| Blogs > floor exercise |
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
The cameras I was looking at were $300-400 Canadian, like the lumix lx3, fuji f200 etc Then I saw on amazon they had the Canon EOS Rebel 1000d for $470 CAD with what is probably an awful 18-55 lens so I pretty much auto-bought it even though I have no idea how to use a SLR. I actually have a really old SLR that uses film (remember that stuff?) but it was my dads and I've never used it In hindsight this was probably a bad idea   | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
| ||
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
| ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
In general, don't buy a zoom yet. Prefer a standard lens (50mm) to start. Why Nikon ? Because you can re-use old lens (Ai and recent series) which are great and cheaper. The 50mm f/1,2 is very clear, the 80-200mm f/4,5 is incredibly sharp and the 50mm f/1,8 is so cheap now that you can got one for regular use. | ||
|
HaFnium
United Kingdom1075 Posts
I used my Dad's lenses on my nikon DSLR, works just fine. agreed with Mk, 50/ 1.8 (Both Canon and Nikon has this lens) is really good, considering their prices, it's quite fast and sharp. I think the Nikon 18-55 is quite decent, so I suggest Nikon (Am quite bias lol) I always think that the Nikons have more colourful colours... say compared with canon. | ||
|
iceburn
United States303 Posts
| ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
And as far as entry level bodies, every one of them has their pros and cons it seems but they are such small details that they mean virtually nothing to me, especially since I am so clueless about SLRs I was honestly tempted to spend twice as much for the nikon d5000 so when I saw the Canon for 470 i just jumped on it | ||
|
Yaqoob
Canada3348 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
Canon's stock 18-55mm lens isn't a terrible lens. It's actually a great lens for deep shots with lots of DOF, as for whatever reason, it makes very pretty bokeh (the background blur). The overall image quality leaves a lot to be desired, but it's not unusable by any means. What you'll get frustrated with after a while is trying to shoot in low light with it, as the aperture doesn't get any bigger than 3.5, and I think goes down to 5.0 when you get to 55mm? I'm not sure. Congratulations on getting a Canon, though. I'm supremely grateful you didn't get a Sony or Pentax or something. Canon and Nikon are the end all of DSLRs. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On July 28 2009 23:25 konadora wrote: wish i had the money, would have bought so many stuff on impulse too T___T but think of all that money your saving now! well err...... | ||
|
rredtooth
5461 Posts
On July 28 2009 23:26 Trezeguet23 wrote: this is where woot.com comes inWow, that's a sweet camera. Impulse buys are the best, especially when the happen online at 4 in the morning. | ||
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
| ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
Because seriously, I'm about to do the EXACT same thing you did hahaha. I already did my camera impulse buy though.... it turned out to be worth it in the end. If that makes you feel any better. | ||
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
On July 29 2009 04:59 redtooth wrote: this is where woot.com comes in Why oh why did you tell me about this!? Bank account Limit t->00 = 0 | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
don't bother buying anything additional until you get the hang of things with the 18-55 though! | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
yet thb, Canon's Software/Image treatment is better than Nikon's. For higher price, so if you got money, I recommend you Canon but if you don't want the over-the-top one, go for Nikon. And yeah, once again, to be able to use old lens is definitely a great deal. If you need a Zoom : Nikon's 18-70mm is a great deal. Sharp and fast. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On July 28 2009 23:25 konadora wrote: wish i had the money, would have bought so many stuff on impulse too T___T it's called a creditcard... followed by massive debt. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
Also I only have a 1gb sdcard from my old camera | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
One word of advice: ALWAYS keep your dial somewhere in the creative zones (P, Tv, Av, M or A-DEP if you have that on your camera). The preset zones are garbage, and any photographer passing you on the street will laugh at you if they see that. The most important things to figure out how to use is the ISO setting and what that means, and what differing aperture and shutter speeds do for your photos in whatever ways (it's more than just exposure amount, etc). Also, don't ever use the onboard flash unless you're using it as a fill for a portrait in direct sunlight, lol. I hate it when I see people using that. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
the onboard flash can still be very useful if you diffuse the light (wrap the flash in a kleenex or something), but again that's only going to be in low-light situations and very rarely as a fill most of all, have fun! | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
OP, ALWAYS have your ISO set to 100, or whatever the lowest value is (NOT AUTO if your camera has that). Adjust it upwards if the lighting conditions do not allow for it. You always want the best possible image quality, no need to needlessly compromise when you can change the ISO on the fly depending on your surroundings. Also, you need to figure out for yourself what the lowest you can for hand-held shots is. Some people are better at it than others. Personally, I suck at that, and the slowest I can hand-hold a shot at is at around 1/50. I can push it maaybe one stop slower, but results will vary. ): | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
|
So no fek
United States3001 Posts
But still, I'm excited and hopefully a lot of good comes from learning the trade. :D | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On July 30 2009 07:30 benjammin wrote: well, if you are in good lighting, of course use 100, but there's no point trying to stop camera shake at like 1/6 and iso 100 when setting it to 400 will be easier on the photographer Of course, and I agree. All I'm saying is that you should always try to push for the best image quality, and for that, 100 should be what your camera is most commonly at. Any decent general focal length lens (and by decent, I mean one that go to f/2.8) can handle most everything at 100ISO except for poorly lit daytime indoor or nighttime indoor shots. Except for those circumstances, you should be able to easily get away with 100ISO. | ||
|
LimitlessSky
United States434 Posts
I loved playing with DSLR from my photography class...so much u can do/ play | ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
Have fun using your new camera and be sure to post some photos. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
i dont think much talent is needed for photography, $$$ is equally important for good equipment. as long as you enjoy shooting and sorting through ur pics, u can shoot tons with no talent and still get plenty of good ones. op u def need a longer lens, you will get bored real quick with no reach  | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
Second, how much cropping and resizing should I focus on doing? A lot of people use flickr which resizes things pretty small relatively. Am I trying to fill the frame every time I shoot with the lens I have? When I look at alot of pictures, like say neverggs, they are usually a very wide angle (whether vertically or horizontally i mean, like her player portraits) does she crop or is it the lens she uses? I would think a lot of detail is lost in straight resizing of these 10 megapixel photos As far as new lenses I likely won't buy anything for a long time, I want to get to a point where I feel like I can do all there it is to do with a kit lens before moving on. I hear great things about the Tamron 17-50 lens. But yeah having a 200mm lens would be cool as shit too at some point | ||
|
iceburn
United States303 Posts
Personally I say a little cropping and resizing as possible, as a beginner you should learn to frame each shot with just your lens and camera view finder. Live view is nice but that saps battery life like none other. In nevergg's case she has a purpose for the crop because she just wants the players or a specific scene and she wants to get shots up for us to seen. So cropping maybe useful if she doesn't have a lens that fits the situation. Resizing an image won't lose a lot of detail if you maintain the dpi of the image. (here is some reading material http://photo.net/learn/resize/) Finally something i wrote a while back Photography. Camera. Lens. Flash. Click. How hard can this be? You see an image, point shoot click. Done. Digital Cameras have pushed the envelop. Professional and amateurs are using equipment that no longer separate them. Frankly now from what I see, even people that have no idea about photography no longer give the high praise of "oh that must be a really great camera." An amateur must shoot for the love of photography and the love of the art. While the professional must push further and work harder, think faster and have images that are just profound. Standard lighting is now everday, the edgy and dramatic is what is now needed. Flashes create blanket light, everyone is captured, but there is no feeling there is no emotion. There is just that fake plastered CHEEESSEE smile. I for one am not professional. I am not classically trained. I am just kid with camera. The quality of cameras are now producing weekend photographers. People that go out and just shoot, and record memories. Everyone is a photographer now. But to me photography is not for the weekend. Photography is every second of every day. Photography is life, photography is everywhere. The images are already out there. You have to make it happen. The camera is a tool, the eye is the only limiting factor. What you see is not what you see, because you don't see everything. The golden number of 7 plus minus 2. Thus five to nine objects are in your attention. So see, see not with your eyes see with your mind. Create the shot, create the image. Take the shot after you already know what it will be. Photography is not the camera. Photography is not the lens. Photography is not the flash. Photography is creativity. Photography is peace of mind. Photography is.. whatever you make it to be. Go wild, experiment. You restrain yourself, so push the limits, remove the boundaries and create the memory that you will want remembered. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
When I was saying like cropping and stuff, I didn't realize I wasn't zooming at all, so all my shots were the widest they could be. I'm sitting here trying to take pictures of birds and shit 10 feet away from me zoomed all the way out wondering how I turn that into a decent photo. My goal is a nice photo of a bird from my porch with a blurred sort of background, so I guess a high f value image. I'm not sure what other settings I should go for. | ||
|
v1rtu0so
United States140 Posts
