bay. Take your time and only bid on gear that is well described, well photographed, and from sellers who have a good rating. Nearly all my gear is used from e-bay. Things that have a limited lifespan like rechargeable batteries, I buy new. Though I usually buy those on e-bay too. Never had a problem buying anything from e-bay.
There's no simple explanation of the numbers used to describe lenses. To get started, though you might want to look at kits that come with two lenses. This isn't the 'best' choice, but it will get you further along with the budget you have. To put it simply, one lens for close subjects and one for distant. It is more expensive to buy the camera and the lens separately, but you get more, and better, choices that way.
As someone else said, tell us what you want to do, what you want to take pictures of, and you'll get more specific recommendations.
Quote from: spikeyjen on December 24, 2013, 10:47:41 PM
Hi Brynn, and welcome aboard.
I've been a little reluctant to respond here as it's such a tough question, but we get these questions at our camera club regularly and we usually answer the questions with a list of questions you need to answer first...
1. What do you want to do with your photography - just take better pictures of your family and travels, or learn to move towards photographs as art?
2. Do you have the time and interest to learn about your camera, and all the amazing functions it has, or would you prefer the camera to be able to do these things for you?
3. Are you prepared to spend the time to learn a program that will enable you to enhance your photos (ie Elements, PS)?
4. Are you brave enough to put your work up for comments so that others may support you and provide you with some education or direction?
5. How much do you have to spend (you talked bout $1000, is that US$) as this can be an expensive hobby?
6. Do you have the manual dexterity to hold or carry a heavy camera/ lens?
The technology today is amazing, and the entry level DSLR's take amazing pictures, but once you move to a full frame you are looking at big $$$ and heavy equipment. We (our club) always advise that you have a good lens (kit lenses are also good, but they have limitations) and that you negotiate with the store for a package with the camera body and lens you want, rather than be tempted with some kit lenses that you will have to change all the time.
As a Canon user I can't suggest any other brands, (and I'm not sure I am allowed to suggest any particular model) but as a start you might want to look at a 650D with a zoom (such as a Sigma 18-250 or Tamron 18-270) which you can get for under $1000 Aust. I don't know what the Nikon equivalent is but a camera kit like this will meet all your needs as a new, emerging and amazing photographer. Check out what cameras and lenses are used by photographers in magazines and you will find that many use cameras like this. And don't forget you will also need to buy a UV filter to protect your lens (and then the door opens and you will want a camera bag, tripod, other filters, a cable release......)
And as for becoming a crazy and obsessed photographer... welcome aboard.
No worries about making recommendations. As I said before, I won't take anyone's word about what they think is best for me, then run out and buy it. I'll learn everything I can about cameras, and make a decision on my own ;) I'm sure everyone would have different ideas about what might be best.
1 - More towards art, but it will be used like a family camera as well, sometimes. The only thing on my "bucket list" (as they say) is to visit Alaska. The reality is that it probably won't happen. But there's an outside chance I might travel with it. (More below.*)
2 - I prefer to learn about all the settings and functions. I understand it could be a long process. And maybe I'll learn that I actually do want the camera to handle some of the variables. But I hope I can learn all the settings.
3 - I'll probably lean more towards getting it right with the original photo. I have a LOT of experience with vector graphics, which is basically useless for photos. But I have a little experience with GIMP and not afraid to learn. I have plenty of time, although I'm at the end or maybe past middle age. Maybe I'm a senior? -- 57. So I don't have a lifetime ahead, but still probably plenty of time.
4 - I won't have any problems sharing my work for constructive comments. By this age, with health issues, there's not much left to be shy about, lol. Also I've learned through sharing my vector graphics work, that I learn so much more by hearing outside comments.
5 - That's $1000 US. I apologize for that -- I thought the dollar sign was only for American dollars.
