Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nilsen on February 04, 2006, 11:50:40 AM
-
Today I got myself a D50
Lets hope the camera gods are nice to my clumsy fingers.
How long should I leave the the battery in the charger before I can take my first images. I know I could just check the manual, but its much better to ask you all. It gives me an excuse to tell you all that I have a new toy.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Today I got myself a D50
Lets hope the camera gods are nice to my clumsy fingers.
How long should I leave the the battery in the charger before I can take my first images. I know I could just check the manual, but its much better to ask you all. It gives me an excuse to tell you all that I have a new toy.
When the Orange light on the charger will be green :D.
Filled my 1 GB card today ... raw + jpeg is a bit too much :)
-
I bought a 512 card that i got cheap.
I'll prolly take some pictures tomorrow and show you how useless i am :)
-
nice camera nilsen...what lenses did you get with this camera? I'm assuming it came with 50mm?
(are you planning on getting more lenese...28mm, 100-200mm zoom, etc.)
-
Its an 18-55 and to be honest, i have no clue what that means.
-
well, a 28mm lens would be called a macro lens...it is capable of taking very detailed photos at close range (however, the foreground and background of the pics will be blury) see example below:
(http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/gallery/spider_on_glass_small.jpg)
all this talk about cameras is encouraging me to do the same and get a new digital SLR
-
So the more mm's you have the further away you can take good pics? Is it the "SLR way" of measuring zoom?
-
Pretty much Nilsen, since you're buying SLR lenses for it. There's an additional crop factor that actually increases the magnification on your digital SLR... so a 28mm lens would actually yield results similar to a 42mm (x1.5) lens on a regular 35mm camera. The higher the mm, the more the magnification. For taking pictures of birds, I use a 400mm lens. For taking pictures of the car at close range, I use a 10mm-22mm lens.
-
bit more complicated than that...Shutter speed, apertures and depth of field, three most important elements in photography.
I found the following which may help explain (briefly) the importance:
link (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/apershutter/aperture.htm)
-
so what is my lens like then? 4x zoom, 5 or more?
I'll try it out tomorrow for myself, and my dad is gonna teach me (one of the reasons for getting it)
I got him a Canon 350D for christmas and he has taken picture with his analog SLR's since the seventies. He has kept them all, and still uses some of them They are mostly Nikon's and some other brands that i cant recall. He is no pro, but it has been his hobby for over 45 years. Most of them are undrewater fotos tho.
-
If you need rescueing from nerds throw a Star Trek DVD into the air and they will all scramble to get it allowing you to escape
-
WTFG Nils good choice i still dont regret mine btw
Look at this links u see what u can do and about lenses
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/
http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikond50
-
Here's a couple of good websites for photographers, from beginner to expert.
Photocamel.com (http://www.photocamel.com/) and Better Photo. (http://www.betterphoto.com/home.asp)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thx for the links!
wow..those sample pics are outstanding! This camera may be a keeper :)
I'll upload some pics later tonight
-
Nude chicks with just viking helmets in their heads, please.
Thank you.
-
lol :D
-
Psst, you were always a nerd.
Congrats Nils.
Karaya
-
Ever wonder what lens you should get but don't know how they perform for the money? check here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews
It doesn't have it all though.. like the new 18-200mm Nikkor lens that I'm going to get when I get the money for it. A nice walk-around lens without four digit price tag :)
-
My dad has a bunch of lenses for his analogue Nikon SLR. The biggest one is a 300mm. Wonder if all those lenses works on the D50.
-
Call me a heretic - and while I've toyed with the idea of getting a camera such as this D50 for myself, I still remain to be convinced of the benefits over one of the "little cameras" for normal use. I find that on my various exploring jaunts, having a camera that fits in a pocket is a huge advantage over a bulky item such as the D50 which must be carried. As for photo quality, I took this last week with my Casio Exilim...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/mt2.jpg)
OK, I know the cameras with big lenses can theoretically take much better pictures than the "little cameras", and while I'm no expert, I took this pic of a radiator valve key. The T section is about an inch (~25mm) across. The level of detail looks fine to me, and this was taken using "normal" mode, ie not "fine" mode. Am I missing something?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/key.jpg)
-
Yup Beetle. My pocket camera will by far see the most use. If my new phone has a decent camera I will use it even more.
