SNAP! The Camera Thread

[Manny M]

After not finding an actual thread dedicated to cameras and the art of using them, I figured what better way to crown my new purchase, then to create a thread.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't know much when it comes to photography. Terms like 'Aperture' and 'Telephoto' seem like buzz words to me... but I love great photography. Seeing something captured so beautifully is magic. I intend on learning how to get the most out of my camera, but I figured that this thread could be useful for forumers who have a question about photography and cameras, whilst providing a place for our Pros to chat about different methods, tips and tricks.

Now without further adieu, I present you my weapon of choice, which was only purchased yesterday.

The Canon EOS 400D (http://canon.com.au/products/cameras/digital_slr/eos400d.aspx)

http://canon.com.au/images/big_products/eos%20400d_front_fdown_s.jpg

I purchased the twin lens kit, which contains the EOS 400D w/18-55mm II Kit - Silver Body plus EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lenses.

As far as I know, higher 'mm' lenses result in a more zoomed image.

I've bought nothing else for it yet, and haven't even gotten her out for a play, but what would you budding photo jockey's recommend as essential accessories for a Digital SLR?

I've also got a Pentax Optio, which is nice and compact and great for quick snaps, but I wanted a 'true' photo experience, thus the SLR.

Anyway, enjoy. Chat, discuss, exchange, and even use this thread as an opportunity to show off what your camera (and it's user) can do.


P.S Oh, and I forgot to mention that I got the EOS 400D Twin Lens kit for $1,150... a saving of $500. Not a bad bargain if I do say so myself.

[PrinceCaspian]

Yeah get rid of the kit lenses, they suck.

If you're serious about your photography (and if you buy a 400D, then you're at least a little serious about it), you need good lenses.

Of course, the lenses you'll need depend greatly on the type of photos you're looking to take. If you give me an idea of the photos you want to take, I can recommend you some lenses (I'm a canon boy myself).

[ZeRgY]

I think a tripod would be pretty high on my "to get" list. These can help make a good shot great.

[Manny M]

Well i'm not going to get rid of the lenses that came with it. They're still worth a few hundred bucks. I'm actually interested in those IS lenses, but i'm not willing to fork over for new lenses just yet.

I don't particularly know what 'kind' of photos I want to take, I want to be pretty versatile with it really. Nature shots, portraits, action shots... etc. I think before I start forking over for better lenses, I need to know how to use what I have. I'm going to take an 8 week course in Feb.

For my actual SLR kit though, I need to get a bag, a CF card (or two), an extra battery pack... but what else? Someone at work told be to get a protection filter for the lens... what is that exactly? What are the basic bits and pieces any SLR photographer should have in their kit?

[PrinceCaspian]

What do I carry in my camera bag. lets see.

I've got around 2 GB worth of CF cards. A CF card reader and USB cord for PC transfers on the go. I usually only take my 50mm lens with me unless I know I'll need something else. A MP3 voice recorder (which I use for journalism but can be equally useful for getting a verbal release to a shot you've taken.) Pens and copies of paper release forms. A portable hard drive, and usual lens protection/ cleaning gear (air blower, lens cleaning tissues and liquid etc etc).

I take (or used to take) photos of people for a career, and to be honest, tripods aren't as useful as some people make them out to be. I wouldn't bother investing in one in the short term.

[Slurry Murray]

I'm thinking about buying a digital camera but I know absolutely nothing at all about them. Really, the only thing that I know is that optical zoom = good and digital zoom = shit.

I'm looking for something that's relatively cheap that can take photos that can be put on Facebook. I'd also like to be able to record video. Nothing fancy, but I would like something that is relatively decent (ie, I don't want a $2 Shop quality camera).

Does anyone have any suggestions on what to look for in a camera, and/or any recommendations?

[Dukotoja]

a few years back i purchased a canon 350D that came with a 18-55mm lens kit. so far its been around the world twice and its been worth every penny (bought in London so yeah pennys) i haven't accesorised too much. the only thing i would stress you need is a UV filter which can be picked up second hand for around $10 at a camera store. however if your into cool reflection photos then you cant go past a polarizing filter which allows you block light from certain angles thus you can take a picture of still water with the reflection of the water on the surface or into the water and of the bottom of the pool or what ever.

as for quality of your camera i think you've done pretty well. i love my canon and ill post a few shot ive taken with it to show you what it can do.

none of these have been altered, just resized.

Gudi
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/9252/mg1257copyjb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Alcazar
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/3092/mg1337copyhm8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Morocco
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/5598/mg1496copysd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Luna Eclipse
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/9919/picture029nm3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Hiding Kitty
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5325/awesomekittycopyme6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

have to agree with artimus on the tripod thing. the only one of these photos that i used a tripod for was the lunar eclipse shot. and in that situation a tripod was completely required for obvious reasons

[Woody]

I'm thinking about buying a digital camera but I know absolutely nothing at all about them. Really, the only thing that I know is that optical zoom = good and digital zoom = shit.

I'm looking for something that's relatively cheap that can take photos that can be put on Facebook. I'd also like to be able to record video. Nothing fancy, but I would like something that is relatively decent (ie, I don't want a $2 Shop quality camera).

Does anyone have any suggestions on what to look for in a camera, and/or any recommendations?

I have no idea about cameras at all, but I took a Sony DSCW80S (http://www.sony.com.au/dis/catalog/product.jsp?categoryId=22119 - got to scroll down on the right hand side there) to Europe with me. It was an excellent companion and I wouldn't hesitate in recommending it if it's within your price range.

[Manny M]

Thanks Artemis. I just bought a smallish Lowepro bag, which fits everything I have. EOS 400D, 18-55mm lens, 75-300mm lens, battery charger, usb cable, video out cable, spare 1GB Extreme III CF (i've got a 2GB Extreme III CF in the camera... was going to go the Extreme IV, but it's not worth the money)... quite snug, but it's nice and compact.

I've just ordered 2 Hoya 58mm Super HMC Skylight filters (which are to protect my lens, and also to reduse lens flaring and enhance colour... apparently skylight filters are better for colour, whereas UV filters are better for black and white... apparently). Later on down the track I might get a Circular Polarised filter.

Oh, and i've also got to grab a cleaning cloth for the lens... maybe one for glasses from an optometrist... or do you recommend the blower, lens tissues, solution etc? I was thinking that might be a little overkill.

I took some snaps last night at the old mans birthday, and i'm amazed at the clarity of a simple shot. The autofocus is brilliant, and works so well. Only once I had 'trouble' with the camera, and that was when the candles were being blown out... the camera wasn't working because the flash was 'busy'. I don't know why it did that, but the timing was really unfortunate. Other than that, i'm loving this camera so far, and I don't even know its quirks.

Lost20: some great shots there. I'll share some of my own soon.

Butch: For a compact camera, the Pentax Optio range is pretty good. I have one, and they work pretty well.

[Manny M]

SNAP!

*sorry for the double post. Despite having posted, it seem the forum didn't recognise my post as the newest post. post.*

[StorminNorman]

I'm thinking about buying a digital camera but I know absolutely nothing at all about them. Really, the only thing that I know is that optical zoom = good and digital zoom = shit.

My understanding, based on limited experience shopping (I bought my first ever actual digital camera last week) is that more megapixels = more better, but also more price = better optics = more better.


Does anyone have any suggestions on what to look for in a camera, and/or any recommendations?
I picked up a Canon PowerShot A550 (http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras/digital_compact_cameras/powershota550.aspx) last week. It seems to work pretty well for a consumer-grade camera at around the $200 level. It has 7.1 Megapixels, 4x optical zoom, support for SD cards, some feature called "AiAF" that I know nothing about (and the manual doesn't explain it either), and a bunch of other things that you'd expect in a consumer-grade camera (PictBridge, Video Out etc).

My only complaint is that, like my phone camera, it seems to generate a lot of digital noise when taking photographs. The problem goes away when you start reducing the size of the image, but it annoys me, as I always thought it was an artifact of having a GSM receiver in close proximity to a CCD array. Apparently not (or my camera has a GSM receiver in it for no good reason.)

Aside from that issue (which goes away once you start cutting images down from the maximum resolution anyway), it's a pretty good camera for the $200 I paid for it.

If you're after a pro-grade camera, I got nothing. :P

[PrinceCaspian]

Anyone interested in helping me do a fashion shoot in the near future?

Now that I've moved to Sydney I'm going to get off my arse and finally develop a fashion portfolio. Having no contacts in the area up here though I could use an extra pair of hands when I organise a shoot.

[PrinceCaspian]

Guys, low end digital SLRs are not that expensive any more. There is no point in buying anything else.

[Tom The Bomb]

I'm in the process of getting a new camera, I want a compact one that will be easy to take around with me, but still want good long distance shots and for the pictures to look good if taken in the dark.

So I'm choosing between these two:

KODAK EASYSHARE M753
$200
7 Mega Pixles
3x Optical Zoom
6.25 (2.5") LCD screen
Rerchargeable battery.
Full specs (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/11920/11114/11141/11143&pq-locale=en_US)

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/22/kodak-easyshare-m753.jpg

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/22/kodak-m753.jpg

KODAK EASYSHARE Z885
$265
8.1 Mega Pixles
5x Opitical Zoom
6.25 (2.5") LCD Screen
(Not sure about what battery it has at the moment)
Full Specs (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/11920/131/10683/10685&pq-locale=en_US)

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/22/kodak_easyshare_z885_zoom1.jpg

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/22/kodak_easyshare_z885_zoom2.jpg

[Manny M]

Anyone interested in helping me do a fashion shoot in the near future?

Now that I've moved to Sydney I'm going to get off my arse and finally develop a fashion portfolio. Having no contacts in the area up here though I could use an extra pair of hands when I organise a shoot.

Details? I'd be interested, if only to get some shooting tips.

[beast]

http://www.greatdigitaldeals.co.uk/images/s5700mi.jpg

http://www.ixbt.com/short/images/-S700-2.jpg

Fuji s5700

Good enough for my needs, which are random nature photos and social pictures. I'm a very amateur photographer, but practising lots :P

[PrinceCaspian]

Details? I'd be interested, if only to get some shooting tips.



I'd need someone to help set things up in a studio (as they are ridiculously expensive to hire, so time is of a premium and they can take a while to set up), or alternatively if I took the shoot outdoors, hold up the reflector boards etc.

So yeah if you're interested drop me a PM. It's still very much in planning/ ideas stage right now, so I'll keep you in the loop from there.


If you wanted to, I'd also be quite happy for you to bring your own camera and, assuming there's time left with the studio/ model, I'd be happy to let you play around once I'd finished my shoot - no charge to you of course.

[texta]

I take (or used to take) photos of people for a career, and to be honest, tripods aren't as useful as some people make them out to be. I wouldn't bother investing in one in the short term.I picked up a $30 tripod which is great for a)taking pictures at Parliament and other low light places I guess and b) taking a whole set of pictures and stitching them together.

[PrinceCaspian]

Yeah absolutely. If you’re going to be photographing landscapes and architecture, then you’ll need a tripod.

But it’s one of those things that more people think they need than do need them. I have a really great $300 tripod that I’ve never used – and most of my photography is portraits or sports.

I also don’t need a wide angle lens. People who do architecture or landscapes would need one of those.

People who photograph insects need different equipment etc etc.

But yeah I find more people rush out and buy tripods “because you need them!!!” and then don’t use them because they actually just want to take photos of people/ holidays etc.

[Clockw0rk]

I'm considering buying a Kodak
Are there any other brands that suit your needs? I usually recommend that people steer well away from Kodak cameras since they're usually cheap crap (although to be honest those don't look bad). Panasonic have a few mid range Lumix cameras that should be suitable, there's one for around NZ$350 that has 6x optical zoom and a Leica lens.

I've personally got a Canon Powershot A630, it's great. I'm thinking of getting an Olympus Mju 795 (http://www.dse.co.nz/cgi-bin/dse.storefront/en/product/XG0795) as well, since it's pretty much the best compact camera on the market and I wouldn't mind something I can carry anywhere.

I'm looking for something that's relatively cheap that can take photos that can be put on Facebook. I'd also like to be able to record video. Nothing fancy, but I would like something that is relatively decent (ie, I don't want a $2 Shop quality camera).

Does anyone have any suggestions on what to look for in a camera, and/or any recommendations?
The Canon Powershot A460 is quite cheap and takes very good quality pictures. I recommend it to most folks who are looking for a cheap digital camera. As for what to look for, it varies between people. I looked for a camera that had a lot of manual shooting options including a multi-shot mode but was still relatively cheap, and had a vari-angle LCD. Once I had my options I decided which one I liked the most.

Other folks look for a large LCD which isn't always a good idea - many large LCDs have a horrid resolution and a terrible framerate. If you're going to use the LCD rather than a viewfinder, check the quality first.

Try and get one with a fast auto-focus so you don't miss one-off shots. You can usually test display cameras in-store, so have a play with them.

Decide whether you want AA batteries or Lithium Rechargeables. Lithium batteries are generally in the more expensive slim cameras, their advantage is that they're a lot cheaper in the long run as you don't need to buy more. The advantage of AAs is that you don't have to worry about running out of charge while you're out and about, as long as you have spares. Lithiums also have a limited life of about 1.5/2 years, though by then you would probably have upgraded.

Megapixels don't matter anymore, 5 is enough for casual use.

Optical zoom: the more, the better. Always.

Cheaper camera+higher megapixels = crappier picture quality.

That's pretty much all the advice I can think of, aside from this:

Guys, low end digital SLRs are not that expensive any more. There is no point in buying anything else.
Unless you want a compact camera, or a basic point n shoot for social situations.

[PrinceCaspian]

Unless you want a compact camera, or a basic point n shoot for social situations.