6 - I do have some physical limitations. I haven't shopped in what they call the "brick and mortar" stores yet. So far, just browsing online. So I don't know how heavy a dslr camera is. I was thinking the digital part would make it lighter. Anyway, I should be able to handle it. And I won't be taking any long hikes, in any case.
More questions. Why does the lens need a UV filter? Isn't the lens made out of glass?
Hopefully I can sort of defray some of the costs of this expensive hobby, by spreading out the purchases. For example, I don't see myself needing a tripod right away. It can wait until I see a need for it.
Regarding kits -- I had the impression that the kit was just a grouping of body and lens, for whatever marketing purpose. But something someone said (I can't find it now) made me think they're of inferior quality. So is the kit anything more than a marketing gimic? Or are the lenses often inferior?
Quote from: WillyP on December 25, 2013, 03:00:29 AM
You can get all the software you need for free. I use XnView. I shoot in raw (a picture format that is basically all the information from the sensor untouched) and use XnView to make adjustments, crop, resize, rotate, etc. and final save to a format (jpg) I can upload to my gallery. If I want to 'shop and image, I use the Gimp.
....
There's no simple explanation of the numbers used to describe lenses. To get started, though you might want to look at kits that come with two lenses. This isn't the 'best' choice, but it will get you further along with the budget you have. To put it simply, one lens for close subjects and one for distant. It is more expensive to buy the camera and the lens separately, but you get more, and better, choices that way.
As someone else said, tell us what you want to do, what you want to take pictures of, and you'll get more specific recommendations.
I like using open source software. Is XnView open source? If not, I'll bet there IS an open source solution though!
That's an interesting idea about shooting raw! I'll have to try that, once I have some experience.
(*)I thought I already said, but maybe it was in my intro topic. Mostly nature subjects around my apartment building and neighborhood parks, some indoors in what I could only call "still lifes" (lately I've been fascinated with the simple beauty of fruits and vegetables, for example) and then just general family type stuff. Oh, also, rarely, I might be able to drive some distance and do some landscapes. I live in a large city in Colorado, USA so we have some serious landscapes, outside of the cities! But it's hard for me to drive that far, and certainly not very often. Ever since I graduated from college (over 30 years ago) with a degree in Forestry, I've wanted to do a study of mature tree barks (with a good camera), and maybe a catalog of leaf, twig and buds photos, for all different kinds of trees. I won't have much use for a leaf catalog anymore. But the tree bark study could be fun!
Regarding lenses, do I really need 1 for close and 1 for distance? Isn't there a lens that will do both, at least while I'm just learning? I thought there would be something like a basic lens, and then later I could get a zoom or wide angle, or whatever.
Quote from: SimonW on December 24, 2013, 08:57:05 AM
Re catalogues: I worked for years by using quite descriptive file names, but a catalogue is so much easier. You can add any keywords (one or several) you like to your photo files then easily find them later.
for example if you have a People keyword and a sub-key John, and another keyword Trees, you can later find all the photos which ahve John in, or just those with John and a tree. and so on....
Oh, I see. The catalog software allows for keywords or tags or whatever you want to call it. I'll look into that, once I have enough photos that I need something like that.
Quote from: Hinfrance on December 24, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
The image size actually has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. In digital photography the image size is measured in mega pixels. The more mega pixels the larger the image. Some APS cameras therefore produce larger images than some full frame cameras do. What the larger sensor area in a full frame camera offer is a lower pixel density; this in turn means the individual pixels can be bigger, gathering more light. So what you get is superior low light performance. However, all modern DSLRs and Hybrid cameras have much better low light performance than film cameras did (without very expensive specialist film stock).
Field of view describes how many degrees of a view can be captured by a lens. The lower the focal length the wider the field of view. On a 35mm camera a 50mm lens gives approximately the same field of view as the human eye. On an APS camera this is achieved with a 35mm lens, on a full format (larger than full frame) camera that would be an 85mm lens.