The D50 was an impulse purchase cause I got a good deal. It will also give me something I can do with my dad.
-
Congrats Nilsen! You'll enjoy it! I have 3 dig cams, the pocket now sees the least use, I somehow find a way to pack the SLR because I know the quality of the picture results are worth the inconvenience of carrying it around(Did I tell you how much shooting in RAW rocks? ;) )...besides, they make a nice belt case for SLR's these days. I ended up buying a really nice SLR backpack too so that I can carry the spare lens, an extra camera (good old reliable 35mm Pentax) rain poncho, tripod, monopod, umbrella,etc. etc. when I shooting sports photography. Matter of fact I'm shooting 3 games today! (Flag Football)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, I know the cameras with big lenses can theoretically take much better pictures than the "little cameras", and while I'm no expert, I took this pic of a radiator valve key. The T section is about an inch (~25mm) across. The level of detail looks fine to me, and this was taken using "normal" mode, ie not "fine" mode. Am I missing something?
Most digitals have a macro mode for close work. Even my wife's $200 Kodak has this, and it produces remarkably clear and sharp images. Below is an example.
(http://home.att.net/~islandphoto/RedDayLily.jpg)
We have three digitals. In addition to my wife's pocket-sized Kodak, I have a Fuji S5100 and recently added a Fuji S9500. This last camera demonstrates that the latest technology has elevated this category of camera to easily compete with entry-level digital SLRs in terms of image quality, while retaining the single 28-300mm zoom lens. At 9 megapixels and an ISO range from 80 to 1800, you rely less on image stabilization to get crisp shots. You can shoot in very low light without a flash and there's virtually none of the graininess you see see in most digitals. This is thanks to the new New Fuji Super CCD sensor. It's a remarkable camera. Shutter lag is a lightning fast 0.01 seconds and start-up time in just 0.8 seconds as the lens does not retract upon shut down.
I almost bought the Fuji S5200 as well. It's the perfect "take it anywhere" camera, with many of the features of the S9500. My S5100 is excellent, but lacks the ultra low light features of the newer S5200 and has a longer start-up and more shutter lag. Nonetheless, it does take very good photos. Here's an example of what I've taken with the S5100.
(http://home.att.net/~islandphoto/TwilightEgret.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Two of the pics i took today. Overcast and in general pretty gray day. The pics are 25% of the original files and i see i need more training to get the crisp.
(http://www.alpinsiden.com/jostein/DSC_0001.jpg)
(http://www.alpinsiden.com/jostein/DSC_0011.jpg)
-
I cant explain but proffesionals dont wear pocket cameras.
Pocket cameras do indeed get better like the panasonic lumix with leica lens.
But slr's can change lenses and u can get very exellent ones from nikon
and there is alot of choice.
SLR stil have advantage with its bigger sensor and look through the lens fast autofocus and none shutter lag.
btw although the D50 is a low entry level slr it has nothing to do with its image quality see the story of a D2X user who prefers his d50 for low light shots.
I dont wanna go back to pocket but ill keep my pocket SQ becoz its just handy.
BTW many nikon slr users advice to get the 50mm F1.8 lens its very crisp and lets u train in composing the shot its not a zoom lens.
Its on my wanna have list.
-
Yes BUG, being able to view the prospective shot through the actual SLR lens sounds like a big plus. I've never had an SLR though. One of the things I don't like about the Exilim is that in bright sunlight, it can be difficult to see what's being displayed on the viewing screen at the back. A few times last week I had to peer through the alternate viewfinder as well.
I cant explain but proffesionals dont wear pocket cameras.
Fair comment, but as recently as last year I met photographers who would use only film cameras and turned their noses up at digital!
