What camer do I buy.

Film is not dead. I and several other photographers I know still shoot film, as well as digital. I also recommend students learn on a manual film camera before switching to digital, so you fully understand the mechanics of shooting without relying on autofocus cameras, film OR digital.

Well...ALMOST dead. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/05/film-cameras-of/


As far as Japan goes...2.8% of cameras sold in 2008 were film cameras.

I fully agree with learning on a manual camera..however not a film camera. Unless you have tons of time, and money. Why wait, and pay to see the results you just shot?

I can remember having to do that.....back then, you paid ahead of time to see you're prints, before seeing them. If they were all bad shots...Oh well. You bought them to find out. I spent a lot of money, and time waiting for the lab to send back blurry, OOF shots.

Money that could have been much better spent elsewhere.


The Digital age is here...
 
Skor, great photos to show a great macro lens. That lens, while great, is nearly a thousand dollars.

Scott, there is no "best" camera. Some cameras out perform others in certain situations, but that is how everything is in life. Skor's macro is a 1:1, which always cost more than a 1:2. What do you want to do with the camera? If you are just starting, get a starter camera. All the money is in the lenses anyway, just figure out which brand you want. Each has there strengths and weaknesses. I would say that you should go into a large camera store, I think you have Ritz up there, and handle each one. What feels good for you, may not for your wife. One may not have the build quality as another. Another reason I went with Pentax, it has 72 weather seals and the camera was only $600. We get alot of rain in portland and I didn't want to destroy a camera because of a little water.

Just don't follow the masses and get what everbody else has just because. If the camera is going to be for work, you should be able to right it off. So get what you want. Check out dpreview.com. Read the facts and learn. It sucks pissing money away. I'm sure there are a few people on the forum that bought Meucci's back in the day because everyone said that is what's best.
 
Last edited:
Film is not dead. I and several other photographers I know still shoot film, as well as digital. I also recommend students learn on a manual film camera before switching to digital, so you fully understand the mechanics of shooting without relying on autofocus cameras, film OR digital.

Good advice ... or as a compromise, turn off all the auto functions on a DSLR and shoot away. Make as many mistakes as you want.

The point of this is that the numbers the camera CPU give you in the viewfinder if you know WTF they are telling you ... and most of it is very arcane numbers derived from slightly complex mathematical formulae that goes back to the earliest days of photography.

It really doesn't matter if you understand the math or not as long as you can recognize a correct answer. Without that knowledge the numbers might as well be Venusian.

Here's an example, and I'm going to use the age old 1 over the film speed rule in bright sunlight, or "SUNNY 16" as an example.

If I'm shooting at ISO 200 (Film or sensor sensitivity to light, lower number being less sensitive but also less prone to grain/noise.) I can get a correct exposure at F16 (Aperture opening, the larger the number the more depth of focus field is yielded.) at 1/250 of a second (1 over the film speed meaning that shutter speed is set just over ISO ... or 1/250 when ISO is set at 200.) and the photo will technically be correct.

That doesn't mean that I will get the desired result. All it means is that the photo will neither be under or over exposed to any significant amount.

What I might want is a very slow shutter speed so that running water becomes milky and beautiful as it flows down a rocky waterfall.

To get that exposure correct I might choose ISO 50 ... needing 4 times as much light ... which requires that my shutter speed drops from 1/250 at F16 to 1/60 second. Still not slow enough however ... so I might change the aperture to F32 ... which would slow my shutter speed to 1/15 of a second.

For an uber fast sporting event I might want to shoot at 1/8,000 of a second to stop a 90 MPH+ fastball. To do that I could change aperture to F2.8 ... allowing 32X as much of an aperture opening and a compensating 32X as fast a shutter speed.

In all of the examples cited I could have left the DSLR to select 1/250 at F16 at ISO 200 ... and it would likely select something like that ... and have a properly exposed photo. But ... my eerily smooth flowing water would be frozen, and my fastball would be a blur.

So, yes one needs to play with different aperture and shutter speeds and sensitivity to learn how they interact with each other ... otherwise the VF info is just gibberish.