A hybrid camera is one which has interchangeable lenses like a DSLR, but is smaller as it does not have an optical viewfinder and therefore all the gubbins that goes with it; they have electronic viewfinders and large LCD screens for seeing what the lens is seeing instead.
Oh yeah, mega pixels! I need to do some reading about that, because apparently pixels mean something entirely different regarding mega pixels, than pixels on the computer screen. Pixels on the computer screen can only be 1 size. In fact I know some software that uses a pixel as a measurement (although not necessarily a precise measurement). So the concept that pixels can be different sizes seems odd to me, at the moment.
So however many mega pixels of the camera is how I know what size of photo the camera will take. Right?
I thought all...or at least most digital cameras had an LCD screen these days. Do you mean that the hybrid
only has the LCD and no viewfinder? Or maybe a better question -- what is it a hybrid of? Hybrid implies a blend of 2 or more things.
__________
Ok then, sorry for the long list of questions. They'll probably be the last for a while. Although I may still hang around the forum, and learn what I can by reading other topics. (Not to mention the Arcade, which I have a real weakness for those little Flash games, lol!)
Next I'll have to research some smaller-than-full-frame cameras, online. And do some more study about all the settings, and play with the Canon online simulator some more. And then go shopping to some camera stores, to look at all the different brands and models. Then once I make a decision, I might wait for a good sale. But I'm sure I'll have another question or 2, sooner or later, lol.
Because of health reasons, I probably won't be able to join a club. Although I can see how that would be a great way to learn! And I'm not ruling it out altogether. If it get really motivated, and there was a club where regular attendance was not mandatory, maybe it would work.
Anyway, thank you all SO much for all your helpful comments and answers! :)
Brynn, the UV filter on a lens protects the lens. Its cheaper to replace a cracked UV filter than a new lens.
But I don't understand why glass needs protection. How can uv light damage glass? Unless the lens isn't made of glass?
Quote from: brynn on December 28, 2013, 11:19:47 PM
But I don't understand why glass needs protection. How can uv light damage glass? Unless the lens isn't made of glass?
Brynn, it's not the light, it's to protect the front element from physical damage, scratches etc. Some people sometimes use a Skylight filter for the same reason. ;)
If it's just to protect from damage, why does it filter uv light? Sorry if I'm being dense :(
I don't think you can buy a "filter" which doesn't filter anything at all....
But all an ultraviolet (UV) filter does to your photo is to very slightly improve the clarity. It does so by removing some of the ultraviolet light (which your eyes can't see but the camera (sensor or film) can) which is scattered by the atmosphere. So it's all good - unless you fit a very cheap one which has optical imperfections.
Simon
Oohhh, ok :uglystupid2: So it filters the uv light for the photo, AND it protects the lens from scratches etc.? That makes sense now. Thank you so much :)
I've gotten a fairly wide range of "advice" here, which I appreciate very much....because even though some of it is conflicting (which I expected), here and there, and even between the lines, I've gotten clues that will help me quite a lot, when I visit camera stores (or wherever I go) in person. I can't wait to tell you all about my new camera, whenever I finally buy it!
Thanks again :D
Brynn, I see you are a kitten now.
I've been trying to work out, whether Brynn is a girl's or a boy's name. Can you enlighten me? I think in Wales it's a boy's name, but in the States it may be different. (Being Dutch I'm not au fait with some names used by English speaking people.)
(Sorry, nothing to do with cameras, just curiosity.)
Reinardina, this is a female name it tells you in the info summery, lady is from USA. :)
Thanks Jeff. Haven't had time to read everything, especially as I had nothing to 'offer' in this case.
Yes, I'm female. But I only just marked it in my profile in the last day or 2. So even if you had looked, it might not have been there. I found the kitten in the forum's collection of avatars. It was a tough decision -- you all have a really nice collection of animals there. Maybe before too long I can use a photo I've taken for my av.