SLRs come with point n shoot settings, and the quality of photograph they produce is so infinitely much better, you're really burning bridges to go with anything less.

[beast]

I just had a very brief look, and couldn't find anything below $1000.

Is that what you mean by cheap, or can you point me somewhere cheaper? (I just clicked on the first Australian link to a google search for "digital slr")
http://digitalcams.com.au/category.aspx?category_id=Digital%20Camera&manufacturer=Olympus&subcategory=SLR

[Clockw0rk]

SLRs come with point n shoot settings, and the quality of photograph they produce is so infinitely much better, you're really burning bridges to go with anything less.
How cheap is the cheapest decent SLR on the market?
How small is it?

Until they make a $250 SLR you can comfortably fit in your pocket, then I'll maintain that cheaper cameras are still a perfectly viable option for everyday consumers.

so infinitely much
So infinitely bad much grammar :P


Edit:
Thought I should check pricespy.co.nz and find a cheap SLR. Cheapest was an Olympus E-500 for $680 but included ordering/shipping charges, most of the prices listed for that camera were in the $1000 bracket. This was just for the body, lenses had to be added on top of that.

[PrinceCaspian]

For the jump in performance and quality, paying $1000 for a SLR is a better option than $200 for a happy snap camera.

Digital SLRs are not heavy or difficult to transport around. I carry mine around in my bag all day and it’s never a burden. I use it in all situations, social, as a training tool and in a professional capacity, and as a social camera it does work well.

It reality, buying a happy snap camera is a money sink. It’s like buying a Gamecube now. Sure it’s cheaper, but you may as well splash out and buy a Wii.

FTR, I did have a happy snap camera before I got my Canon. As someone who has owned both, and from a purely social perspective (forget the professional, or serious applications), I see no point in buying a non-SLR.



Also, regardless of whether you're going for SLR or happy snap – Nikon or Canon. Do *not* buy anything else.

[501]

Luna Eclipse
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/9919/picture029nm3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



I know the chances are ludicrously slim, but you wouldn't happen to have taken that photo in the middle of an oval around 1-3am, and live in the Heidelberg/Belfield/Ivanhoe district by any chance?

[Dukotoja]

yeah ok sorry ill stop posting that picture, just so dang proud of it :D love a good moonset. anyway:

'Until they make a $250 SLR you can comfortably fit in your pocket'

not gonna happen, cant believe im still agreeing with art.

[beast]

As it happens, I took a bunch of photos of anthropods today :) Here are my favourites;

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417206_3544.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417208_3961.jpg

I know the hover fly in this one is out of focus, but I really like the picture anyway;
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417209_4174.jpg


http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417219_6270.jpg

[beast]

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417222_6904.jpg
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417223_7117.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417224_7334.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417225_7556.jpg
http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417226_7774.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417227_7996.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417236_9896.jpg

This spider was ridiculously small, and also fast. The fact that I got photos of it at all was pure luck. They were taken from about an inch away at the most, and are also ridiculously zoomed in (hence the low quality). Still an awesome looking Araneae.
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417240_818.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v136/169/17/596561514/n596561514_417241_1041.jpg

edit; I mean zoomed in on the images once they were on my computer. I may be an amateur, but I'm not that much of amateur :P

[PrinceCaspian]

Micro photography fascinates me. If it wasn't so expensive to get the equipment that serves very little function other than micro photography, I'd get into it in a big way.

[Clockw0rk]

Y'know, Artemis, after sleeping on it I think you're right. For the purposes of this thread,this thread could be useful for forumers who have a question about photography and cameras, whilst providing a place for our Pros to chat about different methods, tips and tricks.You're right about SLRs being a better choice for enthusiasts.

However, convincing Joe Average and his wife to spend $1500 on an SLR might be a bit of a chore, when all they want to do is take snaps of little Johnny at his rugby game and birthday party.

In fact, unless you're going to be carrying your camera with you everywhere and using it every day, then a basic camera is a perfectly viable option given the price difference, and you're hardly shooting yourself in the foot when you can still take photos like these with cameras that cost no more than $500:

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4895/tutukaka014sn0.jpg
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6456/hamiltongardens040qt2.jpg
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/6135/img0768el1.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5278/dsc00004gp1.jpg
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9185/img60782oi5.jpg
(These were all resized using mspaint because I'm lazy, so any loss in quality can be blamed on that. The originals can be found on my photo album)

Finally, I should say that I would be very unlikely to take an SLR with me if I went snowboarding, but having a Mju 795 (waterproof, shock proof, crush proof, freeze proof and tiny) would be perfect.

[StorminNorman]

When we were looking at digital cameras a couple of weeks ago, it was decided that digital SLRs were ridiculously expensive for our purposes. Obviously we didn't have high standards, as all we wanted to do was replace a K750i camera (My E65 has a shitful camera in comparison) with something useful.

Digital SLRs were just ridiculously out of our price league when it came to this. Why pay that much for features we're not terribly interested in when a $200 Canon Powershot A550 delivers on everything we need? I've managed to get the hang of it now, and most of my initial image-quality complaints have gone away.

Sure, the photos aren't the pro-quality you get from an SLR, but they're certainly usable enough for my purposes, and it's not like I don't know how to use Photoshop.

Oddly enough, if you skip over my mobile phone cameras, this is the first camera I've owned since a Ricoh 35mm camera that I bought about twelve years ago. It's amazing how much camera you get these days for the price I paid for that thing back then.

Maybe when it comes time to upgrade to a new camera in a couple of years, I'll look more seriously at a DSLR or something a bit more "pro", but, honestly, the price difference doesn't justify the image quality to me at this point.

[Manny M]

Beast, are you using a Macro lens for that shot?

I really want to get a Macro lens for really close up and highly detailed shots of animals.

[PrinceCaspian]

If you’re into nature photography I can’t recommend getting a long range telephoto and heading off to Africa enough.

It’s clichéd, but it’s a trip of a lifetime (according to my photographer friend who did it a while ago)

[PrinceCaspian]

Since people are posting some of their photos - some of my personal pet project - dance sport photography (as opposed to studio photography)

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff193/WaltzElf/Together.jpg

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff193/WaltzElf/PhilKathUpload.jpg

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff193/WaltzElf/AricUpload.jpg

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff193/WaltzElf/MarciaUpload.jpg

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff193/WaltzElf/BradBrookeUpload.jpg

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff193/WaltzElf/Rumba_Elegance_by_danceart.jpg

[beast]

Beast, are you using a Macro lens for that shot?

I really want to get a Macro lens for really close up and highly detailed shots of animals.

No just my shitty cheap camera that I posted earlier - haven't added any lenses or even considered it to be honest. It does have a "super marco" option on the camera though, for pictures up to 1cm away, and I took all of those at 7 megapixel and then cropped them (and facebook resized them). I have the non out of focus hover fly pic as my desktop at the moment, and it looks fine on my 22" wd monitor. I'm pretty happy with the result, considering a hover fly is usually less than 1 cm long.

edit; But actually given I'll be earning a few extra grand this summer that I wasn't expecting, I'm considering spending that money on some better photography equipment for my anthropodic hobby. We'll see.

[PrinceCaspian]

I should also point out that those photos aren't using optimum equipment for sports photography - I'm using the 50mm lens I use for portraits.


I'm happy with how they turned out. Not using flash, and going with a high ISO level was a deliberate choice to give the photos a vintage feel.

[beast]

The one with the guy saying "lol" is the best.

[PrinceCaspian]

My favourite photo that I’ve taken is actually the second one in that post, but probably more because the girl in it is one of the nicest people you could hope to meet.

the top one is probably the best dance sport photo I've taken from a technical perspective.

[texta]

I should also point out that those photos aren't using optimum equipment for sports photography - I'm using the 50mm lens I use for portraits.I think using "inferior" equipment is much better in some ways anyway. Anyone can take decent pictures with a f*** off big camera and photoshop, but try taking decent photos just using your camera phone.

My old boss when I worked at the tannery used be massively into photography. He'd go away on trips and then when he got back he'd spend hours showing my all his pics. They were pretty good and it and to give you an idea of how boring my work was, it was much more enjoyable to look at his holiday snaps than work.

EDIT: Also Beast's photos were taken in my backyard, so if you like any of them pep me not him (he's responsible for bad pics though). <-I think I've been spending too much time devoted to politics in the last few weeks... :P

[PrinceCaspian]

I think using "inferior" equipment is much better in some ways anyway. Anyone can take decent pictures with a f*** off big camera and photoshop, but try taking decent photos just using your camera phone.


A good photo is a good photo regardless of what camera it comes out of. And it's entirely possible to take horrible photos with a digital SLR. You should see some of the photos that people take with my camera when I ask them to photograph my partner and me dancing.

If you want to take good photos it makes no sense not to get a good camera, since a good camera gives you much more control and precision over what you're doing. It's also gravely insulting to the photographer to say the quality of the photo is entirely down to the equipment he/ she is using.

[beast]

A friend of mine takes nature photos (usually of "faces" for some reason) and has published a few books (http://www.elementalearthphotography.com/html/home.htm).

One day at a market a guy came along and was so impressed with his work, he gave him a little over $10,000 worth of camera equipment. Or maybe he felt sorry for him, and thought the equipment would improve his work. Good deal either way.

[PrinceCaspian]

That’s pretty awesome Beast.

Had a look at the gallery too. I really like some of his stuff. Really really like it.

[texta]

It's also gravely insulting to the photographer to say the quality of the photo is entirely down to the equipment he/ she is using.Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. A good photographer can take good pictures on a great camera and a bad one as well.

[beast]

While I agree with texta somewhat; surely good cameras are not easier to use. Last summer when Lotus was down here, he spent hours (not literally) getting the right lens combinations for the right photos, getting things in focus etc.

I imagine that if you gave me a foot long lens and a camera, I wouldn't have any idea what I should be taking photos for (despite being longer than my forearm, his lens was actually for close up photos, not huge zooms).

So I don't think it's a case, that if you give good equipment to anybody, they'll be able to take good photos with it.

[PrinceCaspian]

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. A good photographer can take good pictures on a great camera and a bad one as well.


And a bad photographer will never get a good photo out of a good camera.

Good photos don't just happen on SLRs any more than masterpieces just happen on top-quality canvases with top-quality paint brushes.

There still needs to be talent behind the camera. And a good photographer will get better photos out of a good camera than he/ she would get out of a bad camera.

[banjoeskimo]

I think using "inferior" equipment is much better in some ways anyway. Anyone can take decent pictures with a f*** off big camera and photoshop, but try taking decent photos just using your camera phone.

Most horrendously incorrect statement ever. Just check deviantART or take a photography class with DSLR newbies, you'll see what I mean. Artemis is right on the money with this one. You might be able to get away with a little bit more using a better camera and Photoshop, but all good photography starts with a good exposure, plain and simple. The best lense, DSLR or software on the market can't save someone without a good eye.

Anyway, I guess I showed up a bit late to this thread, but I might as well weigh in. While I haven't used Nikon equipment heavily, I've had some very wonderful experiences with Canon, most notably on the EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and Rebel XTi. While the 350D/Rebel series are obviously the lower end of Canon's DSLR market, they're still very capable cameras with a lot of bang for your buck, a very intuitive interface, and enough bells and whistles to get some seriously professional material done (i.e. high res photos, RAW support, all the neccesary shooting modes, good lense support).

Right now my equipment base is pretty limited, I have a Canon EOS 350D, the standard 18-15mm lense, and a 70-300mm telephoto. I'd love an even bigger zoom lense, a wide angle, and a macro, but unfortunately I'm still at uni and not made of money, so I just work with what I have. I'm lucky enough to be borrowing a Canon Ultrasonic 300mm lense from the university on a regular basis, which is an absolute beast. Unfortunately it's a fixed zoom, but it's a ridiculously large lense with a lot of glass, so getting a great exposure with ridiculously shallow depth of field is very easy, and makes a wonderful fit for portraiture.

Anyway, a lot of you have probably seen some of my stuff in the art thread, but if you haven't, my gallery is available here (http://eibach.deviantart.com/gallery/), and comments & critiques (even negative) are always appreciated. I'm not yet doing this as a paid job yet, so describing myself as "professional" in any capacity always seems a little narcissistic, but if I can help with any questions I'd be happy to try.

[clarky]

I'm going to Europe in January and I need a nice compact digital. Can anyone give me some suggestions on what to get? I've got up to $500 to spend.

[Manny M]

Eibach, you're the reason I bought an Canon SLR in the first place. Can't praise your photography enough.

For a Digital SLR newbie, would you recommend a class, or would a good guide do? Any recommendations on the latter?

Also, do you touch up your shots after you take them?

[Zace]

Hey!!! A thread I was after! Can anyone recommend a good cheap online store (Either in Australia or elsewhere) where I can buy a fisheye lens for my girlfriends 400D?

[ZeRgY]

Hey!!! A thread I was after! Can anyone recommend a good cheap online store (Either in Australia or elsewhere) where I can buy a fisheye lens for my girlfriends 400D?

Shopbot.com.au ;)

[banjoeskimo]

Eibach, you're the reason I bought an Canon SLR in the first place. Can't praise your photography enough.

For a Digital SLR newbie, would you recommend a class, or would a good guide do? Any recommendations on the latter?

Also, do you touch up your shots after you take them?

Thanks! As for learning, it depends what side of photography you're talking about. If you're just talking about learning the technicalities of a camera, a good manual or textbook will be amazingly helpful, but going to all the trouble of paying for a class on something you can easily research yourself is probably not worth it. I've found this book (http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Digital-Photography-Second/dp/1598630172/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197603485&sr=8-1) to be pretty helpful and easy to understand, even if you might know a lot of it already depending on your skill level.

