Seeking camera recommendations
- Thread starter Hidy Ho
- Start date
iconcue said:if you've been shootin pics for over 30 years - who's the youngster in the avatar?
which nikon digital you pick up?
That's ME..still act like a kid. Actually still feel like a kid!! (Most of the time, anyway)
I bought the CP 4500. Reguarded as one of the best (point and shoot) the best macro cameras ever built. I got my eye on the 8800.
Purd....I was talkin' about NEW manual cameras. Leicas are great cams, hard to beat them. IF only they could convert them to digital.....
Rick S.
Last edited:
Cool Pix 4500
I have a few (yeah right!) shots online. It's a personal site, keep that in mind! I do play around a little, and thought I'd show you what the 4500 is capable of. Actually it's capable of much more, this is as far as I have taken it (SO far, but I'm working on it!) with my limited knowledge and skills.
I sure have fun with it, and it's actually small enough to fit in my pocket. I remember the old days...carrying around a case with me. Not only did it weigh a ton, it was a pain in the ass to carry. I paid more for 1 lens, (back then) than I did for this camera.
It's not quite the same quality, but something I can live with. I regulary blow up shots (handheld at that) to 24 x 30, and they come out good. Not bad for a 4 megapixel camera.
Photos are located at.... http://www.pbase.com/rixx
Rick S.
I have a few (yeah right!) shots online. It's a personal site, keep that in mind! I do play around a little, and thought I'd show you what the 4500 is capable of. Actually it's capable of much more, this is as far as I have taken it (SO far, but I'm working on it!) with my limited knowledge and skills.
I sure have fun with it, and it's actually small enough to fit in my pocket. I remember the old days...carrying around a case with me. Not only did it weigh a ton, it was a pain in the ass to carry. I paid more for 1 lens, (back then) than I did for this camera.
It's not quite the same quality, but something I can live with. I regulary blow up shots (handheld at that) to 24 x 30, and they come out good. Not bad for a 4 megapixel camera.
Photos are located at.... http://www.pbase.com/rixx
Rick S.
Thanks to all for the info here. I was into photography as a youngster and I'm about to invest in a nice 35mm setup and re-learn everything. All the help here is very informative and appreciated.
LWW- I agree with alot of what you said here. Film just has a certain 'human' element to it that digital can't replicate, not to mention the history and nostalgia involved. IMO digital (and I have a very nice digital camera) will never be the same even if the focal quality, etc... surpasses it. Thanks for all the info. I'm off to buy myself a very expensive setup for christmas.
Peace,
~DC
LWW- I agree with alot of what you said here. Film just has a certain 'human' element to it that digital can't replicate, not to mention the history and nostalgia involved. IMO digital (and I have a very nice digital camera) will never be the same even if the focal quality, etc... surpasses it. Thanks for all the info. I'm off to buy myself a very expensive setup for christmas.
Peace,
~DC
LWW said:
What is the difference between the ED and G-AF lenses?
Last edited:
JAZZ : thanks for starting this post...i have been wanting to buy one too..this info.sure helps...Jazz said:There are so many guys with cool photos of their cues ...
I really liked the "Photographing cue photos" and want to take somewhat decent photos of my cues.
What cameras, specs and etc do you recommend?
For beginner or intermediate photographers? Does it have to be SLR? I assume wide angle lense and optical zoom?
recommendation below $500?
below $1k? above $1k?
Thanks in advance .. I have really old 2 megapixel Canon ELP with really crappy battery life
difference
The difference is... ED stands for Extra-Dispersion. It has to do with the coatings, and element groupings, as well as the amount of elements in the lens. The ED is just a much better lens. Most of the time the ED's will be made of heavy duty metal. The D's and and G's are made mostly of plastic.
Cheaper made, cheaper bought.
My 80-200 2.8 ED, is probably twice as big and heavy as the 'normal' 80-200. It's the 'must' lens for any serious sport photography. Really fast, super sharp lens. And expensive too, pricing now is about 900.00 or so.
I first bought the 70-300 4.5, tried it that night. Ended up bringing it back the next day, and traded for the 80-200. Unbelievable difference, both in quality and price. You get what you pay for....