Up until a few years ago, I knew nothing about my name "brynn". My mother told me my father had made it up. But in a forum, a few years ago, someone told me that in Europe, it can be either a male or female name. I've never met or heard or even read of anyone with that name, except there's a college somewhere with Bryn as part of the name. Most people try to say it like 'brine', but it's pronounced 'brin'. (just fyi, 8))
In case you haven't purchased yet - might i throw in a Fuji X series camera as part of your consideration.
These little pocket wonders take some rather wonderful pictures, whilst being much smaller and lighter than a DSLR. I think you can get a new X-E2 with lens for your $1000 budget, and on occasions I see 'over the pond' offers X-Pro 1's with multiple lens deals for about $1000.
My one caveat for the Fuji's though - if sports is your thing, look elsewhere. But then good A/F for sports rarely comes in for $1000 :'(
You might find this of interest:
http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Advice/Search-Results/Photopedia/How-to-choose-your-first-DSLR/ (http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Advice/Search-Results/Photopedia/How-to-choose-your-first-DSLR/)
Quite a few points! I'll try and pick up on the ones that I don't think have been covered. Plus my own take on a few that have.
Focal length
This is one of the important properties of a lens, because it controls the image size. Suppose you have a man, six feet tall, in front of your camera. And let's suppose that his distance is such that the in focus image made by the lens is 1" high (just enough to fill the short side of the frame on a 35mm or full frame digital camera).
Now swap to a 100mm lens, and the image will be 2" high - so you'll only get half of him in on a 35mm/FF camera. Swap to a 25mm lens, and the image shrinks to 1/2" high, so he'll fit with space to spare.
But this image size is determined only by the focal length. There are no magical lens properties that means that the size changes when you use a different camera. So if you use a 4/3 format camera (which has a sensor half the size of a full frame camera) you'll get a half man with a 50mm lens, and only get the whole with a 25mm.
Which is why angle of view is more important than focal length for practical photography (I'll admit that most photographers disagree) because that is the only measure of what you'll actually get in. The angle of view of a 25mm lens on a 4/3 camera is the same as that of a 50mm lens on a full frame one.
Pixels
It's short for "picture element" and is the smallest unit possible. A pixel will have three colour variables (red, green and blue). Computer screens have pixels, and they have a physical size; so do most advertising boards where the image is made up of dots; and the same is true of photos in newspapers. A sensor has pixels, as how many will determine how much detail can be captured.
There's a lot of "all other things being equal" when it comes to comparing performance and megapixels. All other things being equal, for a given sensor size, more megapixels mean poorer low light performance. In the real world, all other things aren't equal, because the computer software in the camera, the physical design of the sensor and a few other things enter in. A camera with a higher megapixel count may have a poorer low light performance than one with fewer megapixels; but the reverse can also be true.
Getting it right in camera
Two points. First, it depends what you mean by "right". Second, it's impossible.
Aim for the best starting point for your final image. No camera can reproduce the outside world exactly. It's impossible. It will distort what's there. If you are happy to let the process dictate the result, then you can "get it wrong in the smallest possible way in camera". If you want to control the process, then you need to aim for the best starting point for what you have to do after exposure.
Cameras
Are tools. My favourite illustration is to compare a watchmaker's screwdriver and a sledge hammer. Both are tools, but I'd find it hard work removing a concrete drive with a small screwdriver; and I'd hate to entrust my watch for repair to a man whose only equipment was a sledgehammer.
Are imperfect. Some are better than others for certain jobs. No camera does all jobs perfectly, just as the highest precision screwdriver won't be performing at it's best when breaking up concrete.
Professionals have used - and still use - a variety of different cameras (and I mean types, not makers).
DSLRs are not the only game in town, although some seem to think so. I use mainly 5x4" film cameras, because no DSLR will give me the results I want. They have technical limitations that LF cameras don't have, and image quality limitations likewise. What you need depends on what you want to photograph, how you want to photograph it, and what you want as final output (print - and size matters - or photo on a Facebook page).