If you're talking about learning good composition though, no class can really teach you that, like any art, you kind of either get it or you don't, but either way a tonne of practice will always help. My best advice would be to try and develop your own style and always try to think of putting the camera in a unique position. As in, don't just frame everything in the centre because it's what your mum taught you. Do crazy stuff, use angles, get down on the ground on your belly, stand in tall places, and do everything humanly possible to make the shot look like it belongs on a wall or a magazine cover, instead of a standard snapshot your grandma could have taken. Also, spend a lot of time looking at good photography (deviantART is a good start, but there's a lot of shit to wade through, so I'd recommend sorting by popularity since you'll probably find better overal quality) and keep asking yourself how they did it. Where did they position the camera, why that angle, what makes it a good shot, and what would I have to do to replicate that shot? It's like learning anything else, the more you know how to deconstruct what you're seeing, the more you'll know and want to try when you're out shooting yourself.

To answer your final question, yeah, I do. There's pretty much no such thing as a perfect photo that comes out of the camera exactly the way you want it. Even if it's just a subtle adjustment to the overall contrast or levels to bring out the tones of a photo, or a sharpening filter to make it look extra crisp, Photoshop is pretty much the replacement for the darkroom. Anyone who claims tweaking digital photos is somehow cheating either a) doesn't know anything about photography, or b) is ardently opposed to digital and a crazed film purist. Not that film is bad, it's great, and there's still some stuff you can pull off using film that's near impossible or would take thousands of dollars with digital, but the idea that it's okay to use a darkroom with film and not digital is crazy. This doesn't mean you have lisence to commit outright photomanipulation (i.e. replacing people's heads), but it does mean you shouldn't be afraid to tweak colours a little, eliminate dust spots and play with colour filters.

So, my point here is that you'll definitely be spending a lot of time in Photoshop, and if you don't have it, you'll need it (assuming you're wanting to do this to a professional level... if not, I'm just getting way too detailed and I apologise for ranting). Tutorials will be a great help here, and I can highly recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Photoshop-Digital-Photographers-Graphics/dp/1584505362/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2), as it's up to date and very easy reading. Also, a general rule when editing. Don't be afraid to cut away unneccessary parts of a photo. There's no rule that says you have to stick to the same frame proportions given to you by your camera, so, if something doesn't look right, crop away.

Anyway, hope that helps!

[spectator]

I'm going to Europe in January and I need a nice compact digital. Can anyone give me some suggestions on what to get? I've got up to $500 to spend.

I just got the Ricoh R7 for my sister. Terrific little camera with 7x optical zoom. Picture quality is great as well, mind you I'm no expert at these things so you may want to look around the internet for reviews. The camera retails for $550 but I manage to get mine for $479, shop around.

[Surgeon.]

Damn it, this thread has tempted me to get back into photography.

I've been using a horrible k-mart variety 4.1 mega pixel for a while now and I need an upgrade. Unfortunately I've also been considering getting a digital video camera as well and I can't afford both. Speaking of which, does anyone have any experience with digital video cameras? Could use some buying advice.

Anyway, guess it's one of those good dilemmas

[Speedy_C]

Just went and put a Fuji Finepix A820 on layby (I could have purchased it but it would mean that there was hardly was hardly any money for the next fourtnight). My girlfriends parents have one and I've had a bit of a play with it and I'm happy with it. Um... details on the camera can be found here (http://www.fujifilm.com.au/products/item.asp?id=3&sid=1&pid=342)

http://www.fujifilm.com.au/_uploads/productmaster/large342.jpg

[Manny M]

Went on a trip to Taronga Zoo today... this is a warning that i'll be posting a few pics up soon for 'critique'.

Also, thanks for responding Eibach. I didn't notice you had earlier. Those books look great.

[Louis]

Anyone here take any sort of... 'experimental' shots?

[Manny M]

Like, of your penis?

[Kotche]

Like of teenage chicks making out with each other?

[Clockw0rk]

Speaking of which, does anyone have any experience with digital video cameras? Could use some buying advice.
Sony or Panasonic, Mini DV, NOT DVD and not HDD.

After that, pretty much pay for the quality of picture you want.

I personally prefer Sony (Carl Zeiss Lens, higher optical zoom than their competitors, anti-glare LCD), but a friend of mine has a 3CCD HD Panasonic camera and he loves it to bits. Even on a standard def TV the quality is noticeably different from the basic cameras.

My video camera is the cheapest one Sony makes, the DCRHC38E. Does everything I want it to.

[Manny M]

Thanks! As for learning, it depends what side of photography you're talking about. If you're just talking about learning the technicalities of a camera, a good manual or textbook will be amazingly helpful, but going to all the trouble of paying for a class on something you can easily research yourself is probably not worth it. I've found this book (http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Digital-Photography-Second/dp/1598630172/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197603485&sr=8-1) to be pretty helpful and easy to understand, even if you might know a lot of it already depending on your skill level.

I found a book by the same author called 'mastering digital slr photography 2e'. Considering I have a digital slr, would I be better of getting that, than just a seemingly 'generic' mastery of digital photography?

[Surgeon.]

Sony or Panasonic, Mini DV, NOT DVD and not HDD.

After that, pretty much pay for the quality of picture you want.

I personally prefer Sony (Carl Zeiss Lens, higher optical zoom than their competitors, anti-glare LCD), but a friend of mine has a 3CCD HD Panasonic camera and he loves it to bits. Even on a standard def TV the quality is noticeably different from the basic cameras.

My video camera is the cheapest one Sony makes, the DCRHC38E. Does everything I want it to.

Just out of curiosity, what's the problem with using a HDD digital video camera?

I've been looking around a bit recently and had my eye on either a JVC EVERIO GZ-MG275 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/2040448__.html) or a Sony HDRHC5 Hi Def (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/2049192_2073885_.html). Ideally I'd like to spend a couple hundred more and get the HD but I probably wont need such high quality footage considering that I'm not even sure what I'm really going to use the camera for anyway.

JVC might not be the best brand but the GZ-MG275 seems to be about the best camera available for under 1K. Every review I've read about it indicates that it produces pretty decent quality video,

[beast]

Anyone here take any sort of... 'experimental' shots?

Well I spent the 5 hour drive from Narooma to Sydney on Monday taking the typical "experimental" prolonged shutter speed photos of oncoming cars in the dark. I'm not sure if that counts as "experimental" or just "amateur" since everybody does it, and they're pretty boring.

Speaking of photography, there is an awesome exhibit at the Australian Museum in Sydney of an international wildlife photography competition. Everybody who gets a chance should go see it. There's a section on insect photos which is pretty amazing. One guy took an awesome picture of two hover flies mating (in mid air), which was super impressive. He said it took 3 days of trying to get the photo.

I've been inspired to get an slr and some macro lenses when I can afford it.

[Manny M]

YES! I've been wanting to go see that, but I keep forgetting about it. Going to grab the details now.

[Manny M]

Here we are

http://www.austmus.gov.au/visiting/whatson/display.cfm?event_id=278

Good to see that it ends in March, so there's plenty of time to see it. I wonder if they'll let you take photos of the photos :P

[Louis]

Like, of your penis?

No, shit like extreme closeups of LEDs, using different coloured flashes, etc.

[beast]

Here we are

http://www.austmus.gov.au/visiting/whatson/display.cfm?event_id=278

Good to see that it ends in March, so there's plenty of time to see it. I wonder if they'll let you take photos of the photos :P

I wanted to take some photos of the photos, but I was afraid I'd look too post-modern, then my friend pointed out that I'd need to take a photo of somebodies viewfinder while they were taking a photo of one of the photos to look too post-modern.

[Manny M]

Haha very true.

[Michaelangelo]

As much as I love my current camera, it doesn't get as much use as it should because it's kind of bulky. So I'm after something tiny that I can carry in my pocket everywhere I go, without too much trouble. I'm tossing up between the Canon Ixus 75 (http://www.cameras.co.uk/camera-reviews/canon-ixus-75.cfm) and the Sony DSC-T200 (http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/sony-dsc-t200.cfm). Deciding which one is too painful, someone do it for me. Be specific, support your answers. :)

[Clockw0rk]

Just out of curiosity, what's the problem with using a HDD digital video camera?

I've been looking around a bit recently and had my eye on either a JVC EVERIO GZ-MG275 or a Sony HDRHC5 Hi Def . Ideally I'd like to spend a couple hundred more and get the HD but I probably wont need such high quality footage considering that I'm not even sure what I'm really going to use the camera for anyway.

JVC might not be the best brand but the GZ-MG275 seems to be about the best camera available for under 1K. Every review I've read about it indicates that it produces pretty decent quality video.
Haven't been in this thread in ages... Anyway the HDD cameras are too expensive given that at their highest quality they can't actually hold more than a Mini DV tape. The "up to 20 hours recording time" refers to "20 hours at low quality", which you should avoid really as you might as well have a cheaper camera. Plus if you're out all day filming and you run out of space, with a HDD camera you're screwed. Granted you'd probably run out of battery first but it's something to think about.

[Queenie]

Thread for discussion of cameras, discussion of purchasing of cameras, and offer opinions on different cameras, and show your camera.

1st thing:

http://jacksoncomputers.com.au/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=405&zenid=3bfe5859bea05bdfdad32797c9a10f9f

Samsung S1050B

http://www.nadavi.ru/jpg_zoom1/56649.jpg

10.1 Megapixels
5x optical zoom
3.0" LCD Screen
And apparently 45mb flash internal memory.

I saw one in Dick Smith's for $250 the other day, saw it and wanted it.
Should I get it?

Also, the pics are when the lens is fully extended.

[Queenie]

thread merge?

[HiredMan]

Sure. It was an epic fail! :D

[Manny M]

This is going to be my next lens purchase:

CANON 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens


Description

Handy, compact zoom lens for versatile and easy subject selection while travelling, with rugged dust-proof and drip-proof construction, designed for professional photographers working in harsh environments



Specifications

Lens Construction: 22 elements in 16 groups
Lens Hood: EW-83G
Filter Size: 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.1 x 3.5 (78.4 x 89.6mm)

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/images/canon28-300mma.gif

They retail for about 4K, but i've found it for 3.

Swayzelf, tell me i'm crazy!

[Queenie]

where do you get all this money?

[PrinceCaspian]

This is going to be my next lens purchase:

CANON 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens


Description

Handy, compact zoom lens for versatile and easy subject selection while travelling, with rugged dust-proof and drip-proof construction, designed for professional photographers working in harsh environments



Specifications

Lens Construction: 22 elements in 16 groups
Lens Hood: EW-83G
Filter Size: 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.1 x 3.5 (78.4 x 89.6mm)

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/images/canon28-300mma.gif

They retail for about 4K, but i've found it for 3.

Swayzelf, tell me i'm crazy!


Actually, that's the first telephoto I would go with too.

[HiredMan]

where do you get all this money?

He pimps the rest of us mods out on the weekends ;)

[Manny M]

You'd be surprised how easily a $5 weekend turnover builds up over a year.


Swayze, you're not helping my lens addiction :P

[Surgeon.]

Haven't been in this thread in ages... Anyway the HDD cameras are too expensive given that at their highest quality they can't actually hold more than a Mini DV tape. The "up to 20 hours recording time" refers to "20 hours at low quality", which you should avoid really as you might as well have a cheaper camera. Plus if you're out all day filming and you run out of space, with a HDD camera you're screwed. Granted you'd probably run out of battery first but it's something to think about.

Figured you'd get back to this thread eventually, but appreciate the PM. I kind of came to the same conclusion anyway and am looking at getting the Sony HDRHC5. Just waiting for a price drop now, cheapest I've seen it so far is $1200 at JB Fi-Hi.

[Manny M]

A few of my pics from a recent trip to the zoo.

Rhinocerous Iguana

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_1904.jpg

Some Dragon i've never seen before

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_1856.jpg

Red Panda (my favourite pic)

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_2076.jpg

[Blue]

I'm looking to spend up to 2K on a camera. Help me guys.

[PrinceCaspian]

I'm looking to spend up to 2K on a camera. Help me guys.

Any Canon EOS around that price point.

[banjoeskimo]

What Artemis said. The 350D and 400D should be pretty cheap at this point, as they've just been superseded by the 450D (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012403canoneos450d.asp), meaning it should be relatively easy to save some cash. Or you could just go and get the 450D itself, as it's an extremely slick piece of hardware.

[turb06]

i have a 400D and its fantastic. Last i saw you could get the 400D and 2 lenses bundled for around $1300. Note these bundled lenses are not the standard twin lense kit (the one i got) but they are better quality with USM and image stabilisers. one is a 55-250mm USM image stabilised lense which would be an awesome piece of equipment.

Depends if the 450D offers anything overly better than the 400D. but a 400D bundled with the 2 quality lenses leaves you with enough money left over for a bag, tripod, spare battery, 4gb memory card (you dont want less than 4gb if you are shooting in RAW) remote control, and some lense hoods. I also reccommend extremely highly on getting the cannon ex430 (i think thats the number) flash unit. You will think any photos you take before having that are crap. i did.

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category521_1.htm

Above link is the one i would buy. just looked at the 450D and the only improvements i would find useful are the fact it now accepts SD cards and has live view where you can take pictures from the screen instead of the view finder only. its bumped upto 12 mega pixel from 10.1 but thats irrelevant since at 10.1 it will print above A3 size without any image loss.

[Manny M]

450D? How incredibly annoying!

[Manny M]

I bought my sis an Ixus 70 for christmas and i'm incredibly impressed with it. Hell, it even has the same image sensor as the semi-pro Canon 40D.

