DSLR question

[Spiffyguy]

hehe I am not sport shooter, at least not yet. I do like macro stuff right now. Mainly nature and my kid. She sure is cute. The 10D I borrowed had the battery grip on it. Made it quite heavy. I forget the lens size but it was fairly big, a sigma. He also had a 70-300? but I think it was older. I had quite a bit of problems with blurry shots at full range without a good balance or tripod. I figure whatever I get I will want to get a macro lens at some point.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

My best friend took my avatar (I am the subject) with a 10D and 70-300. It is a fairly good lens provided you have enough light to feed it. I sure do love my 70-200 f/2.8 IS though! The 75-300 on the other hand is crap IMO. I realize the OP isn't a professional sports photographer, but what category would you consider your daughter racing her bike down the street or chasing a frisbee while the dog runs away with it?

 

["Umm fish?"]

Well, if you like macro shots....

If you go with Canon, I'd certainly advise the 100mm or 180mm macros lenses as your first buy. But, that MP-E 65mm is sure fun.

I found a moth on the porch yesterday. Here it is at 1x lifesize: http://65.102.221.68/img_8153_moth.jpg

And, here it is at 5x lifesize: http://65.102.221.68/img_8161_moth.jpg

Neither of the shots was cropped (just reduced for the web, sharpened, and de-dusted), so that's a pretty good estimate of the range of the lens without any additions (other than supplemental flash). That's with NO bellows, tubes, teleconverters, reversed lenses, or any of the other stuff people do to get high magnification. Although, I am seriously considering dropping a 2x teleconverter on the back of the lens to see what it can do.

TitusvileSurfer--Fair enough! I wouldn't ever try to talk anyone out of buying the 70-200. Especially now that I have one and don't ever have to worry about them being out of stock again.

 

[Spiffyguy]

THose are some nice shots. I do love the macro so it is something I will have to look into as I learn more about how to use the camera. That is one my my deficiencies right now, knowing all the Fstops and focal lengths...ect. Lots of terms and such. Here are a few I took with the sigma lens on the 10D.

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/spiffyguy.com/ButterflyHouse/photo#5220856947082221314"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/spiffyguy.com/SHQ1u2n3VwI/AAAAAAAAAoI/4Ma3TYpSDvs/s144/IMG_0092.JPG" /></a>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/spiffyguy.com/ButterflyHouse/photo#5220856756499778386"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/spiffyguy.com/SHQ1jwpeC1I/AAAAAAAAAnA/vAhg89cJ3SE/s144/IMG_0036.JPG" /></a>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/spiffyguy.com/RandomShots1/photo#5220855765189219490"><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/spiffyguy.com/SHQ0qDunVKI/AAAAAAAAAks/JlqjVsFHIWE/s144/IMG_0152.JPG" /></a>

There is a bunch more in those picasa albums too. I was just messing with the camera really. trying to learn all the controls. Bummer I only had it for a few days though. My buddy wants to sell it to me but I think I would be better off with something a bit newer. Better sensors and all.

 

["Umm fish?"]

Very nice! You are well on your way. If I were to only buy one how-to photography book, this is the one I'd buy: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215617504&sr=8-1

One suggestion (kindly meant, of course): When shooting anything with recognizable eyes, try to get the eyes in focus. It's tough with creatures that are really small, but the animals' eyes draw the viewer's attention first. I've found with corals that getting the mouth in focus draws the viewer's eye similarly.

 

[Spiffyguy]

Thanks. Focusing with the lenses he had was a large pain. Since I don't know too much about the fstop and such I was mainly in auto but I had to manual focus. The auto focus would always focus on the background and not the subject for some reason. Also the "in Focus" area was very narrow when fully zoomed in. So I had to sorta rock back and forth until I had a good focus. Silly me taking macro shots without a macro lens too but you use what you have to work with.

 

[maroun.c]

If you aren't going to get high-quality lenses...save yourself the trouble and buy yourself a PowerShot or Cybershot. DSLR photography is likely not for you. This is an expensive hobby and a DSLR stuck on automatic mode with a kit lens is a terrible waste of money whether Canon or Nikon. A G9 would have been a much better choice...it was made for people like you.