Lenses
There are two primary characteristics: focal length and maximum aperture.
Focal length we've already seen determines image size, and hence the angle of view (or how much of a scene you'll "get in". It can be fixed or variable. If variable, it will have certain performance limitations compared to a fixed focal length lens.
There are many different "targets" for a lens designer to hit. One of them is the optimum subject distance. All lenses have an optimum subject distance (although it's rarely mentioned) and it's usually in the 10-15 ft range. Some lenses are designed to work at closer distances, but all lenses can be made to give an in focus image of a subject no matter how close, until you reach the absolute limit of two focal lengths away. (Reasons on request).
A "standard" lens has an angle of view that is said (erroneously) to be that of the human eye. More exactly, the definition runs that it's the same size as the diagonal of the format it's covering, which for 35mm is 43mm (usually rounded up to 50mm). Anything less than the standard is a wide angle (because it gets more in and hence covers a wider angle of view) or is longer than the standard and is called a long focus lens. Most people use the term "telephoto" for a long focus lens, but it's incorrect as "telephoto" refers to a specific optical design, and this does actually affect certain optical properties of a lens.
Pixels and megapixels
You need a certain number of dots to fool the eye that you're seeing a continuous tone. How many depends on the viewing distance. From far enough away, a billboard looks like a continuous tone photo; from nearer up you can see the dots.
The subject is more involved than most people realise, but as a gross simplification, for a print viewed at normal distance you need 300 pixels in camera per inch of print. So an image of 3000x2000 pixels would give a photo 10x7" approx. And like the billboard, you can go larger provided you view from further away.
On clubs
I'm less convinced on the value than most. I've never found a technical problem I couldn't solve myself, and I've seen (and heard) enough to make me think that they (with the best possible intentions) impose an artistic straight jacket on members. And that is a contentious assertion.
I'm not sure if XnView is open source, but it is free to download and use, for personal use.
If you are happy with one lens, then no, you don't need two.
Mega is a quantity of pixels. Pixels on a camera are the same pixels as on your monitor, one megapixel is one million pixels. Having a camera with more megapixels means you can crop a small part of the image and still have it fill your monitor.
For example, let's say I want to use a picture of my cat as a wallpaper. My 60D is 17.90 Megapixels which gives me a photo 5184 x 3456. My monitor is 1600 x 1200, so I set the crop (using XnView) to 1600 x 1200, and position the crop frame over the image. Then I enlarge the crop frame... it stays in in the same ratio automatically... until I get the part of the picture I want on my desktop. Then I crop the image, adjust colors, etc, and reduce the image to 1600 x 1200. I do this in RAW format then save to jpg as the last step.
As you can see, taking a 1600 x 1200 section out of the 5184 x 3456 leaves me a lot of room to cut out the background, or I can even just take, say, one eye and concentrate on that. Always try to avoid enlarging, for instance going from a 720 x 480 crop and enlarging to 1600 x 1200, as the software will have to 'guess' at the values for the added pixels. And this can blur details. Or give that 'pixelated' look. So the bigger the image to begin with, even though you reduce it, will give you more creative options.
Quote from: StephenBatey on January 01, 2014, 07:56:10 PM
On clubs
I'm less convinced on the value than most. I've never found a technical problem I couldn't solve myself, and I've seen (and heard) enough to make me think that they (with the best possible intentions) impose an artistic straight jacket on members. And that is a contentious assertion.
I have often asserted that club membership is advantageous for the beginner but have also tempered that with the proviso that you should be wary of becoming a 'club' photographer. Pleasing club judges is to be avoided like the plague! :uglystupid2:
Quote from: ABERS on January 03, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
I have often asserted that club membership is advantageous for the beginner but have also tempered that with the proviso that you should be wary of becoming a 'club' photographer. Pleasing club judges is to be avoided like the plague! :uglystupid2:
Well said that man ;D
When I was a wee lad (is that the right terminology for you over the pond guys?) I was in a photo club... as part of a 4H program. It was fun, I had my Dad's twin lens Rolloflex. Black and white, it was a lot cheaper than color film!