[turb06]

Going to buy an IXUS 70 to replace my ****ed IXUS 60.

Is this a good choice?

I'm looking for a P&S cam that has excellent image quality and decent manual features. I was also looking at the Panasonic FX series.

Consider the powershot A720, it exactly the same price on the net and has an 8mp, IS, and a 6x optical zoom not 4x and i dare say would offer more manual control.

Or find an extra $90 and go to a powershot sx100, i bought one of these for my father in law and it has awesome manual control which pretty much immitates the SLR's. The menu system is the same as SLR also. Very very good camera for the money.

I would go that one (A720) for picture quality unless the IXUS has some other quirky features you prefer. either way you cant go wrong with a canon camera.

[Clockw0rk]

I haven't had any experience with AA powered cameras, is it an issue?
My A630 lasts for well over 150 high resolution shots (with flash), as well as video. I put fresh Alkaline batteries in for my mate's 21st and didn't have to change them at all. Plenty of battery in the morning too.

Then again, it does take 4 AAs instead of 2, so maybe that has something to do with it.

[turb06]

Probably the rechargeable battery and size.

I haven't had any experience with AA powered cameras, is it an issue?


No. we bought him the camera for christmas and of course with all new toys it got used a heap. The batteries (came in the bundle no name brand) lasted all day and night on christmas day and all day boxing day no worries, well over 300 shots plus all the menu browsing i did, he did and his other son in law did. Even a set of everready super heavy duties will get you through a big day and they are as cheap as chips, i use them in my speedlite on my 400D and get around 300 flashes from them. If you use it alot you can get some high quality rechargables or use those super high powered duracell/energisers that are designed for high power outputs 2 of those lasted my mothers whole holiday to scottland.

[turb06]

either way as i said before, you cant go wrong with a canon camera.

[turb06]

moral of the story. Dont drop it in the sand. :)

[Manny M]

Here's a quick question about photography in general.

Who here has professionally worked as a photographer? Would you recommend it as a profession?

I ask because i've always loved photography and lament not taking it up in school and following through with it. See, i've already started my career in IT, which is paying me pretty well (which will also only climb), so while I love photography, I'm extremely hesitant about starting from scratch with a new career, and have opted to keep it as a hobby. Thing is, my sister is getting into makeup, and I was toying with the idea of taking up photography professionally and starting up a business with my sister some time in the future. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea, but again I fear leaving an industry which i'm mildly interested in and that pays me very well.

Experience and advice in similar situations welcome.


I've also recently come across the work of 'Nick Melidonis', an award winning photographer who runs photography tours to Greece, Spain and Egypt. They look like a fantastic venture for any budding photographer, and i'm seriously contemplating his '09 tour to Greece. Check it out.

http://www.nickmelidonis.com/pages/Tours.html

[PrinceCaspian]

Here's a quick question about photography in general.

Who here has professionally worked as a photographer? Would you recommend it as a profession?

I ask because i've always loved photography and lament not taking it up in school and following through with it. See, i've already started my career in IT, which is paying me pretty well (which will also only climb), so while I love photography, I'm extremely hesitant about starting from scratch with a new career, and have opted to keep it as a hobby. Thing is, my sister is getting into makeup, and I was toying with the idea of taking up photography professionally and starting up a business with my sister some time in the future. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea, but again I fear leaving an industry which i'm mildly interested in and that pays me very well.

Experience and advice in similar situations welcome.


I've also recently come across the work of 'Nick Melidonis', an award winning photographer who runs photography tours to Greece, Spain and Egypt. They look like a fantastic venture for any budding photographer, and i'm seriously contemplating his '09 tour to Greece. Check it out.

http://www.nickmelidonis.com/pages/Tours.html

In all honesty... don’t. The photography market is saturated, and as a startup you’ll be competing against people with far (far) greater resources than you. Professional photography is a very expensive career to maintain, in terms of equipment, and, unless you’re an established name or have a really superb portfolio, you’ll just not get any quality gigs.

In all liklihood, you’ll end up, at best, as a Santa photographer, or something equally unglamourous and unentertaining. When I set up my business I was lucky enough to do it in a growing regional area, right at the time where the market was ready for photographers, but none had moved in as yet (other than the typical school/ santa photographers). So I basically enjoyed a monopoly for long enough to be build up so that when others started up, I was, essentially, the one with the name.

Even then most of the work was extremely boring. The rare times you got to do something interesting weren’t really compensation.

Don’t get me wrong, I love photography, but as a career, you’re better off sticking to something else.


Also, I recommend this fellow http://www.dancespecific.com

No one has captured the art better than him.

[Blue]

How do you go about snagging a press pass for a gig?

[PrinceCaspian]

How do you go about snagging a press pass for a gig?

Being a member of the press would be a good start.


Seriously, unless you’re a member of a recognised press source (and have the relevant PR contacts), you’re not going to be just given a press entry pass.

[Blue]

Okay, so you guys recommended I buy a Canon 400D. There's a 'Canon EOS 400D with 18-55mm & 75-300mm lenses' for $1188 at Harvey Norman. Thoughts? Any other Digital SLRs I should consider, at all?

[PrinceCaspian]

Okay, so you guys recommended I buy a Canon 400D. There's a 'Canon EOS 400D with 18-55mm & 75-300mm lenses' for $1188 at Harvey Norman. Thoughts? Any other Digital SLRs I should consider, at all?

Unless you’re planning on buying a higher end Canon SLR, then no.

Canon are the best cameras at whatever price point they come in at. I know some people swear by Nikons, but as far as I’m concerned there is no comparison.

[Manny M]

Point taken. That being said, if no one tried to be the next 'name' in photography, then there would be no next name in photography.

As for Blue, the 400D is a fantastic camera, I have one myself (with the twin lens kit, which goes alright but is only a tiny stepping stone to the lens lust you'll likely have soon after), but they've just released the 450D, which incorporates some of the features of the semi-pro 40D... so perhaps that's something to look into first.

[PrinceCaspian]

Point taken. That being said, if no one tried to be the next 'name' in photography, then there would be no next name in photography.

So do you have the time and financial resources to be a startup? A studio? All the required equipment? Staff – receptionist, more photographers, hair and makeup people? Contacts you can pull favours with? Contacts who want to pull favours with you?

If you don’t have these things you’re at a massive disadvantage. If you’re genuine about making a career in photography, you’re better off working for a studio, building up contacts, resources and your name, and then breaking out on your own.
I’m not trying to discourage you from a career in photography – it’s a good line of work.


But. But. But. Do not start a business in an industry that is so mature, and so saturated, unless you’re guaranteed success. Otherwise you’re going to end up like 90% of restaurants.

[Blue]

Thanks guys. Any idea how much I'm looking at for the 450D?

All of this is making me want to just bite the bullet and grab a 40D.

[Manny M]

Swayze: I wouldn't go from not having done photography professionally in any sense, to opening a studio. It would be a future plan, a goal to work towards. Basically I was just asking what the profession was like, and whether it was worth pursuing with that goal in mind down the line.

Blue: Sometimes I wish I had just forked out for the 40D, but then again if you're just an enthusiast then the extra features aren't likely going to be well utilised, thus being more expense for no reason.

I don't know what the 450Ds are going for, but the twin lens 400D kit is a great deal.

[PrinceCaspian]

Swayze: I wouldn't go from not having done photography professionally in any sense, to opening a studio. It would be a future plan, a goal to work towards. Basically I was just asking what the profession was like, and whether it was worth pursuing with that goal in mind down the line.

It’s like any other career – it can take a long time to get to the point where you’re in a position to open your own studio – if the opportunity ever arises, and it’s like any other start up from there.

It’s a decent enough career though. Like any creative art turned into a profession, a lot of the creativity is lost, but it’s still photography.

[turb06]

Blue you can get the 400D with an IS lense now also. you only get the one lense but it is a 55-200 (or close to not exactly sure) which would be an excellent all rounder. The best new features in the 450D i can see are that it now takes SD cards and can shoot from the LCD screen instead of just the viewfinder.

I bought myself a new 70-300 USM IS lense when i was in singapore to replace the 75-300 that comes with the twin lense kit, the difference in photo quality is staggering.

[Manny M]

IS lenses are fantastic. Amazing that they're offering one with the 400D now.. guess they need to get rid of the stock for the 450D.

I'll look up the differences later, but I thought it had a faster shutter speed, larger screen, etc. Minor enhancements sure.

How much did that 70-300 IS lens set you back?

[turb06]

the 450D probably does have faster shutter etc, but the major difference i saw (read my opinion) is teh SD card compatability and the live view shooting.

The 70-300 was $1200 singapore dollars, so given the exchange rate and that you can claim back 7% for GST on purchaces over $100 it worked out to around AUS$850. the cheapest i have seen it for here is $995.

[Manny M]

That's a great price.

Unfortunately the IS lens I want to get has a much greater price tag.

[Blue]

I ended up just biting the bullet and getting the 400D with the twin lens kit for $1188, with a free bag and a $77 extended warranty. The SD card issue isn't huge, as I can just rip the pics straight from the camera via the cable. Shutters are just going to get faster with each model, this one'll do, and live view is a nice feature, but probably not worth the extra outlay for the 450D, and it looks cooler to use the viewfinder. :P

Thanks for all the advice guys, I'm happy with my pick, and I'm sure I'll be asking a few more questions before too long.

[turb06]

That's a great price.

Unfortunately the IS lens I want to get has a much greater price tag.

they had a nikkon lense with all the goodies and it was 800mm :o. There was no price on there though but it would have been astronomical.

[turb06]

I ended up just biting the bullet and getting the 400D with the twin lens kit for $1188, with a free bag and a $77 extended warranty. The SD card issue isn't huge, as I can just rip the pics straight from the camera via the cable. Shutters are just going to get faster with each model, this one'll do, and live view is a nice feature, but probably not worth the extra outlay for the 450D, and it looks cooler to use the viewfinder. :P

Thanks for all the advice guys, I'm happy with my pick, and I'm sure I'll be asking a few more questions before too long.

the 400D shutter speeds go to from a range of 30sec (which is awesome for thunderstorms) - 1/4000 which you will never use. the 400D is an awesome camera for us amatuer enthusiast. Now you just need to start saving for your lense lust your going to have, and get a speedlite for indoor shots where a flash is needed, it makes an amazing difference.

[Blue]

Yeah, thanks mate, I'm planning on getting a proper flash for it, there's two I'm looking at, about $450 and $750 I think. I'll just go the basic one I reckon.

[turb06]

yeah the more expensive ones can be fired remotley which the cheaper ones cannot (though they can be used as remote slaves to the more expensive kinds) i dont need that function though.

[Manny M]

they had a nikkon lense with all the goodies and it was 800mm :o. There was no price on there though but it would have been astronomical.

I was in a Camera House shop a little while back, drooling over the lens I want to buy, and some dude was talking with an attendant there, and they were both flipping through a book. One of the guys asked about a lens, and the attendant mentioned something about the lens being custom made, and costing $150K. He then recommended a $16K lens as a paparazzi equivalent, and they both acted like it was an extremely reasonable compromise. Sure, it's a hell of a difference in price, but still... SIXTEEN THOUSAND.

I'm not even mentioning ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND, because that's like comparing a lamborghini to a mazda.

[turb06]

yeah but for a pro user that sixteen thousand is probably not that much considering its a tax deduction and it will probably take their photography to the next level earning them more. But still 16k for the mere mortal i would have had the same reaction as you if i was there.

[Blue]

First outing with my new camera. Ian Brown. King Monkey.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/Blue_Aus/ianbrown/IMG_0198.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/Blue_Aus/ianbrown/IMG_0218.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/Blue_Aus/ianbrown/IMG_0278.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/Blue_Aus/ianbrown/IMG_0241.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/Blue_Aus/ianbrown/IMG_0231.jpg

[turb06]

he has his name on his mic. :)

[PrinceCaspian]

I was in a Camera House shop a little while back, drooling over the lens I want to buy, and some dude was talking with an attendant there, and they were both flipping through a book. One of the guys asked about a lens, and the attendant mentioned something about the lens being custom made, and costing $150K. He then recommended a $16K lens as a paparazzi equivalent, and they both acted like it was an extremely reasonable compromise. Sure, it's a hell of a difference in price, but still... SIXTEEN THOUSAND.

I'm not even mentioning ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND, because that's like comparing a lamborghini to a mazda.



You're the one that wants to turn pro :-)


I had a $16K lens with my business. It went with the business :-(


Lighting equipment isn't cheap either.

[Manny M]

I know I know, but STILL! :P

[Manny M]

Ok, so i'm planning a trip to Europe this year, and I want to make the most out of my camera and my surroundings, so i'm going to buy a new IS lens.

Now, i've had my eye on this (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#28-300) baby for a while... seems like a great all rounder, but it's not the fastest lens on the block, the hood aint that effective, it can't be used with an extender, and it's 2.5Kgs. Positive is that it's still a great lens, and the range means that you basically won't have to change lenses under normal shooting circumstances. It's 3K.

So should I get that lens, or go with two individual lenses spanning the same range. Say this + extender (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#70-200IS) and this (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#17-55)?

[turb06]

which one is the first link pointing to exactly? it pops up on a 20-200 USM for $499 dont think thats what your referring to. is it the 28-300 L series you mean?

The annoying thing with lenses is there is so much bloody choice it can get very confusing. But i would tend to spend extra money on the lens and use software to crop out and resize the main focus point in the shot.

[Manny M]

Yeah, it's the 28-300 L... the link works, but it takes a while to load the page, then direct you to the item.

[Surgeon.]

After months and months of procrastination, it's finally mine.

Sony HDRHC5 Hi Def

http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/files/hdrhc5_10.jpg

$999 for the camera & $100 for a 3 year extended warranty.

[turb06]

Yeah, it's the 28-300 L... the link works, but it takes a while to load the page, then direct you to the item.

thats an awesome lens manny i suppose you just have to weigh up are you going to get extended use out of it after you get back from OS to justify the extra $$ and is the extra bulk going to cause a problem while your legging it about the place on your trip.

[Manny M]

Oh i'll definitely put it to great use when I get back... the lenses I received in the 400D kit get thorough use, and they're lower grade lenses.

It's a heavy lens, I know... either way i'm going to be carrying a similar weight with me, it's just that the weight won't be concentrated on my hand when i'm shooting, if I was to buy two seperate lenses over that one. I do love the idea of not having to miss out on shots because of the zoom range of the lens though. That is the main drawcard. I'd love it to be 2.8f on the lower end, but 3.5f is still pretty good.

[banjoeskimo]

Ok, so i'm planning a trip to Europe this year, and I want to make the most out of my camera and my surroundings, so i'm going to buy a new IS lens.

Now, i've had my eye on this (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#28-300) baby for a while... seems like a great all rounder, but it's not the fastest lens on the block, the hood aint that effective, it can't be used with an extender, and it's 2.5Kgs. Positive is that it's still a great lens, and the range means that you basically won't have to change lenses under normal shooting circumstances. It's 3K.

So should I get that lens, or go with two individual lenses spanning the same range. Say this + extender (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#70-200IS) and this (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#17-55)?

Phroawr... tough choice. The good news is, whatever way you go, you're going to be set up quite nicely with some fine lenses, but as for the specifics of choice, it really depends on your subject matter and shooting style.

How often do you normally change lenses when shooting similar subject matter? Are you a sucker for landscape, close-ups with rich DOF, tight frames or wide spaces? Also consider what lenses you already have. If you've got a Canon XT (any kind), the default lense should cover a pretty good short range, so you might be better of focusing on the 300mm. Also realise the difference between 200mm and 300mm of zoom is pretty intense, so if you're wanting to do a lot of zoom work, I'd lean more toward the 300mm.

The final thing you're gonna want to consider is the sheer amount of glass in the lense. It looks like they all have the same filter size, so it's not much consideration, but with the larger telephotos you're not really paying for a zoom length, so much as a larger lense that'll let a shit-tonne of light in so you've got a broader working environment.

Anyway, if it was me, I'd just consider my shooting style. If you go out everywhere with a backpack, I'd go for the lense combo, simply because a greater variety of lenses is always handy and I've got no bones about filling my pockets with uncapped lenses and swapping them out every 15 seconds if I'm really trying to nail something. If you just like shooting as you go and hate to carry stuff, a single, well-rounded lense is probably the better option. As for weight, don't worry too much, as soon as you walk past all the other n00b tourists with point and shoots whilst carrying a few kilos of intricate glasswork, you'll feel like a pro and the weight won't bother you. Plus it's good exercise. ;)

[Paulinho]

Just to surmise quickly, what are two or three brands that offer the best choice and reliability and what are two or three that should be avoided (in terms of just your recreational type digital camera, none of the serious ones). Any good deals you notice on the market these days?

Also what is the best way to go about purchasing camcorders. Is it easier to record just to DV tape or is paying a bit extra worth it for DVD recording? Can you still upload footage onto computer with the DVD ones as easily as what DV offers etc.? Does it affect other factors like battery life and such. What are the best brands in this area?

[turb06]

i have a mini DVD cam corder and i would say i preferred mini DV, but i would assume paying a little extra and getting a HDD cam corder would be even better still.

on the digital camera front any cannon is worth the money, i have used an olympus before also and it was pretty good, used to have a kodak and can suggest to not get one, build quality isnt great and switches wear out fast, screen has many dead pixels also.

[Manny M]

Thanks for the reply Eibach!

To be honest, my favourite kind of photography is Landscape, Wildlife and Macro. With my trip to Europe though, I guess i'll be leaning toward the more Architecture/Landscape side of things, which I guess would work better with a lens with greater zoom.

Personally, I find it a real pain in the arse to change lenses. I'm also one of those people who panics about my subject moving and missing a shot completely, as opposed to risking a lens change to get a better shot. So the convenience of having an all round lens (28-300mm certainly sits in that category) really appeals to me.

What do you think of the 28-300 lens? Do you know anyone that has one? Have you had any experience with the 'push-pull' zooms on some of Canon's L-Series lenses? I've heard mixed reviews.

Also, i'm curious as to what lenses you have, and commonly use.

Thanks!

[banjoeskimo]

I'm such a lense hobo. I've only got the 18-55mm that came with my 350D, as well as a 75-300mm that came free with it. I've been lucky enough to borrow my uni's 300mm IS telephoto a few times (this behemoth (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-300mm-Telephoto-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1208879996&sr=8-2)), but that's pretty rare.

As I said earlier though, at some stage it stops being about zoom and starts being about size. The 300mm really spoiled me, in addition to f---ing incredible DOF (seriously, look at that (http://eibach.deviantart.com/art/Alexis-and-Nikita-67453730)), you get used to being able to shoot long distances in low light environments without much penalty, something my 70-300mm is simply incapable of, and something you'll probably grow to hate about smaller zooms once you've used a larger lense.

That being said, it's a good purchase, especially if you're not a fan of hot-swapping lenses. Haven't used the L-series though, so unfortunately I won't be much help.

[turb06]

that picture almost looks like the dog and the lady were placed onto a blurry photo.

edit - not that i am saying thats whats been done, depth of field is amazing in that pic.

[Manny M]

I'm such a lense hobo. I've only got the 18-55mm that came with my 350D, as well as a 75-300mm that came free with it. I've been lucky enough to borrow my uni's 300mm IS telephoto a few times (this behemoth (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-300mm-Telephoto-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1208879996&sr=8-2)), but that's pretty rare.

As I said earlier though, at some stage it stops being about zoom and starts being about size. The 300mm really spoiled me, in addition to f---ing incredible DOF (seriously, look at that (http://eibach.deviantart.com/art/Alexis-and-Nikita-67453730)), you get used to being able to shoot long distances in low light environments without much penalty, something my 70-300mm is simply incapable of, and something you'll probably grow to hate about smaller zooms once you've used a larger lense.

That being said, it's a good purchase, especially if you're not a fan of hot-swapping lenses. Haven't used the L-series though, so unfortunately I won't be much help.

One thing i've always been curious about with big telephotos. I would think the complete lack of zoom would be a hinderance more than anything. Not being able to get in a little closer or back up a bit without physically moving seems like a real issue for a photographer. What benefits do you get with a fixed telephoto over a zoomed telephoto?

P.S You want behemoth (http://dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php)?

http://dvinfo.net/canon/images/eos1200bb.jpg

[banjoeskimo]

One thing i've always been curious about with big telephotos. I would think the complete lack of zoom would be a hinderance more than anything. Not being able to get in a little closer or back up a bit without physically moving seems like a real issue for a photographer. What benefits do you get with a fixed telephoto over a zoomed telephoto?

Glass is usually your answer. It's just easier to take shots in a greater range of conditions and with a higher shutter speed (without sacrificing the amount of light you're getting). Obviously, it's a bitch to use every day, but if you're really into nature photography (bird watching, safaris and soforth) or sports, they're a really great thing to have around. You have to remember, the entire medium's so specialised in so many areas that even if you make a lense that only fits one or two styles of photography, it'll still be worth owning to a hell of a lot of people. Hell, just think of what'd happen to extreme sports photography without the fisheye.

[Manny M]

So fixed telephotos have a larger lens? Got it.

[banjoeskimo]

So fixed telephotos have a larger lens? Got it.

Not always, but it's usually a cheaper way of getting a larger lense and is a great option if you know you're going to be dealing with a relatively fixed distance (see: sports).

[Louis]

So I borrowed a Nikon D70S (http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=710-9cc3e2c4e0) from school to do my photography assignment, and I'm not entirely sure how to use it. Does anyone know what mode I should be using, and how to change the ISO, shutter speed, etc.?

Sometimes (depending on what mode I have it on) it just refuses to take a photo, or takes one with like, a 20 second shutter speed.

[Michaelangelo]

Put it on Auto (the green camera icon).

S mode is shutter priority (you choose the shutter speed, and the camera does the rest).

A mode is Aperture mode (you choose the aperture... width? and again, the camera does the rest).

M is fully manual (you choose all settings) and sounds a bit out of your league.

[Louis]

Okay guys, here's my amateur shithack masterpiece.


http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j19/Louis123456/DSC_0244a.jpg


I haven't edited it, apart from the resizing. I covered the flash with my finger to get the red, I'm pretty much a genius.

[Starscream]

I'm pretty much a genius.
That's debatable.



Anyways, I did a search in these forums regarding memory cards (found an SD thread) but meh.

Do memory cards make a difference in digital cameras?

Eg. a Sandisk standard CF card against a Ultra II CF.

I checked the sandisk webpage and the only thing I can conclude from their marketing hype is the Ultra series cards reads and writes faster.

[Michaelangelo]

Your card reader (if you're doing it that way) might not recognise the higher speed version. I know the reader in my printer wont read my HCSD cards, but has no trouble with normal SD. As you get into the 4GB+ regoin all cards tend to be high speed versions anyway.

[Starscream]

So from what you're saying:

- standard memory cards - no compatibility problems with equipment (can be pratically used anywhere)
- high speed cards (eg Sandisk Ultra II series) - may run into compatibility problems.

[Michaelangelo]

Yeah, you'd wanna check that your devices will recognise it, especially if they're older. Although if you leave the card in the camera and use the USB cable I imagine you'd negate this problem all together.

[turb06]

So from what you're saying:

- standard memory cards - no compatibility problems with equipment (can be pratically used anywhere)
- high speed cards (eg Sandisk Ultra II series) - may run into compatibility problems.

some cameras wont read the really ultra high speed stuff either. MY 400D wont recognise CF Ultra II & III. The benefit for such a high speed card is in the cameras function to shoot continuosly, a 30D or 40D you can just keep going untill the card is full i have been told where a slower card will get backed up and your camera wont be able to shoot as long.

[Clockw0rk]

One thing i've always been curious about with big telephotos. I would think the complete lack of zoom would be a hinderance more than anything. Not being able to get in a little closer or back up a bit without physically moving seems like a real issue for a photographer. What benefits do you get with a fixed telephoto over a zoomed telephoto?

P.S You want behemoth (http://dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php)?

http://dvinfo.net/canon/images/eos1200bb.jpg

That thing isn't so big. (http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/8baac109cb80bddfc12571e100393a1b)

[Manny M]

So from what you're saying:

- standard memory cards - no compatibility problems with equipment (can be pratically used anywhere)
- high speed cards (eg Sandisk Ultra II series) - may run into compatibility problems.

Yeah, it's all about how fast photos can be written to the card, but if you don't have a camera that can keep up with a certain card, it's almost pointless buying it. Have a browse on the net for some answers, but FTR, my 400D has a CF Extreme III in it. I was planning on buying the newest Extreme IV, but found some info on how fast my camera could write to the card, and it would've been pointless to spend more money on something my camera wouldn't be able to take advantage of.

Clockwork: Touche... although it's a horrible looking telescope really.

[Starscream]

Thanks for the help.

Good to know that I won't be spending money high speed memory cards. I can't say that I'll be in any situations that may require the need for it.

[Blue]

At the Ian Brown concert, my 400D was taking quite a while to write to the card, saying 'busy' for a fair few seconds after each photo. Would a faster card alleviate this problem to some extent?

[Manny M]

That's actually referring to the flash charging up... I HATE it when it does that, as it only seems to do it at the most inopportune moments.

[Blue]

Argh, damn it! Yeah, I missed a really great shot where Ian did his signature pose just for me. :(

[Manny M]

Could someone (Eibach *cough*), explain that busy flash message to us noobs. It happens at seemingly random intervals, and i'd like to know what to do to avoid it screwing up a potential shot.

[turb06]

i can only assume it kind of needs a bit of a recharge after a few fires in quick succession. By a speedlite, 430ex is what i bought and seriously every photo i had ever taken with the standard flash looked shit and i wanted to reshoot them all. Best accessory i have purchased.

[Manny M]

Ok guys, i'm scrapping the idea to get that massive lens... mainly due to cost. I've worked out my trip costs, and i'm on a smaller budget than I had planned. I also figure that being in Europe, most of my shots will be architectural and landscape, so I won't be in need of a great telephoto.

So! With that, i'm thinking about buying either of these lenses. I'd really appreciate it if I could get some recommendations on which you think is best to suit my needs.

Thanks!

CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Wide Angle Lens - Price: $611

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/images/CanonEF17-85.jpg


CANON 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens - Price: $549

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/images/canon28-135mmsm.jpg



Lens 1: Nice wide angle. Not as much zoom as the second lens, and a smaller maximum f-stop. 'S' series lens, so better quality (apparently). Lens size 67mm.

Lens 2: Smaller wide angle, but a longer zoom and larger maximum f-stop. Lens size 72mm.


What do you afficionados think?

[turb06]

i have that 28-135mm. It is fantastic, i tend to never need to go any wider than the 28mm so thats why i opted for it as it has the zoom to make it an awesome all rounder.

[Manny M]

Yeah was thinking the same thing. I'm really curious as to why the first lens is worth more. Because it's a wide angle?

[banjoeskimo]

Bah, I hate you. I still need a wide angle myself, but if you're into landscape, they're a great thing to have. That being said, the second lense is probably more versatile, and would prove pretty nice for close-ups and portraiture since you should be able to get some nice DOF out of it at close range. Again, both good choices, but just be sober about your decisions and think about what's going to be of most use. It's kind of cliche, but if you're doing a lot of urban landscapes, a wide angle can be a great thing to have...

