| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2007 11:09:36 AM · #2076 |
Originally posted by ephln:
I have a question re cameras and am looking for some guidance.
I am looking at the Nikon D40X, the Canon Rebel xt and the Canon Rebel xti.
I went to a local camera shop and I like the weight of these particular models.
My question is...I am totally confused about lenses and don't know which one (or two) to buy. I like to do close up and macro shots but also want the flexibility to do other types. I am a total rookie at DSLR's so am leaning towards the D40x. What would you recommend?
If anyone has the time...I would sure like some opinions. |
My two cents?
It's sorta mixing apples and oranges a little with the choices.
The 350D/XT and the D40 are more comparable, the D80 is more comparable with the 400D/XTi.
Personally, I'd lowball it and go with the D40, although if you look around really carefully, you should be able to get the 350D/XT for about the same money.
You can use all the current good lenses with both, I dunno how far back with Canon you can go, but if you get a D80, you can use Nikon's lenses all the way back into the '50s.
The D40 is a little fussier about only being fully functional with current lenses, but unless you have a treasure trove of old lenses, it's a non-issue.
The only real differences between the D40 and the D40x are the 6.1 MP vs 10 MP and I'm not sure I'd notice the difference, so I'd never spend the extra.
But then I'm the guy who's going to hold onto my D70s forever 'cause I'm just not really an equipment freak.
One place that Nikon has an advantage for us Non-Freaks is the 18-200 VR lens. It's a fabulous lens if you're not a $3K+ lens snob, and you're a low-end, happy hobbyist user like most people.
It's pricey at $750 most places, but for me, when I get mine, it'll most likely be the only lens I'll ever use.
Anyway, they are all terrific cameras that will be more than what you'll need, and I have found that my entry level DSLR is waaaaaaaaasaay more capable and competent than I, so I highly recommend these starter DSLRs.
FWIW, I ended up with the Nikon D70s after doing MUCH research and it came down to the D70s and the 400D/XTi......I got the Nikon purely by a visceral/physical choice. It just looked and felt better to me.
Message edited by author 2007-08-12 11:11:57.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 11:25:13 AM · #2077 |
Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I'll go with the starter xti. :)
I took some pics for the urban but none really struck my fancy. I'm still pretty lousy at landscapes.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 11:45:42 AM · #2078 |
Originally posted by ephln:
I took some pics for the urban but none really struck my fancy. I'm still pretty lousy at landscapes. |
Landscapes are a b*tch!
Unless you have the virtually perfect setting, i.e., you live in Moab, Utah, or Iceland, you kinda have to luck into cooperative weather or a challenge description that exactly fits that place you know thirteen miles away that's just been waiting for that challenge.
A sunrise/sunset across an ordinary farm, or the wind and cloud swept prairie and lonesome farmhouse before a storm is so much more helpful.
I spent most of yesterday driving around to places that I've been and remembered nice settings, but there was something wrong with each one that I did not get even one shot I even liked, much less was willing to spend some time with to process.
I have one more place about twenty miles away that I'm going to go see this afternoon, but if that doesn't pan out, it's back to the city for a shot that I know I like.
Good luck; just keep shooting!
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 12:20:15 PM · #2079 |
Thanks for the comments, folks - very much appreciated. The good looking guy is a friend I worked with in San Antonio, who moved to Germany about a year before I did. His girlfriend (sorry ladies!) moved to Heidelberg about three months before I moved to Germany, and she was the first sitter of my cats. Unfortunately, I probably won't get to see him all that often because we have very different jobs and work on different parts of the camp, which is quite massive.
As for challenges, I have several fast food potential entries that could challenge Don for the brown, but I can't upload from the connection in my trailer and I don't wanna go back over to the office - believe it or not, traffic is a bitch here, and most of the vehicles are quite, umm, sturdy. I have a VERY broken down small pickup I'm using until its normal driver gets back, and it doesn't stand a chance against the beasties that are out there. So anyway, I don't think I'll enter fast food. But I did enter the speed free study. Probably a bottom third kinda shot, especially in a free study, but that's where I'm comfortable in those challenges. And besides, it's an entry!! |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 12:38:27 PM · #2080 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ephln:
I took some pics for the urban but none really struck my fancy. I'm still pretty lousy at landscapes. |
Landscapes are a b*tch!
Unless you have the virtually perfect setting, i.e., you live in Moab, Utah, or Iceland, you kinda have to luck into cooperative weather or a challenge description that exactly fits that place you know thirteen miles away that's just been waiting for that challenge.
A sunrise/sunset across an ordinary farm, or the wind and cloud swept prairie and lonesome farmhouse before a storm is so much more helpful.
I spent most of yesterday driving around to places that I've been and remembered nice settings, but there was something wrong with each one that I did not get even one shot I even liked, much less was willing to spend some time with to process.
I have one more place about twenty miles away that I'm going to go see this afternoon, but if that doesn't pan out, it's back to the city for a shot that I know I like.
Good luck; just keep shooting! |
Actually came across one that I took yesterday while downtown that might do ok in the Urban. Processed it this morning and submitted it. Hopefully it won't tank my average...lol
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 02:15:27 PM · #2081 |
Found this beauty in my backyard this morning :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 02:57:20 PM · #2082 |
If anyone has upgraded to CS3 and doesn't need the old CS2 version...I would love the opportunity to talk to you about it. Got sticker shock when I finished the trial version!!!
Thanks
Eve
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 03:06:49 PM · #2083 |
Originally posted by ephln:
Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I'll go with the starter xti. :)
I took some pics for the urban but none really struck my fancy. I'm still pretty lousy at landscapes. |
Worth checking out the Pentax DSLRs as you are starting from scratch. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 03:28:52 PM · #2084 |
Originally posted by ephln:
Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I'll go with the starter xti. :) |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Worth checking out the Pentax DSLRs as you are starting from scratch. |
Dude, I know you love your Pentax, and they are good and all, but you must admit that Nikon and Canon both have much more market share and support, ergo will always be a better choice for the neophyte.
Just as an example, I haven't even seen a Pentax in this area and I wouldn't even know where to go to get one.
With a DSLR, and/or lens, I want to go and personally lay eyes, and hands, on what I'm going to purchase.
I certainly would not buy a body without getting the feel for it and examining it in general to see what I do or don't like about it.
In the event of a problem, it's nice to have a real human contact to speak with if you have an infant mortality issue.
The camera shops and places like Circuit City all have a replacement policy, so you can generally get same day exchange.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 04:37:34 PM · #2085 |
Ok, just wondering if I could draw on the vast wisdom of TS for some photography advice...
I've been playing with landscape type shots recently (circumstantial. I prefer fluffy things and fire, but in the absence of both, big slabs of rock will do). And they're totally more tricky than I thought. A lot of the time either the big slabs of rock look good, but the sky has blown highlights, or the sky is perfect, but the big slabs of rock are way too dark. Is there:
a) A perfect point of exposure, and you just need to fiddle around with the settings and look at the funny little histograms for long enough to figure out the right balance.
b) There isn't necessarily a perfect balance, but there's a filter you can use
c) There's no solution, and you just rely on extensive post-processing to fix the problem.
Please help :) |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 04:50:55 PM · #2086 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
Ok, just wondering if I could draw on the vast wisdom of TS for some photography advice...
a) A perfect point of exposure, and you just need to fiddle around with the settings and look at the funny little histograms for long enough to figure out the right balance.
b) There isn't necessarily a perfect balance, but there's a filter you can use
c) There's no solution, and you just rely on extensive post-processing to fix the problem.
Please help :) |
A couple of suggestions.
First if you have some extra cash and plan to do a lot of landscapes a grad ND filter works wonders. It is what I use when I know the sky is a very different exposure from the ground.
Some other tips, try setting your camera to the lowest contrast setting and adding contrast selectively in post. As high contrast settings will usually clips both ends of the curve.
It's easier to add detail to the shadows, so if it is extremely lighting error on the bright side.
Also some people use a HDR technique to make landscapes (I'm not one but it helps).
If you have a Nikon Capture NX, Selective D-Lighting works wonders on underexposed areas. Hope that helps, but I am not much of a landscape shooter either. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 05:25:49 PM · #2087 |
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
Ok, just wondering if I could draw on the vast wisdom of TS for some photography advice...
a) A perfect point of exposure, and you just need to fiddle around with the settings and look at the funny little histograms for long enough to figure out the right balance.
b) There isn't necessarily a perfect balance, but there's a filter you can use
c) There's no solution, and you just rely on extensive post-processing to fix the problem.
Please help :) |
A couple of suggestions.
First if you have some extra cash and plan to do a lot of landscapes a grad ND filter works wonders. It is what I use when I know the sky is a very different exposure from the ground.
Some other tips, try setting your camera to the lowest contrast setting and adding contrast selectively in post. As high contrast settings will usually clips both ends of the curve.
It's easier to add detail to the shadows, so if it is extremely lighting error on the bright side.
Also some people use a HDR technique to make landscapes (I'm not one but it helps).
If you have a Nikon Capture NX, Selective D-Lighting works wonders on underexposed areas. Hope that helps, but I am not much of a landscape shooter either. |
Thanks very much, that's extremely helpful :)
Hmm, a grad ND filter, you say... I shall, um, go and find out what it is, it sounds useful.
HDR still confuses me, but it's on my list of pp tricks to master this year. So maybe at some point. I've been watching  bear_music with admiration, but, well, who doesn't. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 05:55:12 PM · #2088 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
Ok, just wondering if I could draw on the vast wisdom of TS for some photography advice...
a) A perfect point of exposure, and you just need to fiddle around with the settings and look at the funny little histograms for long enough to figure out the right balance.
b) There isn't necessarily a perfect balance, but there's a filter you can use
c) There's no solution, and you just rely on extensive post-processing to fix the problem.
Please help :) |
A couple of suggestions.
First if you have some extra cash and plan to do a lot of landscapes a grad ND filter works wonders. It is what I use when I know the sky is a very different exposure from the ground.
Some other tips, try setting your camera to the lowest contrast setting and adding contrast selectively in post. As high contrast settings will usually clips both ends of the curve.
It's easier to add detail to the shadows, so if it is extremely lighting error on the bright side.
Also some people use a HDR technique to make landscapes (I'm not one but it helps).
If you have a Nikon Capture NX, Selective D-Lighting works wonders on underexposed areas. Hope that helps, but I am not much of a landscape shooter either. |
Thanks very much, that's extremely helpful :)
Hmm, a grad ND filter, you say... I shall, um, go and find out what it is, it sounds useful.
HDR still confuses me, but it's on my list of pp tricks to master this year. So maybe at some point. I've been watching bear_music with admiration, but, well, who doesn't. |
If you're going to go with a graduated ND, try the P series Cokin filter setup - it will give you more say in where to place the "horizon line" than a screw on filter would and it will allow you (with the right relatively cheap adapter rings) to use the same filter on any size lens you might have (or get in the future). If you go the way of a screw on glass filter, get the size of your largest lens diameter and then step up rings for your smaller lenses. Save you having to buy a grad ND for each lens you may want to use it with.
Cokin sells a grad ND "kit" for the P series, which gives you the filter holder and a selection of grad NDs for one price. You would still have to get the adapter ring(s) separately, but they are usually $10-12 USD. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 06:00:59 PM · #2089 |
| bear_music doesn't even mind you creeping up behind and trying to find out how he does it... |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 06:21:29 PM · #2090 |
Oh wow, I never spotted that one :D Thanks!
And Karen, thanks, I'll have a look at those. It's so exciting having an SLR for the first time, there's all this new gear that's suddenly possible to use... :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:15:14 PM · #2091 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
It's so exciting having an SLR for the first time, there's all this new gear that's suddenly possible to use... :) |
You have NO idea. :)
Purple, you've gotten some great advice already, but I know how confused I was to start, so I'm going to elaborate a bit further.
Difficulty exposing ground and sky together makes you normal. :) No one can without some technique (obligatory nod to people who want one or the other exposed differently) and some gear. But before going there, here are some really basic intro definitions.
A neutral density (ND) filter is one that's basically sunglasses for your camera - it's gray so it doesn't change any colors, but it darkens the scene, allowing you to use a longer shutter than otherwise. This is how people get those lovely blurred waterfall shots. You can buy them at different strengths. They're rated either by how many times they cut the light (e.g., 2X gives you half the light, or a 1-stop drop, 4x is 1/4 the light or a 2-stop drop) or by how many stops: 1-stop, 2-stop, etc.
For example, on this waterfall shot, I had filters equal to a little more than 2 stops on my lens; otherwise I never could've kept the shutter open 4s to get the nice blur:
For land/sky compositions, you really want to darken the sky relative to the ground. Enter the graduated neutral density (aka grad ND or GND) filter. It's clear on one side and gray on the other, with a blurry line between the two. The idea is that you put the line on the horizon, with the dark side on top, so it darkens the sky but leaves the ground alone. Again, there are different strength filters.
The issue with GND filters that screw onto your lens is that the line between dark and clear is locked in one location, which means you have to compose to match the line (again, with a nod to people who want to do offbeat stuff).
Now comes the Cokin P filter system. This is a combination of two pieces:
1) A holder sized to your lens. Different lenses have different filter sizes. For example, two of my lenses are 77mm and one is 67mm. You need a holder for each size lens you own. It's just a rectangular piece of plastic with screw threads on one side and slots on the other.
2) Filters. Cokin filters are squares, again with different strengths and purposes.
You put the holder on your lens, and then you slide the square filters in. That lets you slide the horizon line on a GND up or down to match whatever composition you want to use.
I haven't used anything but a normal ND myself, but I intend to get a Cokin P system.
Now, once you have your shot, you can then do some things in processing. That's where HDR and other techniques help. Before worrying about HDR, I encourage you to play with Photoshop's shadow/highlight adjustment. It's under image->adjustments (at least in CS2, the version I have). It lets you bring up the brightness of shadows and darken highlights independently of each other (use the first slider under each section to set how much of each). There's no better way to learn than to play with it. :)
There are other techniques, too, like creating a new layer, setting the blending mode to "soft light" and painting black to darken areas and white to brighten them.
I think I overdid it in this example, but here's how much you can change things using the soft light layer.
Original:
Edited:
I'm guessing your head's about to explode, so I'll stop now. :)
Going back to which challenges we're entering, I'm in both of tonight's, including one out-of-the-box concept that I hope people will understand.
Message edited by author 2007-08-12 19:15:50.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:31:44 PM · #2092 |
Aaaah, I see... *a flood of small eureka lights switches on*
Hehe, I've been trying to get some of those waterfalls, and I knew the shutter speed had to be long, but I didn't know the filter existed. So I figured people must have just been shooting in very dim conditions (since I was taking pictures of a normal waterfall, and couldn't get the shutter speed to go below 1/30 no matter how much I twiddled with the settings)
Thank you so much!
Btw, you already got me addicted to soft light layers a while back with that tutorial group you were running - it's pretty much my favourite editing trick nowadays :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:34:13 PM · #2093 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
I figured people must have just been shooting in very dim conditions (since I was taking pictures of a normal waterfall, and couldn't get the shutter speed to go below 1/30 no matter how much I twiddled with the settings) |
Dim conditions help, too. :) I shot that waterfall at about 7 am. Midday, and my filters wouldn't have been strong enough.
Glad you liked the PS 101 threads! At some point, I'll get back to them.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:45:35 PM · #2094 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Dim conditions help, too. :) I shot that waterfall at about 7 am. Midday, and my filters wouldn't have been strong enough.
|
Makes sense :)
I started thinking in terms of physics/waves/etc for the first time in years because of this whole photography craziness. And it's lovely because everything's perfectly logical. You need a certain number of photons to hit the sensor for a good exposure, optics determine where they come from (and explain bokehs, distortion, all the rest of it), and then you use a bunch of different variables to get the right level of exposure. And for tricky shooting conditions, there normally seem to exist ultra clever engineering solutions that photographers already came up with (like having a stabiliser for a big zoom lens, or the right filters, etc.)
All very cool :) |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:56:02 PM · #2095 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
I started thinking in terms of physics/waves/etc for the first time in years because of this whole photography craziness. |
Yep. Put that together with my Physics degree and you end up with me taking lots of geometric photos that are well-exposed. :) It's taken Don and others to knock me out of always shooting in that mode and push me to step outside the "norm." My Shadows shot is my latest example.
Message edited by author 2007-08-12 19:56:16.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 08:06:20 PM · #2096 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
I started thinking in terms of physics/waves/etc for the first time in years because of this whole photography craziness. |
Yep. Put that together with my Physics degree and you end up with me taking lots of geometric photos that are well-exposed. :) It's taken Don and others to knock me out of always shooting in that mode and push me to step outside the "norm." My Shadows shot is my latest example. |
Ooh, physics degree? Makes a lot of sense. Looking at your top 5 scoring shots is quite revealing, come to think of it :)
Might be kinda fun to play a game of 'spot the scientists' on DPC. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 09:06:00 PM · #2097 |
| I'm in the speed FS. Probably get a 4.5, LOL!! |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 09:23:28 PM · #2098 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm in the speed FS. Probably get a 4.5, LOL!! |
I'm betting you have me beat.. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 09:25:50 PM · #2099 |
Doh, I didn't get anything for fast food or the speed free study, but then my last free study landed in the bottom 3%, so... I'm still hoping for some luck with getting shots for one of the open challenges this week. Anyone watching the meteor shower tonight? If I was outside of Chicago I might try to get some pictures, but I think I'll be lucky to even see anything from here.
Challenge results might be a little late, but they'll be posted tonight.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 09:30:27 PM · #2100 |
| I'm in the speed challenge and rural landscape. |
|