Question for all - Do cameras like the Nikon D50 have the ability to record movies and sound files?
-
No movies and no digital zoom :)
U cannot use the screen for a shot u always have to look through the view finder In that those pocket cameras have an advantage. Because u can take pictures from any angle.
That mountain picture btw looks awesome also that picture widewing made of that bird.
Its not the camera but the man who shoots the camera ;)
Look at this site http://www.nikonnet.com/dyn/inspire/%20/dyn/articles/article_detail/208.html
he shoots with a D70 nowdays :)
-
I went out today since the sun finally showed up in Portland. It's ironic that one of the more rare bird pictures I've gotten was completely in the shade. But it does highlight one advantage the Canon cameras (300D,350D,20D) have over the D70 and D50: Low light imaging. Nikon makes up for it with much better flash support, but it's definately something that's traded off between the two.
The image conditions are saved in the advanced properties of the photo, the photo is only crop'd but not adjusted in any other way (can't figure out how to get light adjustment in Gimp yet):
(http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com/images/MiniD/2006-02-05-1200-5775-1024.jpg)
-
how bout takeing some pictures of aircraft
-
Wow Bug. Some of the pics on the website you linked to are awesome. Love the "NYC street images".
-
Nilsen I find your photos a bit too warm/magenta (red) was it the light you had at the time you took the photos ?
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
how bout takeing some pictures of aircraft
(http://static.flickr.com/43/96194486_ee36fa9dd0_o.jpg)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Nilsen I find your photos a bit too warm/magenta (red) was it the light you had at the time you took the photos ?
It was snowing yesterday so i just took a couple of shots from the doorway at the summerhouse.. didnt wanna get snow on it. Its 3 times that ammount of snow today. When the weather improves ill try it out some more. Havent played with it today... too busy shoveling snow.
-
By the way, if you're shooting JPG, I strongly suggest trying out shooting RAW and then using something like RawShooter to convert the pictures to JPG for publishing. This way, you can fine-tune the image quite a bit more freely than with JPG.
I never bother with setting the white balance on the camera anymore, just shoot raw and when converting the pictures set the WB by clicking something white or gray in the pictures.
-
i used RAW.
gives me 67 pictures on the 512mb card.
-
Originally posted by wasq
By the way, if you're shooting JPG, I strongly suggest trying out shooting RAW and then using something like RawShooter to convert the pictures to JPG for publishing. This way, you can fine-tune the image quite a bit more freely than with JPG.
The bad thing with Nikon: Propierty RAW format. :furious
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The bad thing with Nikon: Propierty RAW format. :furious
at a glance i saw .NEF... wtf!
-
Canon sight that has pretty good tutorials for digital slr photography. While intended for canon, lot of the lessons applicable to slr techonology in general.
for got the link
http://photoworkshop.com/canon/
-
Bug and Nilsen,
Any regrets on the d50 vs the d70?
I've given up on the d200 after the banding fiasco and nikon's response, so I figure I'll get the d50, save $1000, and buy an extra lense. The deal I'm looking at is:
D50
nikon 17-80 lense (kit lense from D70)
nikon 55-200 lense (only adds $170 to combo cost)
With a camera bag and a few other goodies, it comes out to almost exactly $1000, far less than the cost of the D200 body alone and right around the cost of just the d70 and 17-80mm lense.
I usually wait and wait and wait and then buy the best after I've saved up some money, but right now money isn't really the issue so I'm thinking D50 as a high quality "learner" camera. I can always buy something better later if I really need too, but it seems like at this point I may be better off saving a few bucks and getting a second lense to play with.
-
Originally posted by eagl
D50
nikon 17-80 lense (kit lense from D70)
nikon 55-200 lense (only adds $170 to combo cost)
With a camera bag and a few other goodies, it comes out to almost exactly $1000, far less than the cost of the D200 body alone and right around the cost of just the d70 and 17-80mm lense.
You should consider D50 + the new Nikkor AF-S DX VR 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05110103nikon18-200vr.asp), which runs for about $700.