That doesn't mean it has to be complicated to use ... every DSLR available will give you an option of selecting which aperture you want to get the proper depth of field and it will select the corresponding shutter speed, or vice versa ... but you have to know which one you want to get the photo you want.

Electronics make photography easy if you remember that you are the artist and it is the tool.

LWW
 
I know a very well respected high end cuemaker that takes fantastic pics of his cues. He uses a digital rebel. Yes the 6.2 MP old one that you can find on ebay for around $200 bucks, or less. He has a 50mm, 1.8 fixed lens that is around $100 bucks. He uses a cube tent with lights on the outside, and shoots in raw.

You really don't need anything crazy, but a good lens and good light is what its all about.

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
 
I just recently bought a Canon Rebel T1i 15meg pixl camera. I needed something simple....The image stabilization, and auto focus is great....I think its probably the top camera you can get for ease of use.....here is a pic I took and I didnt even know what I was doing

044.jpg


I would highly recommend something simple like what I got if you dont know what your doing. I just ordered a macro lens, a 70-200 and a 70-300 lense.
 
I own a Nikon D80 with a couple of lenses. As far as the flash I use a Nikon SB600. The great thing on this combo is the Nikon Creative Lighting System for the flashes. The camera can act as the Master and fire the SB600 remotely off the camera. This means you can offset the flash to reduce reflections, etc. It also automatically adjusts to match the camera settings.

I recently picked up a photo tent and some external lighting fixtures to adjust/change the lighting as needed.
 
I would highly recommend something simple like what I got if you dont know what your doing. I just ordered a macro lens, a 70-200 and a 70-300 lense.[/QUOTE]

why a 70-200 and a 70-300?
 
Another thing unmentioned is ergonomics.

People have different size hands, larger and smaller noses, and therefore a camera which feels "RIGHT" to one person may not to another.

Go to the stores and handle a few.

Another consideration is available accessories. Nikon and Canon blow everyone else away in that aspect.

And, in the end, I would strongly suggest looking into used ... especially lenses.

Just as there are people who are constantly buying different cues or different clubs in the false belief that this will make them a better poolplayer/golfer ... there are also people who constantly buy the newest camera because they refuse to admit that the problem with their photos is that they never bothered to properly learn to use what they already have.

LWW
 
... And in the digital age, LEARN PHOTOSHOP.... :grin-square:
Post processing is a big part of digital photography.

Shoot in RAW!!! use a great software called DxO Optics Pro to automatically (It can be done manually but the auto just works great) correct all the lens distortion. You can download the full software for trial for 30 days.
It requires a rather strong computer and it take some time to process many pictures... what I do is drop all the RAW images and let it run over-night or when I go out
Then some touch-ups with photoshop...

The outcome will be night and day....

SKR_3662_DxO_raw.jpg


SKR_3690_DxO_raw.jpg


SKR_3746_DxO_raw.jpg
 
why a 70-200 and a 70-300?
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Still doesn't make any sense....
The 70-200 offer an F2.8 throughout the focal length (unless he bought the F4 model...). The 70-300 is of less quality and doesn't offer such wide aperture and it only adds 100mm in focal length... If you have the 70-200 then why not go for the additional 100-400 and get 200mm extra? Yes it's triple the money but an extra 100mm is not worth carrying another lens and it's cost, a better option would have been getting a x1.4 teleconverter that would bring the 200 to 280mm .

I'm referring to Canon lenses here as this is what ftgokie got.
If he had Nikon and a 70-200 then the additional lens should have been the 200-400 or the 80-400 (for a sane price).
 
Last edited:
Why a 70-200 and a 70-300? Well basically because I started a photog class last week and the person teaching gave me that advice. I also get a great deal through my work on stuff like this. And the VA Canteen that I buy my stuff through is always having sales and I got 1 lense at reg price and the other half off...so the EF 70-200 mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom, cost me 267.50 which is half price , and the EF 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Telephoto Zoom cost me full price of 949.99, also got a EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro for 145.00.

Heck, I am just learning all this stuff.....and really its all Greek to me, but I know this camera is a very simple camera to operate, and it takes awesome pictures.

And the 70-200 lense....I got for my wife, I just bought her the same camera that I recently bought for her to use as a teacher. She is always taking pics of her class and of them while they are doing sporting events so I figured it would help her.
 