Nope, not too late. I don't want to rush into a decision. And plus I have some health issues, which often interrupt my plans. So it could be another month or 2 before I make a purchase. I'm glad someone emphasized physically trying out different cameras, but that means I'll need to visit at least a couple of stores.
Quote from: StephenBatey on January 01, 2014, 03:57:26 PM
You might find this of interest:
http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Advice/Search-Results/Photopedia/How-to-choose-your-first-DSLR/ (http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Advice/Search-Results/Photopedia/How-to-choose-your-first-DSLR/)
Very concise! One thing I don't understand - a phrase I haven't seen yet (or actually I did see somewhere, but now I can't find where it was :uglystupid2:). The article refers to "fast camera" or "slow camera". What part or feature of the camera determines whether it is fast or slow? I've been thinking of fast or slow in terms of shutter speed, but I thought most cameras would have the same range of speeds available. So maybe a fast or slow camera means something else?
Quote from: ABERS on January 03, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
Quote from: StephenBatey on January 01, 2014, 07:56:10 PM
On clubs
I'm less convinced on the value than most. I've never found a technical problem I couldn't solve myself, and I've seen (and heard) enough to make me think that they (with the best possible intentions) impose an artistic straight jacket on members. And that is a contentious assertion.
I have often asserted that club membership is advantageous for the beginner but have also tempered that with the proviso that you should be wary of becoming a 'club' photographer. Pleasing club judges is to be avoided like the plague! :uglystupid2:
If I were to join a photo club (which I probably won't) it would be to benefit from any classes or seminars they might offer, and maybe for ride sharing on trips or outings. As for having my photos judged....and even if I submitted photos here, I would only take any advice that made sense, or that moved me more towards my own goals. After quite a lot of experience, I might like to try and meet someone else's goals or tastes, only as a learning exercise. I joined a poetry club once, but my tastes are not in line with current trends, so my work was never popular. But if I'm happy with it, that's really all that matters, since I don't expect to make a living with either poetry or photography!
Anyway, thanks again for all the info :)
In that article, Terry (that's his "real" name) was referring to the frame rate - how many exposures the camera can rattle off in a second - for his "fast" and "slow" cameras. There are other ways in which a camera can be slow, of course. Digital compacts can take what seems like an age to "come on" when you hit the switch, and they usually have an appreciable shutter lag (the time between pressing the release and the exposure being made). I could never quite understand this myself, because in the film world I inhabit, the SLR design has a larger shutter lag than non-reflex cameras.
High frame rates can lead to missed photos. For my book, I calculated how far a cricket ball would travel between successive exposures on a high frame rate, and showed that relying on the camera was more likely to make you miss the decisive action of the wicket falling. Swap the analogy for another sport if cricket is too arcane.
Quote from: StephenBatey on January 05, 2014, 12:46:34 AM
Swap the analogy for another sport if cricket is too arcane.
No, not arcane just a taboo subject at present. :'(
Oh wow! A digital camera can take more than 1 photo in a second? That's amazing (keeping in mind I've never had a digital camera, and only point and shoot film cameras)! I guess there must be some feature that will make it take shots 1 right after the last? Because it could be hard to press the button that fast!
I'm not familiar with cricket, so don't understand either the game or it's popularity (or lack of)....or why it would be taboo. There was an unusual sports news report on tv, that I happened to see last summer. Apparently in the alley behind the building where this news station is, a group of Indians who work in the same building were playing cricket each evening after work. So the sports news reporter did a story on it.
Anyway, thanks for explaining that. I really do have a lot to learn. But I'm SO excited to finally be doing it!
(edit for typos)
Quote from: Oldboy on January 05, 2014, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: StephenBatey on January 05, 2014, 12:46:34 AM
Swap the analogy for another sport if cricket is too arcane.