TitusvileSurfer

Don't know if I misreading your post but I believe you should chill.
I don't think you know what lenses I have to come out with a statement like this. I don't think the 50mm1.4 or the 17-50 2.8 or the lenses I use for travel 18-200VR or 70-300 VR are bad quality lenses. As to the kit lense I did not by it and decided to go with the 18-200 Vr instead. As to this being an expensive hobby I know and accept that and my gear list for a simple hobbyist shows it. I had a 3 MP Cybershot years ago and to be honest in good hands it's not bad. My DSLR is stuck on M mode and sometimes goes down to A or S mode so does that change the category of people like me? I did state that my comments were my opinion in my post and to each his own. No need for personal comments.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I wasn't referring to "you" or anyone else specifically. I meant someone who buys a DSLR with the full intention of never upgrading past the kit lens is a fool. The cameras never come off of the "green box mode" I know first hand from days working a theme park that a troubling large majority of people who buy Canon xxxD and the Nikon Dxx series cameras fall into this category. I would say 95%+ had the kit lens and full automatic setting. When I would try to talk photography with them they would often say "oh I don't know how to use this thing I just like how it looks" or some other dumb comment. Aperture? Shutter speed? Never heard of it. More entry level DSLR users have that mentality than not. They don't know and don't care. At least they look like professionals.

 

[Spiffyguy]

When i used my Powershot before it died I always used it on manual when trying to take good pics and not quick snaps of the kid. I find the auto doesn't quite do it every time for me. Mainly the auto focus as I mentioned before. My wife may use the auto since most of her shots are just of the kid. Nothing professional but she takes like 900 a day so one is bound to look good lol.

 

[InLimbo87]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12912503#post12912503 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
I wasn't referring to "you" or anyone else specifically. I meant someone who buys a DSLR with the full intention of never upgrading past the kit lens is a fool.

Not everyone buying a digital slr is looking to be a pro photographer. Although better lenses will of course maximize the camera, many are perfectly content with the pics they can get with the stock lenses.

You're very elitist about your equipment, and constantly push the necessity of buying the most expensive stuff, yet I don't think I've seen a single post on here yet where you showcase your stunning pictures.

I think calling people fools for using the kit lenses, and insulting anyone using a camera that doesn't want to be a photographer (god forbid), is a bit closed minded and judgemental. Its time to broaden those horizons and think outside what you think is acceptable..

 

[Spiffyguy]

Be nice guys

So on entry level cameras, What models should I be looking at that are close to the XSI. I have heard it is Nikon or Canon but is there decent stuff in any other brands or should I stick with these. Also is there anything major that is coming down the pipe that would be good to wait for?

 

[jthao]

how did we go from "which camera offers live mode lcd" to "canon vs. nikon" to insults??? this is what we all need to do sometimes::smokin:

to answer the original question: I'm no expert, but just a suggestion, check out the new sony camera, it has flip lcd live view..... kinda cool!!! anyways, other than that, the canon is the only one that offers live view for under $1K. I'm a nikon guy, but I don't mind having a canon either!!!!

 

[Spiffyguy]

without the live view is the XSI compared to a D80 or would it be a D60? Trying to figure out what models to look at when I heard to the store. And if there is a few hundred difference between say the XSi and the next model up but the next one higher has more features I don't mind spending a bit more cash to get a better body.

 

[jthao]

it's funny because that's how they get you...... D40 $400, D60 $600, D80 $800, so it's ONLY $200 more from a D40 to a D60, so you figure "I'll just get the D60 since it's ONLY $200 more" next thing you know you'll say "since it's ONLY $200 more than the D60, I'll just get the D80" and by the time you realize, you've spent double the amount you were planning to spend!!!!! well, anyways, that's what happened to me. I went in to buy the D40, and now have a D80.