Last edited:
Why a 70-200 and a 70-300? Well basically because I started a photog class last week and the person teaching gave me that advice. I also get a great deal through my work on stuff like this. And the VA Canteen that I buy my stuff through is always having sales and I got 1 lense at reg price and the other half off...so the EF 70-200 mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom, cost me 267.50 which is half price , and the EF 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Telephoto Zoom cost me full price of 949.99, also got a EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro for 145.00.

Heck, I am just learning all this stuff.....and really its all Greek to me, but I know this camera is a very simple camera to operate, and it takes awesome pictures.

Well basically the 70-200 is a waste as it is F4 that is (almost) covered by the 70-300. that $267.50 should have gone to an external flash....
 
Well basically the 70-200 is a waste as it is F4 that is (almost) covered by the 70-300. that $267.50 should have gone to an external flash....

Like I said....this is all trial and error for me....the VA Canteen had a sale, and this was my only option at the time. In 3 weeks the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens will be on sale for 1150.00 and I am gonna buy that. Its reg 1600.00 and I think it will be a great lense for me to take my wildlife pics I like to take when I am out in the woods.

And the 70-200 lense....I got for my wife, I just bought her the same camera that I recently bought for her to use as a teacher. She is always taking pics of her class and of them while they are doing sporting events so I figured it would help her.
 
Check out this site, http://www.dpreview.com/forums. Olympus uses different lens than Cannon, Nikon and most of them although I believe Olympus and Leica use the same lens. I went Olympus but, Cannon, Nikon,Fujinon, Pentax are all good choices. Its kind of like arguing who makes the best cue. Id have her get a bit farther in her course and than go out and handle some of the camera bodys and go from there.
 
Still doesn't make any sense....
The 70-200 offer an F2.8 throughout the focal length (unless he bought the F4 model...). The 70-300 is of less quality and doesn't offer such wide aperture and it only adds 100mm in focal length... If you have the 70-200 then why not go for the additional 100-400 and get 200mm extra? Yes it's triple the money but an extra 100mm is not worth carrying another lens and it's cost, a better option would have been getting a x1.4 teleconverter that would bring the 200 to 280mm .

I'm referring to Canon lenses here as this is what ftgokie got.
If he had Nikon and a 70-200 then the additional lens should have been the 200-400 or the 80-400 (for a sane price).

I concur.

My long/fast glass consists of a:

- Nikkor 80-200MM F2.8 ED.
- Nikkor 300MM F4 ED.

For macro work I use a Nikkor 28-105MM F3.3-4.5 macro, and a 50MM F1.8, combined with a set of AF macro extension tubes of 12MM, 20MM, and 36MM individually.

They will also work to get extremely close focus out of even the 300MM F4 for times when a little distance is preferred.

LWW
 
Like I said....this is all trial and error for me....the VA Canteen had a sale, and this was my only option at the time. In 3 weeks the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens will be on sale for 1150.00 and I am gonna buy that. Its reg 1600.00 and I think it will be a great lense for me to take my wildlife pics I like to take when I am out in the woods.

And the 70-200 lense....I got for my wife, I just bought her the same camera that I recently bought for her to use as a teacher. She is always taking pics of her class and of them while they are doing sporting events so I figured it would help her.

I would see if Canon has a good matched 2X teleconverter to go with the long class you have now.

The difference between 300MM and 400MM is not what you seem to think it is.

I have a 400MM F5.6 that I almost never use simply because the added reach is almost never worth carrying an extra lens for, and it is a full stop slower than the 300MM.

My $0.02.

LWW
 
I concur.

My long/fast glass consists of a:

- Nikkor 80-200MM F2.8 ED.
- Nikkor 300MM F4 ED.

For macro work I use a Nikkor 28-105MM F3.3-4.5 macro, and a 50MM F1.8, combined with a set of AF macro extension tubes of 12MM, 20MM, and 36MM individually.

LWW

That 80-200 is a workhorse....I also have one. I can't for the life of me switch over to the 70-200, and justify the cost. It's just too good....

105 2.8 macro...(non VR)

50 1.4

and the 18-70 kit lens.
 
Back
Top