As for the flash charge, I almost never use my flash, so I'm actually not a great person to talk to about this, but I'd assume it's as others have said, just get your timing right and make sure it's charged in anticipation.

[Manny M]

Well i'm going to Europe (Paris, London, Rome, Greece), so landscape shots are going to be plentiful... so i'd think the wide angle... but then I think about future use and versatility and think that the second lens might just give me more bang for my buck overall.

Do lenses specifically labelled as 'wide angle' have a deep DOF?

[banjoeskimo]

Well i'm going to Europe (Paris, London, Rome, Greece), so landscape shots are going to be plentiful... so i'd think the wide angle... but then I think about future use and versatility and think that the second lens might just give me more bang for my buck overall.

Do lenses specifically labelled as 'wide angle' have a deep DOF?

Well, like any lense the quality of your DOF is going to be determined by how low you can get your f-stops, and how far you're zooming in on something, so no more or less than any other really.

Something you might consider doing is getting a list of lenses you're interested in and then taking your camera body into a nearby speciality store and trying them out. If sales people think there's even a remote chance you're about to drop hundreds of dollars on something, I'm sure they'd let you test one out for a minute or two, and you'd be able to get a pretty good feel for how your shots will come out.

[batman_sandwich]

Im trying to use my dads camera on my new Dell - Vista.
Its a canon SLR (some huge big lensed professional thing)..it says I need a driver, but we havent got any driver cd's, seeing as it was already installed on his computer. Is there a general patch/driver/software I can dload from Canon?/anywhere?

[Pauly]

so yeah.. borrowing SLRs from uni has tempted me to get into photography. there's just something about having that beauty in your hands. you feel like you can do anything. the clarity of shots are amazing. how much would i probably be looking at for like a 400D? i would rarely be using this for actions shots so i wouldn't need a lens for that.

manny, can't wait to see what you bring home from europe ;)

[Michaelangelo]

Just curiously, is there a conversion equation for lens zoom to go back and forth between the "X mm" used by the DSLR crew and the eg "5X optical" used by the compact digital massive?

Word.

Or in the old speak, I'll be looking at getting probably a 450D at the end of the year (body only) and a nice walk around lens, just wondering what the ranges are compared to what I know with my compacts.

[Surgeon.]

Hey all,

I've recently been toying with the idea of buying a new digital camera and was thinking about getting something a bit more serious than my last k-mart $200 type camera.

From reading this thread, the 400D seems like a pretty sensible choice for an enthusiast photographer especially since they're getting cheaper at the $800 - $1000 price tag (with varying lens kits etc). So what type lenses should I be looking at? I'm not exactly sure what I'll be using it for exactly yet, so I guess I want something fairly versatile.

Any advice welcome.

[Manny M]

The twin lens kit it comes with will be all you need till you figure out how seriously you want to get into it.

Twin lens kit comes with 18-55mm and 75-300mm lenses, which is all you really need to get started.

No use spending decent cash on better lenses until you figure out what kind of lens you really need.

[Blue]

Hey all,

I've recently been toying with the idea of buying a new digital camera and was thinking about getting something a bit more serious than my last k-mart $200 type camera.

From reading this thread, the 400D seems like a pretty sensible choice for an enthusiast photographer especially since they're getting cheaper at the $800 - $1000 price tag (with varying lens kits etc). So what type lenses should I be looking at? I'm not exactly sure what I'll be using it for exactly yet, so I guess I want something fairly versatile.

Any advice welcome.You're in the position I was in when I bought my 400D (and I'm still in that position, mind you). Get the 400D twin lense kit, it should be pretty cheap right now. I sort of wish I'd got a 40D now, but that's because I wasn't paying for it. The 400D really is good enough, and is great value right now. The two lenses do the job, and the 75-300mm lense can be used on regular SLRs, I found out yesterday.

I bought a Canon SLR from Michael's for $249, as I need it for uni. I'm shooting on slide film. Don't have a clue what I'm doing.

[turb06]

i would try and find the 400D that comes with the 55-200 IS USM lense, its a better all rounder. If you want the extra zoom of the 75-300 kit lense you can buy mine :).

[Surgeon.]

Latest addition to my camera stuff I picked up today.

Hopefully pick up a camera over the weekeed.

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/images/triman190xb+804rc2.jpg

[/backslash]

Anyone used a Sony T300 10.1MP camera? They seem to be pretty decent for the price (looking at $400 delivered on ebay)

[Manny M]

Post Production, what are your preferences?

I've got;

iPhoto, which is very automated and designed for the most basic of editors

Aperture 2, which gives you a little more control than iPhoto, but is mildly complex.

Photoshop CS3, which gives you complete editing control of the image, but is incredibly complex to master.


Now when it comes to post production, I only want to boost what I already have taken. Maybe sharpen the image and bring out the colour a little more. I've tried mucking around with all 3, and am currently just using the auto enhance wizard in iPhoto, which isn't great but very easy to do some simple touching up.

Basically, i'm just a little confused as to whether I should even bother investing quite a bit of time to learn how to properly edit photos in Aperture 2 or Photoshop. I find that with too much creative control, I tend to edit to a point where i've modified the shot completely, and I don't really want that.

So, opinions on post processing would be great.

[Manny M]

I tried shooting in RAW recently and the amount of control that you have over the final image is mind blowing. Way too much control, but excellent if you want that perfect shot. I could easily spend more time than is necessary tweaking all the sliders and trying out different combinations and still not be satisfied that I have a good image.

See, that's my problem too. I spent 3 hours tweaking an image, to only revert it back to the original because I was confused about whether I had tweaked a little too much.

So I gave that a thought, then remembered I had over 2000 shots from Europe that I want to enhance...

[turb06]

i use photoshop elements 6. It allows different levels of post production from full control through to automated options, to a one button option.

I subscribe to photo plus magazine which is specifically for canon SLR's and adobe photoshop elements 5/6 & CS3. after reading that the whole daunting side of photoshop is diminished. it even comes with a video disc that is basically a mini classroom on how to do shit in photoshop.

[Surgeon.]

Photoshop CS2

I'm actually better at editing photos than I am at taking them. Although I probably should be, given that I do it for a living.

[Blue]

Adobe CS3. It's the best photo editing tool by far. I have Aperture, but I never use it.

[Manny M]

Currently going through this book (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Photoshop-Digital-Photographers-Graphics/dp/1584505362/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219053702&sr=8-1) in attempt to learn photoshop for digital photo editing. It's a little confusing to be honest, but i'm slowly making my through it.

Question, what's the purpose of Bridge? It seems to me like it's just a tool used to import and manage your pics. But with so many other programs like that (iPhoto being one, which i'm using), it seems like a waste of a program... surely i'm missing something.

Also, I made some adjustments to an image (mainly white balance, which is stripping the blue haze from all my Greek Island shots), and then saved the file as a JPEG with maximum quality. Now the size of my modified image is 4 times smaller than my original JPEG file... does this sound right? Does Adobe have better JPEG compression than my camera does without losing quality, or do you think it's cutting something out of the pic?

[turb06]

did you crop the pic at all? Photo shop elements 6 will actualy make the save file set to maximum everything larger than the original usually a 8mb pic will end up around the 12mb-13mb mark.

[Manny M]

did you crop the pic at all? Photo shop elements 6 will actualy make the save file set to maximum everything larger than the original usually a 8mb pic will end up around the 12mb-13mb mark.

Nope, just messed with the white balance to remove a bit of blue from the pic.

I'll mess with it more tomorrow.

[Surgeon.]

Question, what's the purpose of Bridge? It seems to me like it's just a tool used to import and manage your pics. But with so many other programs like that (iPhoto being one, which i'm using), it seems like a waste of a program... surely i'm missing something.

Also, I made some adjustments to an image (mainly white balance, which is stripping the blue haze from all my Greek Island shots), and then saved the file as a JPEG with maximum quality. Now the size of my modified image is 4 times smaller than my original JPEG file... does this sound right? Does Adobe have better JPEG compression than my camera does without losing quality, or do you think it's cutting something out of the pic?

I Honestly don't use bridge, but from what I can remember from my TAFE lesson it's just for sorting/rating/adding meta-data to pictures. I've never actually taken enough pictures to justify it's use.

Playing with color balance/levels should never reduce file size. I'd probably check your save settings, because I can't imagine such a drastic reduction in file size unless its been optimized somehow.

[PrinceCaspian]

Post Production, what are your preferences?

I've got;

iPhoto, which is very automated and designed for the most basic of editors

Aperture 2, which gives you a little more control than iPhoto, but is mildly complex.

Photoshop CS3, which gives you complete editing control of the image, but is incredibly complex to master.


Now when it comes to post production, I only want to boost what I already have taken. Maybe sharpen the image and bring out the colour a little more. I've tried mucking around with all 3, and am currently just using the auto enhance wizard in iPhoto, which isn't great but very easy to do some simple touching up.

Basically, i'm just a little confused as to whether I should even bother investing quite a bit of time to learn how to properly edit photos in Aperture 2 or Photoshop. I find that with too much creative control, I tend to edit to a point where i've modified the shot completely, and I don't really want that.

So, opinions on post processing would be great.




If you’re still planning on taking your photography seriously you need to learn Photoshop. If not, then don’t bother with it, it’s incredibly frustrating to use sometimes.

[Blue]

If you’re still planning on taking your photography seriously you need to learn Photoshop. If not, then don’t bother with it, it’s incredibly frustrating to use sometimes.Bullshit. The best photographers never touched the thing.

[turb06]

he may not want to be the best, but it is the most complete application i have used user friendliness is pretty average but when you get used to short cuts its pretty easy.

[Blue]

he may not want to be the best, but it is the most complete application i have used user friendliness is pretty average but when you get used to short cuts its pretty easy.Yeah, definitely. It can do everything you will ever need to do, and I've always found it pretty intuitive.

I just found it stupid that Artemis would claim that anybody who takes their photography seriously would NEED to use it. There's just so many things wrong with that statement. Some people still value pure, unedited, unadulterated photographs, either 35mm or digital. Personally, I hate how artificial everything has become, and how some people will do something in Photoshop and brag about it. Sometimes you have a vision that requires Photoshop, but alot of the time Photoshop is a replacement for a LACK of vision. It's like comparing Christopher Columbus with some bloke on a business class flight to America. Everything's too easy today, people are content to rely on digital manipulation to create interesting, but ultimately soulless, images. An image is not a photograph.

It's great for fixing contrast though.

[Manny M]

See that's the thing. I value the art of taking a good photograph quite highly, so in no way do I want to create something that was never there. All I want to do really is take what I already have, and tweak it to the point where I get the most out of it. At most the only thing i'll really do is removing a small artifact from the pic (if possible) that detracts from the main image.

Let's take this photo I took of Santorini for instance. It's a nice enough shot, but I just want to clean it up and make it look as good as it can without noticing any major changes.

The pic below is my first attempt at it using Camera RAW (it's also the pic that's half the size of the original).

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_5671.jpg
Original

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_5671a.jpg
Edited

[Michaelangelo]

Manny, what lens did you end up buying for your trip?

[Manny M]

Nice! How awesome is RAW?

Might need to just fix the shadowing in the corners from the lens a bit.

I imagine it would be very awesome... but i'm not actually taking pics in the RAW format. Adobe Camera Raw is a part of the suite of apps and is compatible now with JPEGs. Again, like Bridge, it seems like a redundant app, but i'm sure there's a proper use for it.

Yeah, there's still some work to do on it, but that was a quick fix I came up with when mucking around with the software. It's an evening shot though. I'll post the morning version later.

Manny, what lens did you end up buying for your trip?

Ended up buying the CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Wide Angle Lens.

Great lens. I barely used my 75-300.

I really must do a digital SLR course though. I still know I have much to learn about my camera and using it effectively.

[turb06]

what i like to do with landscape shots like that is use the auto exposure bracketing function of the 400D (and every SLR most probably) and take 3 shots a full stop apart -1 0 +1 in exposure and import them into photoshop, layer them up and mess with the opacity so you can keep all the best parts of each picture.

If you have the full version of photoshop i think it has an inbuilt HDR tool which my version of elements 6 doesnt have hence the need to layer them and do it manualy. it really does give off some amazing effects.

Many since you took that pic in RAW you can change the exposure in camera raw for hat picture. I would try adjusting it at 3 different levels of exposure and running it through a HDR tool. Not for everyone but its fun and produces good results.

[Manny M]

I didn't take my pics in RAW unfortunately. Not that wise when on a 6 week holiday, although I probably should've.

[turb06]

i get ya, i tend to switch to RAW when i am taking a picture that is a bit more wow than the other happy snaps you usually take on holidays.

[PrinceCaspian]

Bullshit. The best photographers never touched the thing.

The best art photographers, perhaps.


Commercial photographers live on photoshop though. And that's where the money's at.

[Pauly]

The best art photographers, perhaps.


Commercial photographers live on photoshop though. And that's where the money's at.
true story.

[banjoeskimo]

Yeah, definitely. It can do everything you will ever need to do, and I've always found it pretty intuitive.

I just found it stupid that Artemis would claim that anybody who takes their photography seriously would NEED to use it. There's just so many things wrong with that statement. Some people still value pure, unedited, unadulterated photographs, either 35mm or digital. Personally, I hate how artificial everything has become, and how some people will do something in Photoshop and brag about it. Sometimes you have a vision that requires Photoshop, but alot of the time Photoshop is a replacement for a LACK of vision. It's like comparing Christopher Columbus with some bloke on a business class flight to America. Everything's too easy today, people are content to rely on digital manipulation to create interesting, but ultimately soulless, images. An image is not a photograph.