i know about how an dslr operates, camera techniques, filters, what makes a good picture (mostly) etc but i am too damn poor to buy one of these woe is me | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On July 31 2009 05:40 gusbear wrote: i dont think much talent is needed for photography, $$$ is equally important for good equipment. as long as you enjoy shooting and sorting through ur pics, u can shoot tons with no talent and still get plenty of good ones. I actually take offense at that. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If that's the case, why am I not a world-renowned magnum photographer? I've worked hard to improve my photography for five years and I'm still terribly mediocre at it. For some people, a sense of photographic aesthetic comes naturally. Everyone has to learn the technical side, but no...there's a huge difference between people who know what they're doing and a beginner who happens to accidentally get a good shot. On August 01 2009 01:47 floor exercise wrote: I have a really basic question about the pictures I'm taking. First, I can shoot at 10mp, 6, or like 2.5. I hear people say how it's almost pointless for cameras to be higher than around 6 megapixels so should I focus on using that setting? I'd like to since I can fit more pictures on my 1gb sd card. I do need to buy a better card soon. Second, how much cropping and resizing should I focus on doing? A lot of people use flickr which resizes things pretty small relatively. Am I trying to fill the frame every time I shoot with the lens I have? When I look at alot of pictures, like say neverggs, they are usually a very wide angle (whether vertically or horizontally i mean, like her player portraits) does she crop or is it the lens she uses? I would think a lot of detail is lost in straight resizing of these 10 megapixel photos As far as new lenses I likely won't buy anything for a long time, I want to get to a point where I feel like I can do all there it is to do with a kit lens before moving on. I hear great things about the Tamron 17-50 lens. But yeah having a 200mm lens would be cool as shit too at some point I would recommend shooting at 10megapix always, unless you plan on absolutely NEVER making prints in your entire life. In addition, you'll be able to capture that much more detail...but it won't be important for most things you do since you'll be resizing for most hosting places on the internet. I only use a 1GB card too (I used to have many, but my equipment was stolen a couple years ago), and I haven't had any significant problems yet...I just have to frequently transfer pictures. I'm one of those weird ratio purists...ALL of my photos are 2:3. I never crop without maintaining ratio...and even then, I don't like to crop because that means the composition I took on-site was bad, meaning I fucked up as a photographer. I don't like it when people excessively crop photos to make up for a lack of composition sense. I also don't like it when photos end up in weird ratios and shapes and sizes...unless there's a purpose to it. As for resizing...always do that last. When post-processing your photos in photoshop or whatever, always work with the big image first. Once you've finished all of your resizing, save that one, then make a resized copy that you will upload. This way you'll never be screwed in case you need a bigger size for a different website or a print or something. As long as you use a decent program, you'll inevitably lose detail in resizing, but nothing that will be missed. In any case, you don't have a choice if you're going to be uploading to flickr or something. I've been using nothing but a 50mm prime lens for more than a year. Trust me...lens isn't all that big of an issue unless you're specifically going for a niche type of photography that requires something specific (like macro or sports or something). Since you're still learning, do as much as you can with the kit lens (which I've said before is not a horrible lens). The Tamron 17-50mm is a great bargain lens. It nearly stands up to Canon's L series in that focal range for like...a fourth of the price? Definitely go for that one to replace your kit lens. Tamron's 28-75 (I think?) doesn't hold up as well even tho the focal range is closer to Canon's 24-70 masterpiece. I used to own one (before it got fucking STOLEN T_T ) and found it was very soft wide open at f/2.8. BTW, NeverGG's photos are all very narrow, not wide-angle. She only uses a very long telephoto zoom lens. To my knowledge, she doesn't crop either. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
On August 01 2009 05:19 PH wrote: I actually take offense at that. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If that's the case, why am I not a world-renowned magnum photographer? I've worked hard to improve my photography for five years and I'm still terribly mediocre at it. For some people, a sense of photographic aesthetic comes naturally. Everyone has to learn the technical side, but no...there's a huge difference between people who know what they're doing and a beginner who happens to accidentally get a good shot. I was responding to someones comment about not wanting to take up photography because it requires talent. equipment is as important as talent in photography and you will get more good shots with better equipment. you still wont shoot anywhere as consistently as a pro but we are talking about photography as a hobby here so it is irrelevant. Obviously anyone with half a brain would know you need talent to be "world-renowed" at anything, not just photography. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On August 02 2009 02:14 gusbear wrote: I was responding to someones comment about not wanting to take up photography because it requires talent. equipment is as important as talent in photography and you will get more good shots with better equipment. you still wont shoot anywhere as consistently as a pro but we are talking about photography as a hobby here so it is irrelevant. Obviously anyone with half a brain would know you need talent to be "world-renowed" at anything, not just photography. sorry, but this is completely wrong. equipment does not make the photographer, even an amateur $5 camera versus a $3200 camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm#perf $25 camera versus a $5000 camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/25-vs-5000-camera.htm $150 camera versus a $5000 camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Big Brain Bouts
goblin vs Kelazhur
TriGGeR vs Krystianer
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Maru
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
