The Camera Thread
- Thread starter mojo-rizin
- Start date
If money wasn't a factor, I'd really like the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. But, it is, so I got the AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR. The AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR would be a really nice all-around lens, but again, that's not in my price range right now. Not sure how it would look on a tiny little D40, but it was nice on the D200. I wouldn't mind skipping the 18-200mm VR, getting the 18-55mm VR, and then saving for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. That would be very very nice.
And using your example, 70-300mm would be the focal length. I think it was Zoom who said she didn't know what the f number meant. (As in 50mm f/1.8) That's the maximum aperture.
Okay I'm done. I'm by no means a photography expert, lol.
And using your example, 70-300mm would be the focal length. I think it was Zoom who said she didn't know what the f number meant. (As in 50mm f/1.8) That's the maximum aperture.
Okay I'm done. I'm by no means a photography expert, lol.
I just (rather brilliantly - not) realized the 18-55mm VR would still be 52mm, so I wouldn't have to invest in new filters like I would with the 18-200mm VR. I think the 18-200mm VR is 72mm? I might have to get the 18-55mm VR when I have the money. 
If I wasn't sick, I'd go find something else to do other than ramble.
If I wasn't sick, I'd go find something else to do other than ramble.
I just (rather brilliantly - not) realized the 18-55mm VR would still be 52mm, so I wouldn't have to invest in new filters like I would with the 18-200mm VR. I think the 18-200mm VR is 72mm? I might have to get the 18-55mm VR when I have the money.
If I wasn't sick, I'd go find something else to do other than ramble.
If I wasn't sick, I'd go find something else to do other than ramble.
Well, that depends...the 50-200mm lenses for example take pictures from about about how you see things with your eyes (its actually slightly zoomed on a dSLR, for technical reasons) to pretty far zoomed in at 200mm. Now if you want wide angle, you're just out of luck unless you have another lens, as there is just no way to do it with a 50-200.
My 10x Canon S1IS for example has the 35mm equivalent of 38 to 380mm. Now the image quality suffered, since a 10x zoom strains the lens design and the small sensor helps create the equivalent of 380mm. (Its phsically a 5.8-58m) so two lenses on a dSLR have fewer design compromises.
My 10x Canon S1IS for example has the 35mm equivalent of 38 to 380mm. Now the image quality suffered, since a 10x zoom strains the lens design and the small sensor helps create the equivalent of 380mm. (Its phsically a 5.8-58m) so two lenses on a dSLR have fewer design compromises.
I'm not sure a step-down ring would be a very good choice, though. If the 18-200mm VR is actually 72mm, I didn't check, 72mm down to 52mm seems like a big difference. Wouldn't that produce a pretty severe amount of vignetting? I don't really know. I'm wondering if they even make a 72mm-52mm step-down ring. I just looked and didn't see one.
The 18-55 VR is smaller, lighter, and (I think, not sure) focuses closer than the 18-200mm VR anyway.
The 18-55 VR is smaller, lighter, and (I think, not sure) focuses closer than the 18-200mm VR anyway.
I have a Nikon D70 with the kit lens (18-70) and a 70-300mm. I really want the 70-200mm f/2.8.
I also have a Nikon N65 35mm SLR with a 28-80mm lens which I shoot slides with.
I also just got a Nikon Coolpix for Christmas just for taking quick snapshots and for video.
I have a degree in photography so if you ever have any questions let me know.
I can tell you that you will NEVER get the quality photographs of an SLR with a P&S. If you don't control your own settings your picture will just be average because that is want P&S cameras are designed to take. However the camera wont get you the photograph either. It takes a combination of the camera, the knowledge of how to use it, and what elements you need for a great picture (light, composition, subject, focus, depth of field, etc.)
I know a lot of people think photography is easy, but as someone who just graduated with a degree in photography and I worked with a couple really great photographers, it is a lot harder than it seems. However if you are really interested in learning how to use a DSLR to take great pictures then let me know and I will be glad to help in whatever ways I can.
I also have a Nikon N65 35mm SLR with a 28-80mm lens which I shoot slides with.
I also just got a Nikon Coolpix for Christmas just for taking quick snapshots and for video.
I have a degree in photography so if you ever have any questions let me know.
I can tell you that you will NEVER get the quality photographs of an SLR with a P&S. If you don't control your own settings your picture will just be average because that is want P&S cameras are designed to take. However the camera wont get you the photograph either. It takes a combination of the camera, the knowledge of how to use it, and what elements you need for a great picture (light, composition, subject, focus, depth of field, etc.)
I know a lot of people think photography is easy, but as someone who just graduated with a degree in photography and I worked with a couple really great photographers, it is a lot harder than it seems. However if you are really interested in learning how to use a DSLR to take great pictures then let me know and I will be glad to help in whatever ways I can.
awww nolu... I don't take good action shots? I'm hurt! (just kidding... )
My trick for actions shots is pretty much textbook. Increase shutter speed, keep the f-stop low ("bigger hole to let light through"), have a steady hand a good eye, and lots of patience. Bracket. If you have an autofoucl option, make sure it's set to the option to continually adjust its focus on the subject (it's ai-servo on my camera). Having a faster lens helps as well, but that route can get expensive REALLY fast.
You're also pretty much at the mercy of your lighting conditions. That's one thing no amount of money can fix complely. (darn it though!)
And as for not being able to get SLR-quality photos from a P&S... generally no, but if you've got the talent and timing to make it happen, it CAN happen. This photo was taken with a 3.1 megapixel Kodak P&S. Pretty darn good for a camera that barely cost $80.
)My trick for actions shots is pretty much textbook. Increase shutter speed, keep the f-stop low ("bigger hole to let light through"), have a steady hand a good eye, and lots of patience. Bracket. If you have an autofoucl option, make sure it's set to the option to continually adjust its focus on the subject (it's ai-servo on my camera). Having a faster lens helps as well, but that route can get expensive REALLY fast.
You're also pretty much at the mercy of your lighting conditions. That's one thing no amount of money can fix complely. (darn it though!)
And as for not being able to get SLR-quality photos from a P&S... generally no, but if you've got the talent and timing to make it happen, it CAN happen. This photo was taken with a 3.1 megapixel Kodak P&S. Pretty darn good for a camera that barely cost $80.
And as for not being able to get SLR-quality photos from a P&S... generally no, but if you've got the talent and timing to make it happen, it CAN happen. This photo was taken with a 3.1 megapixel Kodak P&S. Pretty darn good for a camera that barely cost $80.
I know that zoe - I'm just saying that it's not impossible to get nothing but crap from a P&S. I myself use DSLR but I know there are people in this world who cannot afford quality camera gear, nor are they able to take classes in digital photography in a university setting.
I dislike seeing elitism, especially involving something that not all people can achieve due to financial concerns. I just wanted to post a photo proving that not all P&S photos look horrible to the ameteur eye. Not everyone can spend thousands of dollars on a amera and peripherals.
I dislike seeing elitism, especially involving something that not all people can achieve due to financial concerns. I just wanted to post a photo proving that not all P&S photos look horrible to the ameteur eye. Not everyone can spend thousands of dollars on a amera and peripherals.
The frisbee has light glinting off of it... hence the over-exposed-ness. It's a reflection.
Thanks, Sizzle. And YES you are one of the people I was talking about.. I just had RD's shots of Eve in my mind. Patience is the one thing I have.. if I have my camera in my hand, I can be the most patient person on earth.
I think I'm going to have to drag Ryan and Caitlin over to give me another crash course in this. I am such an amateur!
Thanks, Sizzle.
And YES you are one of the people I was talking about.. I just had RD's shots of Eve in my mind. Patience is the one thing I have.. if I have my camera in my hand, I can be the most patient person on earth.I think I'm going to have to drag Ryan and Caitlin over to give me another crash course in this. I am such an amateur!
It's okay nolu - everyone hs to start somewhere. Honestly I'm still learning digital, I'm much better with a film camera. There's something more visceral about working with negatives in a darkroom, I enjoy it so much more.
What I love about film is that you can achieve almost everything with it - you don't need to worry about megapixels or image quality, just have a good film camera and high quality film and paper. Develop your film right, have darkroom skills, and the stars are the limit!
IMO film is more fun to work with, and it's my passion - I have a few ancient (but well maintained) lenses and a 30 year old Canon AE-1, and I get better photos than my classmates who use state-of-the-art cameras with all the bells and whistles. My mother used to teach photography, so she handed down all her stuff to me. Lots of different mediums to use as well, you can do a lot of experiementation with film.
Digital is just a hobby for me, but I'm learning all I can without going to the poorhouse buying new camera stuff!
And a lot of the time with digital... sometimes the best photos are the ones that aren't technically perfect - especially when dealing with dogs. It's a sentimentality aspect. Take this photo for example - some people could rip into it for hours, saying how it's not clear, the composition isn't that great, it's spotty, the colors arent' rich... but it's one of my favorite photos. I love it because I love the subject - a 3 day old Ilsa with her momma. Her co-breeder 's 14 year old daughter took this with a camera they got free as part of a sign-on deal with a company. And I think it's beautiful.
What I love about film is that you can achieve almost everything with it - you don't need to worry about megapixels or image quality, just have a good film camera and high quality film and paper. Develop your film right, have darkroom skills, and the stars are the limit!
IMO film is more fun to work with, and it's my passion - I have a few ancient (but well maintained) lenses and a 30 year old Canon AE-1, and I get better photos than my classmates who use state-of-the-art cameras with all the bells and whistles. My mother used to teach photography, so she handed down all her stuff to me. Lots of different mediums to use as well, you can do a lot of experiementation with film.
Digital is just a hobby for me, but I'm learning all I can without going to the poorhouse buying new camera stuff!
And a lot of the time with digital... sometimes the best photos are the ones that aren't technically perfect - especially when dealing with dogs. It's a sentimentality aspect. Take this photo for example - some people could rip into it for hours, saying how it's not clear, the composition isn't that great, it's spotty, the colors arent' rich... but it's one of my favorite photos. I love it because I love the subject - a 3 day old Ilsa with her momma. Her co-breeder 's 14 year old daughter took this with a camera they got free as part of a sign-on deal with a company. And I think it's beautiful.
Get on the ground and shoot at a dog that's moving a lot?
Seriously. I have no tactics. I just snap away. Sometimes I get lucky and sometimes I don't, but I have no skill as a photographer. Just pretty dogs and a camera that meshes well with my automatic-fire style of photography when it comes to getting action shots, lol.
Because I have little dogs, I have to more or less be sitting or lying down when I take pictures of them. I've planted myself in the dirt quite a few times to get on their level.
DSLR or not, the same thing would have happened with the Frisbee picture.
Flat light on the grass, and lit up Frisbee. A dSLR does not have enough range to fix it. It might fix the purple fringing though. The camera did all it could do, its in focus and stopped the motion. To improve it would require a change in composition.
Flat light on the grass, and lit up Frisbee. A dSLR does not have enough range to fix it. It might fix the purple fringing though. The camera did all it could do, its in focus and stopped the motion. To improve it would require a change in composition.