It's great for fixing contrast though.

With all due respect, you're full of shit. Not entirely, I mean yes, there are people who value unedited photography, and if you're in photojournalism, it can get dangerous, but Artemis is right. Photoshop is the industry standard, and every professional I've ever known uses it. You can get away with using other programs, yes, but the reality is if you're going to take it seriously it's a crucial program to know your way around. Photoshop is the darkroom now. The only question is whether you're going to use it to an extreme and outright manipulate your photograph to high hell, or if you're just going to tweak and slightly adjust, the same way you would when you're deciding how long to leave your image in developer fluid with film.

You're right to point out that things are easier now, and yes, there are many who believe a program will save them from bad photography. That's a load of crap. But if you're using the program with sobriety and, as I said, for tweaking and not outright manipulation, it's the same damn thing as a darkroom. There is no such thing as an unedited image. The only question is whether you're skilled enough to get most of your work done with a camera, or if you need to rely almost entirely on post-processing (digital or chemical) to save yourself.

Anyway, back to Manny, the purpose of Bridge is two-fold. Firstly, it's meant to be a management program for your photo database, and secondly, it's meant for (some) editing. If you shoot RAW and you shoot a lot (see: you do this professionally), Bridge is a godsend. It allows you to preview RAW images quickly and easily, shift between and sort folders quickly, and edit exposure, colour, tone and level data independantly of the image. As in, you don't risk degrading the image quality by making adjustments the same way you would with a JPEG. Additionally, any settings adjustments you do make will be saved to a small info file that will exist next to the original RAW image, meaning you can revert back to the original, untouched image at any time if need be.

The quickest way to learn Bridge would be to find the biggest memory card you can, spend the day shooting in RAW (purposefully messing up your exposure sometimes) and come back to Bridge. Spend some time using it as a management program, and play around with the editing tools in the program. You'll soon see how conveniant it is to use over Photoshop if all you need to do is minor edits and tweaks.

EDIT: Crap, sorry Blue, it became apparent to me after that rant that you were probably making concessions for the tweaking I was talking about with your contrast comment. Pretend I said all that without the hostility. My apologies.

[Michaelangelo]

Ended up buying the CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Wide Angle Lens.

Great lens. I barely used my 75-300.

I really must do a digital SLR course though. I still know I have much to learn about my camera and using it effectively.


Cool, a lot of people have given it some not so glowing reviews, but I assume they're mostly snobs who own the entire L catalogue...

Did you get it from that d-d-photographics place you linked to ages ago? If so, any issues? Thinking of getting myself a 40D with the same lens from those guys, easily the cheapest price going around.

[Blue]

With all due respect, you're full of shit. Not entirely, I mean yes, there are people who value unedited photography, and if you're in photojournalism, it can get dangerous, but Artemis is right. Photoshop is the industry standard, and every professional I've ever known uses it. You can get away with using other programs, yes, but the reality is if you're going to take it seriously it's a crucial program to know your way around. Photoshop is the darkroom now. The only question is whether you're going to use it to an extreme and outright manipulate your photograph to high hell, or if you're just going to tweak and slightly adjust, the same way you would when you're deciding how long to leave your image in developer fluid with film.

You're right to point out that things are easier now, and yes, there are many who believe a program will save them from bad photography. That's a load of crap. But if you're using the program with sobriety and, as I said, for tweaking and not outright manipulation, it's the same damn thing as a darkroom. There is no such thing as an unedited image. The only question is whether you're skilled enough to get most of your work done with a camera, or if you need to rely almost entirely on post-processing (digital or chemical) to save yourself.

Anyway, back to Manny, the purpose of Bridge is two-fold. Firstly, it's meant to be a management program for your photo database, and secondly, it's meant for (some) editing. If you shoot RAW and you shoot a lot (see: you do this professionally), Bridge is a godsend. It allows you to preview RAW images quickly and easily, shift between and sort folders quickly, and edit exposure, colour, tone and level data independantly of the image. As in, you don't risk degrading the image quality by making adjustments the same way you would with a JPEG. Additionally, any settings adjustments you do make will be saved to a small info file that will exist next to the original RAW image, meaning you can revert back to the original, untouched image at any time if need be.

The quickest way to learn Bridge would be to find the biggest memory card you can, spend the day shooting in RAW (purposefully messing up your exposure sometimes) and come back to Bridge. Spend some time using it as a management program, and play around with the editing tools in the program. You'll soon see how conveniant it is to use over Photoshop if all you need to do is minor edits and tweaks.

EDIT: Crap, sorry Blue, it became apparent to me after that rant that you were probably making concessions for the tweaking I was talking about with your contrast comment. Pretend I said all that without the hostility. My apologies.Haha, yeah mate, that last sentence I wrote pretty much validated your contrast argument. :P

When you take what you wrote up there and remove the seething anger, it's much more palatable. I certainly agree.

And Artemis, you're right. But commercial photographers aren't the best photographers.

[Manny M]

Cool, a lot of people have given it some not so glowing reviews, but I assume they're mostly snobs who own the entire L catalogue...

Did you get it from that d-d-photographics place you linked to ages ago? If so, any issues? Thinking of getting myself a 40D with the same lens from those guys, easily the cheapest price going around.

Really? Well i'm an amateur so can't give a professional opinion, but i've taken some great shots with it. While I was at d-d a photographer chick had it with her and let me muck around with it (and her 40D) to see if I liked it. She swore by it as her every day lens.

d-d were also great to deal with. Tiny shop, but who cares when their prices are so damn competitive. Highly recommended. They were ok for advice too.

[Pauly]

And Artemis, you're right. But commercial photographers aren't the best photographers.
i think at the end of the day it comes down to what you want to do with your skill. do you want to be able to take really nice artistic shots and have a good deviant art page? or do you want to make money?

if it's for a hobby then sure, do whatever you like. if you want to do it professionally you might find it harder without photoshop skills.

[Blue]

i think at the end of the day it comes down to what you want to do with your skill. do you want to be able to take really nice artistic shots and have a good deviant art page? or do you want to make money?

if it's for a hobby then sure, do whatever you like. if you want to do it professionally you might find it harder without photoshop skills.Yeah. But you can't say that a professional 'photographer' who makes extensive use of Photoshop to make a good two-page advert is a better photographer.

http://www.jeanstephengalleries.com/picasso.jpg

No Photoshop here. Just vision and talent.

* Can I please just reiterate that Photoshop is an amazing program, and that using it does not make you inferior in any way. It's a brilliant skill to have, and is useful for so many applications. But it's only been around for a decade or two, so it's stupid to imply that the best photographers need to use it when so many excellent photographers have taken incredible photographs with nothing but 35mm film.

[PrinceCaspian]

And Artemis, you're right. But commercial photographers aren't the best photographers.

Some are incredible photographers actually, and, again, that’s where the money’s at. If you’re serious about your photography, then you probably want to make money. If you want to make money, you should be considering commercial photography. Unless you’re prepared to risk never making much money at all as an artistic photographer.

Yeah. But you can't say that a professional 'photographer' who makes extensive use of Photoshop to make a good two-page advert is a better photographer.

Without photoshop skills you won’t be a commercial photographer. Or, well, you possibly could, but it’ll be far more difficult to find work since the company that hires you will then need to find someone else to do the photoshopping. You may as well learn it yourself.

Can I please just reiterate that Photoshop is an amazing program, and that using it does not make you inferior in any way. It's a brilliant skill to have, and is useful for so many applications. But it's only been around for a decade or two, so it's stupid to imply that the best photographers need to use it when so many excellent photographers have taken incredible photographs with nothing but 35mm film.

I don’t know why you’re going on and on about this “best” shit. I originally said if you’re serious about your photography then you’ll need photoshop. In this day and age this is the truth, since virtually all paying jobs in photography aren’t for “art.” You might get the odd gig as a wedding photographer with limited photo editing skills, but even then, most couples want glamour shots of their wedding.

So again I reiterate. If you’re serious about your photography, (WHERE SERIOUS MEANS MAKING A CAREER OF IT, NOT BEING THE BESTEST PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD) and don’t invest in photoshop knowledge and software, then it’s like saying “yes, let’s have sex!” then cutting off your dick – you’re essentially relegating yourself to a tiny number of jobs you can find, and they’re the overly crowded ones in the first place.

[turb06]

i like listening to food photographers, the tricks they have to get their shots are great. Choc chip mash potato instead of shooting ice cream, filling a soup bowl with marbles and only a little bit of soup to keep the chunky bits on top, using chemicals applied to the food to create steam effects, great tricks.

[/backslash]

Anybody used a Nikon D40? I'm looking at an entry level SLR with grid support if possible. I'd like to have something to use for outdoor/indoor/night shots and does so with relative ease - no lense swapping. I also want to avoid cameras that use batteries like AAs, much prefer the ones where you never have to take them out to charge them. Even though I'm after an SLR I don't want anything heavy

Before I was looking at getting a compact camera but they often give out soft edges, high level of gain in lowlight and awful night shots.

Price range is $500-600 (or thereabouts)

[Michaelangelo]

I've read that the D40 has compatability issues with some lenses (not being able to use autofocus for example). You might want to check that out first.

What do you mean by "grid support"?

[/backslash]

Apparently you can get cameras where it has a grid-like layout (like graph paper) so you always get it at the right angle (say if you were shooting the horizon)

[Michaelangelo]

Ah, ok. I imagine any camera with Live View would have that as an option when you're using the LCD. As for in the viewfinder itself, it varies from camera to camera. Specifically, the D40 doesn't seem to have that option.

[turb06]

the new canon 450 has grid support. my opinion is get something that you can continue to use if your interest in photography grows, that way you wont have a camera that lacks a view things you want.

[Mr Incredible]

Let the great wealth of camera knowledge, among the vast interwebs of the Hyperactive forums guide me forth...to a considered and wise choice!

So, I'm seriously looking at getting a decent DSLR camera. And after all the investigating and research I've been doing, I've narrowed my choice down to two cameras.

The Nikon D60,
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikonD60/Images/front-001.jpg

and the Canon EOS 450D.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS450D/Images/frontview-001.jpg

I've been reading a few of the reviews on dpreview.com and purely based on the sample images, I'm finding that the Nikon seems to produce quite sharp, nicely saturated, and very colourful pictures. Where as the Canon's are a bit more neutral, though slightly sharper.

I imagine I'm being slightly naive to consider the instant image quality as the deciding factor when choosing a DSLR. As many people have been discussing, photoshop is a necessary and important part of refining and tweaking photos after they have been taken. And so I'm wondering if maybe having a camera like the 450D which produces a more neutrally coloured image is better?

Maybe that's completely irrelevant! And maybe the ergonomics and lens compatibility are two more important issues which I should consider!

That's why I've come here, I'd like a few ideas on what's an excellent DSLR, and what are the main things that you must consider when entering the market.

Maybe those two camera's are not what I should be looking at? Though I'm happy to spend a reasonable amount of money on a camera that will allow me to grow as I become more adept and experienced with it. Plus I really appreciate quality equipment. And either of those camera's seem quite solid for their price.

As an aside, I actually prefer the body shape of the Canon to the Nikon and I from what I hear, Canon seem to be one of the more respected DSLR manufacturers...at the same time I haven't heard a great deal about Nikon's reputation.

[banjoeskimo]

Excellent point about the editing. If you do intend on taking this seriously (and subsequently spend hours living in Photoshop), I'd imagine the overall color difference between the two wouldn't matter a whole lot. That being said I haven't seen the difference in person, and if the Nikon is producing images that actually look natural, that could save you some time (assuming that's how you want them to look.)

In any case, I've used the 350D, 400D and 450D and they're all excellent cameras, so I can confidently recommend the Canon. You might want to ask a Nikon user for some more info though, it doesn't seem to be a bad camera, I just don't have any hands on experience to guide you.

Does the Nikon come with any kind of image stabiliser (in-camera or in-lense?) or a self-cleaning sensor? I was skeptical as to how helpful either feature would be, but after trying out the 450D in low-light I found the image stabiliser actually makes a hell of a difference if you're freehanding stuff without a tripod.

[Blue]

Excellent point about the editing. If you do intend on taking this seriously (and subsequently spend hours living in Photoshop), I'd imagine the overall color difference between the two wouldn't matter a whole lot. That being said I haven't seen the difference in person, and if the Nikon is producing images that actually look natural, that could save you some time (assuming that's how you want them to look.)

In any case, I've used the 350D, 400D and 450D and they're all excellent cameras, so I can confidently recommend the Canon. You might want to ask a Nikon user for some more info though, it doesn't seem to be a bad camera, I just don't have any hands on experience to guide you.

Does the Nikon come with any kind of image stabiliser (in-camera or in-lense?) or a self-cleaning sensor? I was skeptical as to how helpful either feature would be, but after trying out the 450D in low-light I found the image stabiliser actually makes a hell of a difference if you're freehanding stuff without a tripod.Eibach and others recommended the 400D when i was in the market, and it's excellent. Some people just like Canon or Nikon, and I'm definitely sold on Canon now.

I was already a fan of the IXUS range, the best compact camera I've ever had. of course, that was years ago, and I only use SLRs now.

[StorminNorman]

Speaking of the IXUS range, I picked up an IXUS 85IS on Thursday, primarily so I could take photos at Manifest.

It's a grouse little camera. Did quite well over the weekend. I love how much smaller it is compared to my Dad's PowerShot A550.

[Manny M]

I've just been playing around with Lightroom 2 (after trying my hand at Aperture 2 and Photoshop CS3), and i'm loving it! Finding it very easy to make simple yet very effective enhancements to my photos.