The XSI is very nice, imho, I think you won't regret getting it. If you have friends who are into photography, ask them and go with what they got, cuss usually they can help you out. I never even thought of buying canon when I first walked into the store, my mind was already set with nikon, the reason is because I got a buddy who's got a nikon and I just went with what he got.

 

[Spiffyguy]

both my dad and my brother have Nikons, my bro as the D40 but wishes he got the D80 like my dad. He said he is going to sell off his 40 and get an 80 body. They both like the cameras. Only DLSR I have used is the Canon 10D. Wasn't bad for my newbie hands, a bit heavy but the battery grip probably did that. So being new to SLR part of photography it is all very new. Tough choices since either way would probably be good. I will need to head to dpreview and do some feature comparisons and such. Figure out what the differences are.

 

[drparker]

The body is secondary choice. first choose a lens lineup you like. Good lenses last forever and hold a very good resale value. I've switched bodies three times but still have my original 24-70mm f/2.8L.

When the choice is any of these three bodies, they will all work for me which is is better. Pick the cheaper one and use the extra money to buy better glass.

Kit lens are fine and if that's all you can afford starting out great, I did start that way. Can better lenses capture better shots or even shots a kit cannot. Yes without a doubt.

I agree if you are going to ALWAYS use just a kit lens and ALWAYS shoot in full auto and never learn the basics of exposure then you'd be better off buying a high Quality P&S.

It will give the same features, same photos and will be easier to carry around. So you'll be more likely to use it. There are tons of times when I don't want to be bothered with lugging my DSLR around so I grab the P&S throw it in a pocket and off I go.

 

[Spiffyguy]

Since photography, like fish tanks, is expensive; I was planning on getting a kit lens and possible a large something to 200 range that would be cheap enough to get going. This would allow me to play without too much invested and figure out what I need for my shooting style.

I think all the lenses that are out now all have the auto focus feature. What other features do lenses have that I would need to know about, besides the obvious size and quaility?

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12914057#post12914057 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Spiffyguy

I think all the lenses that are out now all have the auto focus feature.

But not all auto-focus lenses work on the D40. Do you homework before you buy to prevent surprises.

 

[drparker]

Speed is the biggest feature that adds to cost size and weight. It's the f-stop rating or how much light can be let in. So a f/4 lens lets in double the light of a f/5.6 during the same amount of time. Thus it's faster and an f/2.8 can let in double the amount of light that a f/4 can.

When does this matter. Low light/ indoor photography is the best example. Kids on stage, to far away to use flash. With a f/5.6 the shutter has to stay open a lot longer to let in the same amount of light that f/2.8 will. So the pictures seems out of focus because of motion blur but the f/2.8 lens seems clear.

Also the larger aperture, smaller number, f/2.8 will have a smaller depth of field. meaning you can blur the background and have the head in focus for a portrait shot.

Another feature is IS, image stabilization helps prevent motion blur from your hands shaking at slower shutter speeds.

Then does the lens have internal focus. Meaning that when you focus the lens does not change size vs. external where the lens gets longer or shorter. Makes a difference for macro close up work.

There you are very close to your tanks glass trying to get close-up of your new coral and you change the focus, bang the front of the lens slams into your tank.

Better lenses also focus faster.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12912601#post12912601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by InLimbo87


Not everyone buying a digital slr is looking to be a pro photographer. Although better lenses will of course maximize the camera, many are perfectly content with the pics they can get with the stock lenses.

You're very elitist about your equipment, and constantly push the necessity of buying the most expensive stuff, yet I don't think I've seen a single post on here yet where you showcase your stunning pictures.

I think calling people fools for using the kit lenses, and insulting anyone using a camera that doesn't want to be a photographer (god forbid), is a bit closed minded and judgemental. Its time to broaden those horizons and think outside what you think is acceptable..

Ooo I just got served. Some neat photographs have been displayed in these boards before. Posting here several times a night, its hard to see everything I guess. I try to shoot every day so I'll share from tonight, as reaching through the pick of the litter in my archives would be...well...cheating. Not a lot of wildlife was out and about, but the local fishermen are always fun to watch.