Only problems I really see with the lens:
11.1x zoom range - results in more distortion than with normal zooms, albeit possible to fix for most parts with photoshop etc.
Slow lens - F3.5-5.6 will require more light / longer exposure time, although your kit choices aren't much faster. However, the VR II system can result in two steps lower F, comparable to F1.5-3.6, but only for photos of static objects. Useless with moving objects.
I've been considering to buy it when I'll have money for it.
Although I've been also considering an alternative...
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 (http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/) ($400) and Sigma 135-400mm F4-5.6 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=181&sort=7&cat=37&page=1) ($500), a bit more costly combo than the 18-200mm alone.
I hear the Tamron lens is quite good, albeit lacks quality control (might need to be returned for a better copy), but it's a fast lens which is really helpful in low light. Lacks a vibration reducing system though, but that only helps with static objects anyway.
The 135-400mm lens isn't quite so fantastic, although it would give me the range between 200-300mm that I would lack with the Nikkor lens.
Of course I could wait for over the summer (or could I? Mr. Impatient) and get along with my kit lens, Nikkor 70-300mm, and then invest into either of the two choices: Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=223) ($1000-1100) with vibration reducing system or faster Sigma 100-300mm F4 (http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html) ($800). Both of the lens are getting whole lot better opinions from the owners than the 135-400mm.
If you don't like Nikkor 18-200mm lens, then I would recommend Tamron 28-75mm lens over Nikkor 18-70mm (which you probably meant with 17-80mm). For the range you could get either 70-300mm or 55-200mm, which are both about $200 - although both of those are really just temporary solutions. You really can't get a good "long" zoom for cheap.
-
Fishu,
Yea those are nice lenses. I'm hesitating on the 18-200 VR one primarily due to cost and wanting to be sure I "need" it before putting down money on a lense like that. With the 2 lenses I'm looking at, I save $300 and give up VR and will have to carry 2 lenses. Also the 18-200 is a bit overpriced right now due to extremely high demand. Reading reviews of the 17-80 and 55-200, the quality across their combined range is slightly better than the 18-200 alone except of course where the VR feature helps (hand-held shots in low light).
If/when I decide that I "need" that 18-200 VR lense, hopefully the price will have dropped to a more reasonable amount. It's supposed to retail for around $700 but most places that have them in stock are pricing them above $850. Maybe when the price drops, I might sell the other two lenses to help lower the "upgrade" price, but again it depends on how happy I am with those to begin with.
Most of those other lenses are beyond my skill level right now :) But I'll keep them in mind if I get a bit more serious. I don't plan on carrying around a tripod unless I get into it a lot more seriously, so the larger telephoto lenses are out for now. Anything over 200mm is more than I can make use of.
I did see a neat 80-300 (or something like that) nikon lense with VR... It's huge and costs $1700 :( Maybe if I get seriously into aviation photography...
-
Problem with the kit lens is that the resell value is quite low unlike with the other lens. Tamron 28-75mm could be a good choice... at least it's really making me itchy for it - 300 euros (~$360) from Germany, the shopping country for finnish camera addicts. I could get it right now unlike the 18-200mm which is low on stock and over my budget until summer... choices choices...
-
True on the kit lense, which is why I'm not getting the d50 kit lense :) The D70 kit lense is actually quite good apparently so that's what I'm going to get with the D50. It's the 18-70 lense, not the 18-55.
The 18-70 retails for anywhere between $250 and $380, while the 18-55 goes for under $100.
-
Originally posted by eagl
The 18-70 retails for anywhere between $250 and $380
Have you looked at the Tamron 28-75mm yet? Fixed F2.8 could become useful
-
I thought to start I'd stick with nikon lenses. Maybe it's being too picky or something, but I like to establish a baseline of performance before expanding my horizons. I just don't want to spend money on 2nd party lenses until i have some experience.
Plus the last tamron lense I had for my 35mm camera was a huge disappointment... I probably expected too much but almost every pic I took with it seemed somehow fogged with a slight brownish tinge, even with a UV or skylight filter. After using that lense and seeing how much worse pics it took compared to the wonderful kit zoom lense that came with that old 35mm camera (28-65 if I recall correctly), I'm irrationally turned off from 2nd party lenses. As I get some experience I'm sure my irrational fear/dislike of tamron lenses will fade and I'll experiment some :)
How big is that tamron 28-75? f2.8 would be nice...
-
Originally posted by eagl
How big is that tamron 28-75? f2.8 would be nice...
Did you look at the link (embedded into the lens names) in my first post after yours?
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/
More reviews:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/2875-f28/2875-1.html
-
Ah. Checked the link this time :)
Looks nice. I like the feature that can lock it at 28mm so you don't have to hold the zoom ring. Supposedly that's a big problem with the new nikkor 18-200 VR... The zoom ring is loose enough that if you point it up or down, it changes zoom unless you're holding the zoom ring.
-
I'm not too worried with slight creeping because I don't need to point camera up or down that much and usually keeping my hand on the zoom ring anyway. Though, some have it stiffer and the others less... lacking QA, probably due to high demand.
However im this >-< close to ordering the 28-75. I was able to briefly chat with couple of guys who own it and the other said hes not going get rid of it (though, both are canonists). Only worried of the said QA problems and online order from Germany, which can make it harder to replace - 300 euros there and 400 here :confused:
-
I have the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX (older version of this (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2) lens without the DG Macro designation) and I can say it's a good deal. I got mine used for about 300 euros. It's got 4 mm wider wide end than the Tamron. Only problem is that it's a bit bulky and heavy, but the f/2.8 lenses tend to be on the heavy side.
-
why no picture of your wife yet neilson?
-
my girlfriend has been wanting a new camera for a while now and I guess its about time to get 1 for her so I don't have to here about it any more, can somebody recommend a descent camera, she doesn't need anything too fancy, but I wanna make sure I'm buying something descent. I went to Best Buy and looked and there's 100 different kind and they range from $80-$500, and of coarse when you ask the guy that works there he just points to the most expensive one and says that 1 there is the best. Reading the posts yous guys have typed I see that some of yall even put different linses and all that on them... Anyways thanks in advance for the advice
-
Received Tamron 28-75 F2.8 *plus a bunch of other details* (http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/trash/tamron2875.jpg) last week from Germany and it's quite a bit better compared to my kit lenses :)
It's quite big compared to Sigma 18-50mm, which looks like a mini compared to it.
I took some test shots (http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/tamron/) the day after I received it. Unfortunately I lack a tripod for more accurate comparison tests.
Couple of days prior to the lens I had finally received a new battery from Nikon's office in Ireland, after I had been without one for full two weeks.
Today I ordered a UV-filter for the Tamron lens, for the protection. Wish I could have a polarisation filter, but alas, 100€ price tag doesn't really meet with my wallet and needs.
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
my girlfriend has been wanting a new camera for a while now and I guess its about time to get 1 for her so I don't have to here about it any more, can somebody recommend a descent camera, she doesn't need anything too fancy, but I wanna make sure I'm buying something descent. I went to Best Buy and looked and there's 100 different kind and they range from $80-$500, and of coarse when you ask the guy that works there he just points to the most expensive one and says that 1 there is the best. Reading the posts yous guys have typed I see that some of yall even put different linses and all that on them... Anyways thanks in advance for the advice
If can you find one I would go for a panasonic FZ5 or FZ7
-
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/trash/karkkipaiva1c.jpg)
Ha! found a tasty candy!
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/trash/karkkipaiva2c.jpg)
Let's enjoy!
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/trash/karkkipaiva3c.jpg)
Damn, I can't get it down!
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/trash/karkkipaiva4c.jpg)
What a piece of crap.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/trash/karkkipaiva5c.jpg)
Whatcha looking at?
-
Indeed very crisp
for extra crispness i use a 50mm f1,8
:)