No, not arcane just a taboo subject at present. :'(
mmm - not taboo over here in Australia!!! In fact we are pretty chuffed, so much so we had a big celebration on the steps of Sydney Opera House this morning.
Quote from: brynn on January 07, 2014, 12:36:08 AM
Oh wow! A digital camera can take more than 1 photo in a second? That's amazing (keeping in mind I've never had a digital camera, and only point and shoot film cameras)! I guess there must be some feature that will make it take shots 1 right after the last? Because it could be hard to press the button that fast!
I'm not familiar with cricket, so don't understand either the game or it's popularity (or lack of)....or why it would be taboo. There was an unusual sports news report on tv, that I happened to see last summer. Apparently in the alley behind the building where this news station is, a group of Indians who work in the same building were playing cricket each evening after work. So the news reporter did a story on it.
Anyway, thanks for explaining that. I really do have a lot to learn. But I'm SO excited to finally be doing it!
It's a continuous shooting setting. 35mm film cameras could do the same, if they had an automatic winder attached (or built in, as later cameras tended to). As far as I recall, the fastest was made by Canon, who could run to 10 frames per second. Cameras with these sorts of frame rates came with interchangeable film backs, allowing you to load up to 250 exposures at a time.
Cricket is really like baseball - one bloke throws a ball at another who hits it with a stick and then tries to run somewhere before anyone can get the ball back. It's the speed of the ball that means it travels umpteen feet even in 1/10 second between shots.
It's a sore point to British fans because the England side just suffered a total defeat to the Australians. Dare I suggest that sportsmen would have more regard to the quality of the game than the result? :)
Years ago I had a Sony Mavica digital camera which stored its photos on a built-in floppy disk (only 6 per disk in top quality). But it had a real magic trick - It could take three photos in quick succession, one BEFORE you pressed the shutter, one as you pressed it and one after.
I've never seen another camera that could do this, though I'd guess it wouldn't be hard for a manufacturer to impliment it in any camera that has live view.
Simon
There are quite a few that can do that Simon, but I've not heard of any DSLRs that do.
I'm saving up for a Fuji ES50EXR (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_hs50exr/) at the moment. Kind of regret selling my HS20EXR a while back, but I really did need that new amplifier :)
Quote from: Hinfrance on January 08, 2014, 09:40:31 AM
There are quite a few that can do that Simon, but I've not heard of any DSLRs that do.
I'm saving up for a Fuji ES50EXR (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_hs50exr/) at the moment. Kind of regret selling my HS20EXR a while back, but I really did need that new amplifier :)
So am I Howard - They are less expensive here in France too :tup:
Do tell where Andy . .
Quote from: Hinfrance on January 08, 2014, 05:50:27 PM
Do tell where Andy . .
I cannot find the page now but they were priced at 309 Euro the other day - wish I had bookmarked the page :-[
Pixmania have it for €329 - http://www.pixmania.fr/bridge/fujifilm-finepix-hs50exr/21436779-a.html
Quote from: Hinfrance on January 09, 2014, 03:10:27 PM
Pixmania have it for €329 - http://www.pixmania.fr/bridge/fujifilm-finepix-hs50exr/21436779-a.html
I saw that Howard. No the page I saw it on was a pale yellow one (that I cannot remember the name of) perhaps linked to an advert viewed on a page looking at hs50 v another long zoom (which as demonstrated on a video there in where some earlier models had a design fault described as lens droop). Anyway, as I cannot find it again it is probably a good thing as I have a few priorities before a new tool.
It's a moot point for me Andy, I'm miles away from the purchase price at the moment :)
Quote from: Hinfrance on January 09, 2014, 04:08:56 PM
It's a moot point for me Andy, I'm miles away from the purchase price at the moment :)
Me too :'( and the winter wind has brought and highlighted more expenses :knuppel2: