Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mark Luper on March 09, 2007, 05:24:40 PM
-
I've seen a lot of the pictures posted on this forum by people who just bought their new digital cameras. I've been impressed with the results I've seen.
At one time I was very much into photography and spent a lot of time with film cameras. Collected a few but gradually got tired of the expence of having my film developed. It put a bit of a kink in my creativity. I started using digital some time back but never purchased a camera that was as enjoyable to use as my last film camera purchase, a Cannon T10.
Last night I ordered a Cannon EOS Digital Rebel XTI (400D) 10.0 megapixel camera and a couple of Cannon lenses.
This is the camera (http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php?refid=10&sku=CANEDIGRXTIKB)
This will be my primary lens (http://www.tristatecamera.com/LookAtAll-br2in7wb-CANEF28135IS-1-00260073-0-store.php.html)
And this will be my telephoto lens (http://www.tristatecamera.com/LookAtAll-br2in7wb-CANEF75300UIII-1-00260073-0-store.php.html)
The camera picture is a combination of body and lens, I am getting just the body then adding the aformentioned lenses.
I'm excited about it and hope I am as happy with it as I think I will be. It was a bit of a chunk of change but hey, you only live once, right? :)
Mark
-
yep. only once. have fun mark!!!
-
I would not consider 28 as wide lens
i have 28-80 and 70-300 for my nikon and all what im missing is wide lens
so i'm going to buy 17-35 when i can afford it or for 18-200
also get yourself a good tripod and couple of spare batteries
+ circular polariser for your primary lens
+ at list uv filter (thats very importand)
-
Nice Camera , the 28-135 is a good lense but not wide enought.
If I were you I would get the sigma 18-50/2.8 + a 75-300 IS + 50/1.8.
-
That's a good point Ramzey but I basically want a lens that will give me a little wider field of view than a 50mm in a film slr for taking indoor group shots. I have used and own a 28mm for my film camera and though it did give me good wide shots I was a little dissapointed with some of the distortion inherent in that focal length. I will eventually get me something wider, but it is not a priority to me right now.
Mark
-
Originally posted by straffo
Nice Camera , the 28-135 is a good lense but not wide enought.
If I were you I would get the sigma 18-50/2.8 + a 75-300 IS + 50/1.8.
I've had very good luck with Cannon lenses and though I own some Sigma film camera lenses and liked them, I wanted to stay with Cannon to begin with.
Mark
-
Using digital is sooooo much more fun than analogue can ever be (unless you are into chemicals and relly enjoy developing film)
You will take 10 times as many pics just because you know you can delete and edit without it costing a cent. This means that you will prolly end up with alot more really good pics. The experimenting with settings and whatnot will prolly reach new hights. I know i have taken more pics every month during the time ive had my digital DSLR cam than i ever did in total before.
-
Mark he does not complain about your camera choice:) Witch is excellent as for the money i believe.
28 at digital gives you something like 35 in film camera, i suppose you know that :) Witch is still around your desired "less then 50".
I took a couple frames yesterday using Canon XTI with stock 18-55 glass, mby its not the best one, but good enough for his owner. And i miss this 18-28 difference for landscape.
get yourself pair of fast memory cards, filters and you are ready to go:) good huntings :)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Mark he does not complain about your camera choice:) Witch is excellent as for the money i believe.
28 at digital gives you something like 35 in film camera, i suppose you know that :) Witch is still around your desired "less then 50".
I took a couple frames yesterday using Canon XTI with stock 18-55 glass, mby its not the best one, but good enough for his owner. And i miss this 18-28 difference for landscape.
get yourself pair of fast memory cards, filters and you are ready to go:) good huntings :)
I read that the difference between film focal lengths and digital focal lengths is that the digital provides about 1.6 times the focal length on this camera for a comparable film focal length. That works out to 44.5 or thereabouts for a 28mm lense in film. It would be nice to have it more in the range of the 35mm as you stated but I will have to experiment a bit and see what I may want to do later.
Mark
-
I own a rebel XT and used at 1st with a 28-105 I had to get the 18-50 cause it was really a plus for family events or any banquet
-
I'll second on the sigma 18-50. It's a great lens. I also have a Canon 10-22 for closer shots. Those two cover most of my non-telephoto needs.
-
ive just posted an order for a cam that is due out soon
SOny Cybershot H9... 15x soom.