Rick S.
crawdaddio said:
The difference is... ED stands for Extra-Dispersion. It has to do with the coatings, and element groupings, as well as the amount of elements in the lens. The ED is just a much better lens. Most of the time the ED's will be made of heavy duty metal. The D's and and G's are made mostly of plastic.
Cheaper made, cheaper bought.
My 80-200 2.8 ED, is probably twice as big and heavy as the 'normal' 80-200. It's the 'must' lens for any serious sport photography. Really fast, super sharp lens. And expensive too, pricing now is about 900.00 or so.
I first bought the 70-300 4.5, tried it that night. Ended up bringing it back the next day, and traded for the 80-200. Unbelievable difference, both in quality and price. You get what you pay for....
Rick S.
Kind of. It actually stands for Extra-low Dispersion glass.
What this means is that standard fluorite optical glass has several inherent weaknesses.
One: It is easier to scratch/chip/break.
Two: It does not like large aspherical shapes.
ED glas on the other hand is as close to completely bubble free as any glass ever made and is extremely hard which allows it to be used in front elements of lens...although most ED lenses do have a flat miniscus optical glass built in on the front as sort of a permanent protective cover.
The BIG difference however is that ED glass has a different optical index due to the extreme concave shape it can take on,,,this allows all the colors in the visual range to focus at EXACTLY the same point...that being the plane of the CCD or film. The benefit is that there will be absolutely no fringing or ghosting of colors in the image.
This can be achieved with regular fluorite glass but if you make a lens with a large enough aperture to be considered even moderately fast the compromise with fluorite must be made to have an extremely fragile high quality piece of optical glass or a durable lower quality piece.
Now is it worth it? That depends. If you are using a lens with an optical length of under 200MM no. At 200MM it is about a push...IOW a 200MM F4 or slower lens will be fine with a fluorite glass lens. A 200MM F2.8 OTOH really needs ED glass and the difference between an ED 2.8 and a fluorite F4 is quite noticeable.
At optical lengths of 300MM or longer you are IMHO kidding yourself if you use a non ED lens and want high quality results.
Yes ED glass gets pricey, especially in something like a 300MM F2.8. An 80-200MM F2.8 ED zoom or a 300MM F4 ED is high but within the reach of a serious hobbyist. Keep one thing in mind...you are buying a piece of equipment which is virtually indestructible and actually has resale value unlike most hobby items. As an example if you had bought a Nikon 80-200MM F2.8 ED lens 15 years ago for $750, today it would still sell for around $600. If you would have bought a Nikon 300MM F2.8 ED 25 years ago for $2,000, today it would still sell for about $1,500.
Today a 300MM ED F4 and an 80-200MM F2.8 ED will both sell new for about $900 each, a 300MM F2.8 for about $2,800.
Unlike pool where a $2,500 cue won't make you a better player than a $200 cue, there are shots that you can take with a fast ED glass lens that are just impossible with slower glass...no matter what skill level you possess.
LWW
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27471
There's a link to photos of most of my personal stash. I don't claim to know everything about photography, but I make enough to pay for my photography hobby AND my pool hobby AND a little walking around money from working about 10 hours a month at it.
LWW
There's a link to photos of most of my personal stash. I don't claim to know everything about photography, but I make enough to pay for my photography hobby AND my pool hobby AND a little walking around money from working about 10 hours a month at it.
LWW
I just ordered a Panasonic FZ-20. Everyone seems to like them and its a great camera for the price. Especially for an ultra zoom. I'm not really a big camera fanatic but this camera does have some manual options and posibilities for attachment of extra accessories so there is a little room to grow. I posted a link to it on Amazon where you can read some of the reviews and see some of the nice pictures it has taken. I got the camera for $392.00 brand new shipped to my door.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002R2838/qid=1133687778/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8146608-5625723?n=507846&s=photo&v=glance
Here is a link to the review of that camera from dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002R2838/qid=1133687778/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8146608-5625723?n=507846&s=photo&v=glance
Here is a link to the review of that camera from dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/