I've now grabbed some video tutes for it too, so i'll be working my way around it in no time.

I'm quite excited really, first time i've used a piece of photo editing software that I wasn't only mildly impressed with or absolutely confused by.

***EDIT***

Here is my first attempt at a little enhancement.

Original

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_4514.jpg


Edit

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff263/M_ynnaM/IMG_4514-1.jpg

[Blue]

Not bad, although I hate that kind of thing. Too-blue skies and all of that.

[Michaelangelo]

I reckon it's solid, brings out some of the details in the clouds. Makes the darkness of the underside of the tower a bit more noticeable though. Still, I like.

[Blue]

I just like adjusting contrast, brightness, and general levels. Maybe a slight change to the tone.

[banjoeskimo]

Hey, nice start! Just be careful when you start adjusting levels or using the Shadow/Highlight tool that you don't bring too much detail into otherwise blown out objects (such as the clouds.) It can be very obvious that you've edited if there's sections of the cloud that are still all-white, and sections that are very dark, because it suggests that a portion of the cloud was too blown out to be recovered. Doesn't look awful, mind you, but the more your editing looks natural and/or intentional, the better your pieces will be. So, sometimes maintaining subtle "flaws" (such as extreme whites or very minor lense flares) can be a better option than trying to fix them; it suggests that you intentionally kept them as part of the picture, rather than being unable to repair them.

Anyway, you seem to have the right idea. If you really want to get deep contrast out of your images, try the following adjustment layers in Photoshop:

-Levels (pretty self explanitory, adjust your whites/midtones/blacks)

-Colour Balance (allows you tweak colour levels in a picture, for contrast, try dragging the shadows into the blue and the midtones/highlights into yellow. Subtlety is key!)

-Selective Colour (allows you to edit each major colour indvidually. Try upping your blacks in the black category, or for a retro print feel, tinkering with the other colours in the black category. Also great for increasing the saturation of an individual colour)

-Brightness/Contrast (again, self explanitory)

Just remember, with all of these, subtlety is the key. You only need to adjust each of these a couple of points in either direction to get a nice effect. Using any particular adjustment layer too heavily can easily result in pixelation or woefully obvious editing. If you find a particular adjustment is too extreme, roll with it, but try turning down the opacity of the adjustment layer. Use multiple adjustment layers of varying kinds to get it just right.

[Manny M]

FTR, I didn't add anything to the colour of the image, the enhanced blue in the sky came from dropping the exposure tab a tad, which resulted in a more realistic representation of how blue the sky was, as opposed to the overexposed sky in the original.

But like I said, it's my first attempt, and i'm sure i'll figure out subtlety with more use.

Thanks for the feedback!

Anyone else used Lightroom?

[turb06]

i think it makes the photo look better, more detail in the clouds.

[/backslash]

Does anyone know what the maximum storage is for a Nikon D40? I'm looking at the SanDisk Ultra II SDHC 8GB. Also I need a semi-decent carry bag, preferably with a shoulder strap but made to carry only the basic (standard lens+body)

[PSAG]

I'm looking to buy a camera just used for holiday snaps and everyday stuff. What should I look for? If I'm away from a computer for a month or so, what are my storage options?

[/backslash]

I'm looking to buy a camera just used for holiday snaps and everyday stuff. What should I look for? If I'm away from a computer for a month or so, what are my storage options?
The Canon IXUS 80 would be a good choice and can be bought for $229 (http://www.keytech.com.au/product.cfm/productid_10145/vendor_Canon,Canon) (comes with bonus 1gb SD card on that website) which includes handy featues like image stabilisation. The only reason I didn't get it is because it takes average-poor indoor shots (most of my shots are indoors) and its not really usable at night (too much grain) but its a convenient small point'n'shoot which makes it great for travelling. A simple 2-4gb SD card for you should be plenty and it'll only set you back $12-20

[Blue]

I'd go an IXUS, too.

[Michaelangelo]

Another vote for the IXUS 80. It's the perfect pocket camera.

[PSAG]

Cheers guys!

[Starscream]

Anyone know where I can get a brand new Canon Powershot A650 IS in Sydney Metro area (price limit $450) ? They've been discontinued and looking at the current Canon line up, there's no successor to the 650 model.

I went by MSY in the city and they couldn't order it for me.

cheers.

[Mr Incredible]

Ok guys...you may have seen my early post regarding me choosing between the Nikon and the Canon. Well I'm pretty much ready to go ahead with a purchase, though I'm now trying to make a decision between a Nikon D40 and a D60. Basically the only difference is the D40 is 6MP and the D60 is 10MP, with a few other features that don't make much of a difference. That I'm aware of.

I can get the D40 with a 18-55mm lens from JB's for $583 or the D60 online with the same lens for $729.

So I'm mainly wondering is there going to be a noticeable difference in picture quality or would a good quality lens make more of a difference than those four extra MP? And would either of those camera's be somethng I could realistically expand with a better lens in the future, or if I do get a bit more serious, would I be better off with a completely new body, such as the D90?

I'm leaning towardsthe D40 atm, though it's only another $150 for the better D60!

Some opinions would be greatly appreciated!

[banjoeskimo]

What do you intend on doing with your images? If you just want to keep them on a PC for personal use, it's probably okay to go the cheaper route.

If you want to print them (and I mean really print them, professionally) or use them in any other professional context, go 10MP option.

[banjoeskimo]

Also, any of you guys into street photography or photojournalism? You might have a tougher time with that now (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2420103.htm). Yay for poorly thought out legislation.

[/backslash]

Also, any of you guys into street photography or photojournalism? You might have a tougher time with that now (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2420103.htm). Yay for poorly thought out legislation.
I've actually had a friend use a SLR camera with a tripod taking various pictures of a park and because there were some kids around the playground area a lady walked up to him and called him a pervert -__- Besides that he also got a dozen or so questions from people saying "Why are you taking photos?" As long as you're not shooting whilst hiding in the bushes or slithering around like a snake in high grass I don't see what the problem is

[Mr Incredible]

What do you intend on doing with your images? If you just want to keep them on a PC for personal use, it's probably okay to go the cheaper route.

If you want to print them (and I mean really print them, professionally) or use them in any other professional context, go 10MP option.

I'd mostly keep them for personal use...though I've been dreaming about getting some large prints made up to hang on some walls.

The way I look at it, if I buy the D60 I have the room to delve a bit deeper into the world of photography in the future. However, like I said before I'm not sure whether I'd need to buy a whole new body in the future (regardless of if I bought either the D40 or D60) that would offer me the features I'd need as I become more experienced.

Another thing, both camera's come stock with an 18-55mm lens, would that be a good all round lens to start with, or would I be better of with, say a 55-200mm? Obviously that would be more expensive!

Decisions decisions!

[banjoeskimo]

I'd mostly keep them for personal use...though I've been dreaming about getting some large prints made up to hang on some walls.

The way I look at it, if I buy the D60 I have the room to delve a bit deeper into the world of photography in the future. However, like I said before I'm not sure whether I'd need to buy a whole new body in the future (regardless of if I bought either the D40 or D60) that would offer me the features I'd need as I become more experienced.

Another thing, both camera's come stock with an 18-55mm lens, would that be a good all round lens to start with, or would I be better of with, say a 55-200mm? Obviously that would be more expensive!

Decisions decisions!

Depends what you're shooting. I started with an 18-55, and it's a great general size that allows you to shoot a pretty varied amount of subjects; landscapes, every day situations and some (close up) portraiture. It's a great way to learn the basics. I wouldn't move to the 200mm unless you're going to be shooting a lot of portraits or you really need the zoom on a regular basis.

[Michaelangelo]

I just bought a 50D.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING.

Here is my little sister:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/brad221/chloe1.jpg


The background is blurred out! No flash! ISO 1600 and there's bugger all noise! GAH, THIS IS AMAZING.

*click click click click click click click*

[Blue]

Under exposed.

[Michaelangelo]

GET OUT OF HERE. http://bombshellzine.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif



The photo is rubbish, I'm just excited.

[Blue]

It's a great camera, I'd be stoked. Just check out that depth of field!

[turb06]

get a speedlight you will be even more amazed best investment after the oridinal camera i recon is the add on flash.

[Cerebral]

Looking to get a compact camera for a trip, something slim, that takes decent outdoor photos/video. Catch is, budget at $200 (could go over ic absolutely necessary but I'm pretty poor as it is).

Done some research and came up with either a Nikon s200 or Olympus FE-20. Thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated, I'm a total photonub.

[Blue]

Looking to get a compact camera for a trip, something slim, that takes decent outdoor photos/video. Catch is, budget at $200 (could go over ic absolutely necessary but I'm pretty poor as it is).

Done some research and came up with either a Nikon s200 or Olympus FE-20. Thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated, I'm a total photonub.Canon IXUS 80.

Wait, how much are they again?

Nikon Coolpix any good nowadays?

[Starscream]

Around $220 - $240.

[Blue]

Then he should squeeze out the extra cash and get the Canon IXUS 80, shouldn't he?

[Serenity]

I'm thinking of getting a Canon 450D as my first DSLR. Anything to say about this model?

[Blue]

I'm thinking of getting a Canon 450D as my first DSLR. Anything to say about this model?It's brilliant. I have a 400D, and I have no complaints. The 450 is, I've heard, just as good. Get it.

[Serenity]

The only reason I'm getting it over the 400D is the option of lenses for only about 100 or so extra. I am not spending a few hundred on the one lens, I'm only amateur.

[Blue]

You can get a 400D with the rather serviceable twin lens kit for around $1100-1200.

[Serenity]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind but yeah, I still like the 450D.

[Mr Incredible]

Have you looked at the Nikon D60 Serenity?

[Serenity]

Yeah I have but I've had no past experience with Nikons, really and I'm not spending exorbitant amounts on a camera where I am not familiar with the brand. Even though I know it's often thrown around with Canon as being the best, I've had very positive experiences using Canon compacts and I find the interface very simple. DSLRs are a whole other ballgame, I realise.

Also the specs of the 450D crap all over the D60, at least from what I've read so far.

I'm currently using a Fuji s5700, bought in September 2007. While it's been a great middle-of-the-range camera, I just feel it's time to step it up a notch.

A quick example of my work:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2965891509_759009e68b.jpg

I prefer portraits far and away though. It's unfortunate as I'm practically the only model I ever shoot. Every time I pull out a camera around other people, they immediately become so camera shy they can barely function.

Oh. I also really like macro stuff too, like your flowers and insects and the like.

[drzaius]

yeah but... the nikons look better!
i love their little red strips on the handle.

[Michaelangelo]

Red strip? L lenses, anyone? http://bombshellzine.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

[Serenity]

Edited my original post. See above.

[pauljdavidson]

I just bought a Nikon D60 as my first DSLR camera. Whats the general opinion on these? I'm a complete noobie when it comes to cameras but I am slowly learning how to shoot better pictures and learn of shutter speeds, apertures and the like. Compared to the last camera I had (Cybershot) The pictures taken are very clean, clear and detailed. So far Im impressed.

[Manny M]

You can get a 400D with the rather serviceable twin lens kit for around $1100-1200.

I bought my 400D w/Twin lens kit for 1100 this time last year... so you should be able to find it much cheaper now... especially with the 450D out there.

That beings said, go the 450D... it adapts more of the features of the more pro series DSLRs.

And serenity, while you think you won't have lens envy... it's only a matter of time.

[Serenity]

Ahh, fair enough. I'm probably going to need UV filters, skylight filters and the like, maybe a macro lens...Any other lens I probably will need? I don't think I'll be doing a great deal of landscape.

[Manny M]

You won't need UV filters and Skylight filters. Just pick one. I've read that Skylight are better for colour photography, while UV work best for black and white... but at the end of the day the improvement is pretty minimal, and you're only really buying one of those to protect the actual lens (unless you buy a polarised filter).

Depends on what your subject is really. If you get the twin lens kit, that'll do you until you know what lens you want to buy next.

[Serenity]

See, I'll need both cause I like to use both styles. What are the advantages for a polarising filter?

[Michaelangelo]

They can cut out certain reflections, so for example you could shoot through a window without picking up your own reflection. They can also bring out contrast in sky and water scenes, which can be especially handy on hazy days.

I didn't take these but here's an example:

Without polariser
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/bradjchiplin/D90/DSC_0040.jpg


With polariser
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/bradjchiplin/D90/DSC_0036.jpg

[Michaelangelo]

Hey Blue, what do you think about this one, exposure wise? I fiddled with the colour temp and flash settings mostly (THERE ARE SO MANY SETTINGS TO PLAY WITH). The histogram would have me believe it's still underexposed. There's a fine line between washing out details with the flash and lighting the subject well when you can't bounce it off the roof.

Anyone got some tips/criticisms? Be brutal, I have next to no interest in portraiture. I'm just learning my camera, and hopefully giving my folks something they can stick in a frame one day in the process.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/brad221/chloejayne2.jpg

[Serenity]

They can cut out certain reflections, so for example you could shoot through a window without picking up your own reflection. They can also bring out contrast in sky and water scenes, which can be especially handy on hazy days.

I didn't take these but here's an example:

Without polariser
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/bradjchiplin/D90/DSC_0040.jpg


With polariser
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/bradjchiplin/D90/DSC_0036.jpg

Wow. I'm definitely getting a polariser.

Also the baby is soooo beautiful and cheeky and cute. Gorgeous pic. I of course don't know a GREAT deal about photography but I'd probably just brighten it up a smidgeon. Then again it may be my monitor.

[turb06]

i knew drop bears were real.

[Serenity]

K, so I'm considering a macro lens for portraiture. Opinions on this one for future reference?

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4369.htm