-
MiniD, i found new gadget to your collection , i bet even Rips don't have it
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp
-
You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon SLR's. Congrats! I found that I outgrew my 70-300 "G" lens real fast. I spent $140 on that telephoto lens, and 1 year later I bought a $1000 telephoto that was faster (f/2.8) and haven't used my f/4.5 300mm since....when your photography matures, so does the price of your lenses..:cry
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon SLR's. Congrats! I found that I outgrew my 70-300 "G" lens real fast. I spent $140 on that telephoto lens, and 1 year later I bought a $1000 telephoto that was faster (f/2.8) and haven't used my f/4.5 300mm since....when your photography matures, so does the price of your lenses..:cry
Thanks for the congrats Rip. Your statement about maturing photography could also say:
When your photography matures, so does your ability to use what you have :)
Since I won't be making my living photographing, 1k for a lens is a bit steep for me.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
Thanks for the congrats Rip. Your statement about maturing photography could also say:
When your photography matures, so does your ability to use what you have :)
Since I won't be making my living photographing, 1k for a lens is a bit steep for me.
Mark
1K is cheap for quality glass. My horizon is looking at glass that runs about $3000, but the wife needs a new kitchen first. :cry Paying $2700 to the tax man today pushed my dream for a 400mm lens back even further. :mad:
Regarding your counter-statement, you'll start noticing glass distortion differences when comparing your zoomed photos to those with better glass, trust me!
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
When your photography matures, so does your ability to use what you have :)
As you mature as a photographer, you learn there is no substitute for quality glass. You'll either stop using your current telephoto or you'll opt for a better one... especially if you try to take pictures of anything that's moving.
-
As you mature as a photographer, you learn that most people can't tell the difference between a photo taken with a $3000 lens and a $200 lens.
pros use $3000 lens because they can afford them.
-
If everything was well lit and stationary, you might of had a point. As it is, you're so far off base it's kinda funny.
-
I would strongly advice against buying a cheap tele lens. IMHO, under $200 teles are really poor. Alot of chromation, softer than a pillow and slower than an eel (and I mean the focus speed). Rather save the money for a tele which exceeds $500.
I'd recommend this lens: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (http://www.tristatecamera.com/LookAtAll-7uw85kf8-CANEF70300IS-1-00260073-0-store.php.html)
On a long run you'll find cheap tele lens to be an annoyance. Around 18 to 130mm range it's possible to find several good lenses for relatively cheap, but at the high end (and at the very low end) you'll really need an expensive lens or you'll be wasting your money. Don't buy lenses from 300mm range for under $500. Trust me on this one.
In the other news, I ordered Nikon 18-200mm image stabilized version couple of hours ago from Germany. It'll cost 750 euros w/shipping included (around $975). I've had an order for 680 euros from a local store, but their queue on the lens type is really long and last month they received only 10 units of it. 70 euros doesn't really sound that much after months of waiting ;)
-
i'll tell you whats funny, i check out the camera forums, if you say it's the camera/lens/etc that made the good shot all the "photographers" say "it's the photographer not the equipment" (it's the writer, not the typewriter), but if you ask about a inexpensive lens or camera they all say "you need good glass" or "upgrade your camera".
thats whats funny.
-
Originally posted by john9001
As you mature as a photographer, you learn that most people can't tell the difference between a photo taken with a $3000 lens and a $200 lens.
There's quite a difference between $200 and $500 70-300mm lens. The former only serves to make the photographer annoyed, even if he's a poor amateur. It's just silly to use the cheapest possible lenses on a dSLR - Makes it worse than an equally priced high end consumer camera.
The other downside is that the cheapo lenses resells for less. The higher the price, the better resell value it has.
-
Originally posted by john9001
but if you ask about a inexpensive lens or camera they all say "you need good glass" or "upgrade your camera".
thats whats funny.
High end consumer cameras are better for photographing if you don't want to spend a nice sum of money into the hobby. You'll be also happier :)
You might get cheap deals for dSLR's, but the entry level is really at $2000. That includes the body, +1 Gb memory card (10mpix = +2 Gb), mid range and tele zoom lenses, tripod + head, camera bag and a flash. Otherwise you'll just end up with an expensive camera that is subpar compared to a cheaper high-end consumer camera.
...after that you'll want to buy smaller accessories, like extra memory cards and a battery or two.
To be clear: dSLR's are like women.
Mine still lacks the tripod and tele :(
-
Originally posted by Mini D
As you mature as a photographer, you learn there is no substitute for quality glass. You'll either stop using your current telephoto or you'll opt for a better one... especially if you try to take pictures of anything that's moving.
Werd.
But as Mark says, he's not doing it "professional" (aka for income) and john has a point as well, most people will settle for an inferior photo of whatever the subject matter is, rather than spend the $$ for an outstanding photo of same subject matter.
I've discovered that the more you shoot, the higher your personal "bar" raises for what you consider a good photograph. Stuff I've trashed others have asked "why did you toss that?" When you tell them things like "under exposed, over exposed, incorrect framing, violation of 1/3's rule" they look at you funny.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'll tell you whats funny, i check out the camera forums, if you say it's the camera/lens/etc that made the good shot all the "photographers" say "it's the photographer not the equipment" (it's the writer, not the typewriter), but if you ask about a inexpensive lens or camera they all say "you need good glass" or "upgrade your camera".
thats whats funny.
They're both true. A bad photographer with $5000 in gear will still take bad photos. Little of it will have to do with the equipment. But if you sit two good photographers down with each end of the spectrum in camera gear, you'll get very different results.
I'm going to show you two pictures. One was take with a cheap lens using a tripod and a remote shutter, the other was taken using a lens with bigger and better glass and with IS:
(http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com/images/2005-02-20-1230-071-800.jpg)
ISO: 400
Shutter Speed: 1/400
Aperature: F/8
Focal Length: 300mm
Tripod
Remote shutter
(http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com/images/2006-03-11-1200-6761-800.jpg)
ISO: 200
Shutter Speed: 1/320
Aperature: F/5.6
Focal Length: 400mm
Freehand
Both of these pictures were the best of the series. The first actually had better lighting than the second. There is absolutely no way I could have taken the second photo with the lens I used for the first picture. Coincidently, the lens used for the first picture is the exact lens mentioned above (75-300mm F4/F5.6 III USM).
The real question is what someone is planning on doing with a lens. With the macros, it doesn't really matter because they're all good. But with everything else, it does. If digital hand held quality is all you're looking for, no need to buy any other lenses. If you're looking to capture motion and get low light high quality pictures, you're going to need a good lens.
The lens matters. Experience matters. Experience you can get with practice. You're lens will be the same ole piece of glass no matter how much practice you give it.
-
Excellent example Mini. Exactly what I discovered going from Nikon "G" glass to "D" glass (at 3 times the cost)
-
Yeah, clearly different lenses
The bokeh is bad on the first picture, but nice on the second. The first picture is also alot softer. Very much similar to my Nikon 70-300G (w/o ED) lens, which I don't even bother to use anymore - It's an annoyance.
-
Everything whats great MiniD said :aok
cheap 70-300 are good enough to about 200, above that they are ****ty even for amateur, just waste of money. But you have to learn by yourself to get it, as i did :)
Every pro will told you, get the best lens you can afford and second body from the line you can afford.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yeah, clearly different lenses
The bokeh is bad on the first picture, but nice on the second. The first picture is also alot softer. Very much similar to my Nikon 70-300G (w/o ED) lens, which I don't even bother to use anymore - It's an annoyance.
Ditto. Haven't used my 70-300G since picking up my 80-200 AF-D lens. I use a 1.4 teleconverter when I have to (which loses 1 f stop) but its still 10 times the lens that the 70-300 was...
-
*shrugs* first one looked pretty darned good to me
-
the differences are huge.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
*shrugs* first one looked pretty darned good to me
Originally posted by Ripsnort
...most people will settle for an inferior photo of whatever the subject matter is, rather than spend the $$ for an outstanding photo of same subject matter.
-
LOL, here's a new tele lens from Sigma:
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-big.jpg)
Sigma APO 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp)
I bet they're not targeting the amateurs with this one, even though they're quite a cheap manufacturer. Surely the quality must be sufficient.
That's just insanely fast telezoom that goes up to 500mm. Better yet, they'll even supply a dedicated 2x teleconverter with it. :rolleyes: :huh
-
yea, Fishu i link it like 5 posts above:t
-
mark, you'll appreciate digital even more so coming from film. camera to monitor makes the curve a rather short ride.
you need a good post processing program to bring out the full potential of your camera. adobe has the cs3 demo out now, you can d/l and try it. digital can lean somewhat as far as 50% on the post processing side.
also for cf cards http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com cheapest on the planet. with 10 mg files you'll want something like a ridata 150x 4 gig, it is only $46 and comes with a lifetime warranty. i have been using these cards for more than a year.
that said good-luck.
-
Thanks for the demonstration Mini D. The difference is amazing. I've almost stopped using my Sigma 70-300mm lens because at 300mm, they all turn out like your first pic and I can't stand to look at them. Nothing worse than a great shot ruined by cheap glass. Now if I can only convince the wife....
Congrats Mark! Post some pictures for us when you start to play with it.
-
MiniD, Ramzey, Rip and all others that have extoled the virtues of high grade "glass" need to understand that I am not in disagreement with you. I would love to be able to afford much better lenses than what I am purchasing. The 28-135 lens is going to be used 99.9% of the time but I did want a telephoto for when I just had to have one. It, the 75-300 should fill that need for now and it is in the price range that I can currently afford.
MiniD, I loved the two shots you posted and yes, I can certainly see the difference. The second is much sharper and the fact you got that shot hand-held is awsome, but the first is very acceptable to me for the time being.
I am already stretching my budget to purchase what I am getting and in the future, depending on just how serious I get with the hobby, I will certainly opt for the higher quality lenses.
As far as Torque's post, I appreciate the link, I will definately look into that 4 gig card. Great price on that. I do use Paint Shop Pro 9 for all of my post processing. It may not be as good as Adobe's but I am happy and familiar with it.
I really appreciate the inputs from all of you. You have done me a good service in doing so. Thank you all.
Mark
-
Well...I did some thinking. ( dangerous passtime, I know )
I decided to take you guy's advice and I upgraded the telephoto lens on my order.
I am getting this one. (http://www.tristatecamera.com/LookAtAll-br2in7wb-CANEF70300IS-1-00260073-0-store.php.html)
I decided since I was already spending the money for a good camera that I might as well try to do it right. It is costing me an additional $346.00. It is not the top of the line but does have Image Stabilization and should have a little better glass.
Again, thanks for all the input.
Mark
-
I don't have any experience with that particular lens, but the IS is worth the price alone. Good move.
-
I got this lens for my son, he has the same camera you do.
Canon Lens (http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541166757.htm?bct=t13024003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcilenses-for-digital-cameras%3Bcislr-lens%3Bcilenses-for-canon)
It's a bit spendy, but does a great job. He is in college studying photography, and has had pictures published. He is interested in car photography, but has done other work, including being hired to to work the 4 day PGA Senior event last summer in Minneapolis.
Want a good Canon lens, gotta have the red ring around it.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I got this lens for my son, he has the same camera you do.
Canon Lens (http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541166757.htm?bct=t13024003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcilenses-for-digital-cameras%3Bcislr-lens%3Bcilenses-for-canon)
It's a bit spendy, but does a great job. He is in college studying photography, and has had pictures published. He is interested in car photography, but has done other work, including being hired to to work the 4 day PGA Senior event last summer in Minneapolis.
Want a good Canon lens, gotta have the red ring around it.
That's an awsome lense, F2.8 no less! Perhaps one day...
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't have any experience with that particular lens, but the IS is worth the price alone. Good move.
Some canonist friends of mine likes it, which is why I brought it up. Of course it's no $2000 lens, but it should be fine for a good while. It's been rated 8.8 over at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews
A good site for finding out what kind of a lens you'd like next. Although some of the newer models doesn't appear to be there; At least the Nikons, which is bad for me :(
Oh well, the site is primarly for canonists.
-
the post processing aspect and using mini's picture as an example, regarding the bird's legs and feet.
the dynamic range of the camera is limited, most often than not the camera will either clip the highlights or lose detail in the shadows. you can automate the post processing of a raw file to blend two layers using a mask.
basically, exposure bracketing of a raw file. you can regain clipped highlights and color without sacrificing detail in the shadows.
a quick ten second operation, i could regain some detail and colour, if it was a raw data file the effects would be far more dramatic.
(http://ca.geocities.com/ereid@rogers.com/mini.jpg)
(http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com/images/2006-03-11-1200-6761-800.jpg)
out of the box, i'll clean the sensor ( they come dirty from the factory ) and put protective lcd film on all the liquid screens.
also make sure your monitor's gamma is calibrated correctly.
-
i like green heron & fixed focal length lenes
u can always crop:aok :aok :aok
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
At one time I was very much into photography and spent a lot of time with film cameras. Collected a few but gradually got tired of the expence of having my film developed. It put a bit of a kink in my creativity. I started using digital some time back but never purchased a camera that was as enjoyable to use as my last film camera purchase, a Cannon T10.
I just noticed I called my current Cannon film camera a T10 I don't know why, I have a T90. I guess it just goes to show how much I have used it recently :lol
Interesting thing about the T90, they only made them for a couple of years or so.
Mark