Wishing To Go DSLR

Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:

It is alleged that Paul Furman claimed:

The tripod doesn't matter for interiors with a wide angle, you just want
a cable release instead of an infrared remote.

Why? Is it the placement of the sensor? Or something else?

A heavy tripod is for big lenses outside in the wind. Indoors with a
short lens, just wait a moment & use the remote release. I don't know
how much mirror slap can contribute, but for on-screen or small prints
it won't matter.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Just Shoot Me wrote:

King Sardon wrote

Buy the 30D (or wait for its successor... could be out shortly) and
put the Canon 10-22mm lens on it for the wide angle shots. This wide
angle zoom has a very useful range (16-35 mm equiv), performs very
well, and distortion (straight lines looking curved) is well
controlled at most focal lengths.

See http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/2lvjgf) and many other reviews on the web.

I find the 24mm gives a good idea of the lay out with out making people
think the tiny Manhattan rooms are bigger than they actually are.

24mm (35mm full frame equivalent) is 16mm on Nikon, 15 on canon. The
Nikon 12-24 is similar to the Canon 10-22, the 16-18+ zooms are not
quite in that range, and the good ones are quite expensive.


I don't want them to be thinking the rooms are much bigger than they are and
feel 24mm gives a good middle ground.

Jenny




--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Just Shoot Me wrote:
[]
I just came back from taking 98 at one location.
This time while very rare I also took some outdoor shots of the
backyard. For me its a hobby but I am also trying to help out a
friend that is in the real estate business.
I get to (hopefully) learn something that I will enjoy and help a
friend at the same time.
Right now its a cool pix camera and that probably would make my
questions off topic.
I already deleted the really bad pics and now its time to see if I
can make the good ones even better in Photoshop.
Anyway I hope you guys can help me make a good choice in my first
DSLR.
Jenny

The Nkon D40 with its kit lens (18 - 55mm) has a similar effective focal
length range to your 8400, and is available in both 6MP (D40) and 10MP
(D40x) versions. The wide-angle end is not quite as wide. Should you
wish for more telephoto, add the 55-200mm VR lens. This is all
good-quality but quite lightweight kit and easy to carry around. For
real-estate, you might want to add an even wider wide-angle lens. Might
not cost more than US $530 for camera and kit lens - for example

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40K.html

David

Paul Furman wrote:
[]
The other thing you notice in high contrast situations is 'purple
fringing' which is more common in compact P&S cameras, in DSLRs it's
usually less but inferior lenses will still have chromatic aberration
(CA) (red-blue- fringes) which can be corrected somewhat with software
like DXO. But that's something you will want to look at when reviwing
lenses.

For just viewing on a PC, isn't that correction a little overkill?

David

Just Shoot Me wrote:
[]
I am a bit of a perfecitonist not with other people but with myself.
If I can do better it bothers me if I do not. I know in the DLSR
world $2,000 is nothing
but would it be better than my brain dead cool pix?
Everyday is a different place and every room having different
lighting. some rooms can have up to 3 kinds of lighting. I would
really like these pictures to be the best they can be
and if I need to spend a bit more I guess I can but I will feel it.
I also know or feel cameras dont take beautiful pictures people do
so I am willing to learn.
its good to finally talk to people that know about this stuff.

Your 8400 is /not/ brain dead, but like any tool, you need to know its
limitations and how to get the best out of it. I have one, and have taken
some excellent pictures even in very low-light conditions (without a
tripod, simply using available objects for bracing or support). Where the
DSLR will score is allowing you to use higher ISOs - ISO 1600 on the Nikon
D40 produces better quality images than ISO 400 on your Nikon 8400, so you
can use shorter exposures.

Money is not the answer. Even the basic DSLR will produce good pictures,
when used correctly. For interiors, something wider than the standard kit
lens would be useful. One of the 10-20mm lenses others have mentioned
would be worth checking out.

Cheers,
David

"Just Shoot Me" wrote in message
news:vQkxi.457$5y3.221@trndny07...
Hello

I have been thinking about going DSLR and would like a little help making
up my mind.
Right now I am using a Nikon Cool Pix 8400.
I only do indoor photography and don't mind working with a tri-pod.
$2,000 is what I can spend total on a new DSLR, Shoe Flash? and a New
Tri-pod.
I like wide angle but not curved pictures, Something user friendly.

any suggestions would be great.

Thank you

Jenny


Canon 400D (Xti) with kit lens will do the job.

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...

Your 8400 is brain dead.

A moronic generalization. I suspect the poster is "brain dead" The Coolpix
8400 is a highly capable camera and encouraging people to buy more and more
equipment to feed some neurotic camera aquisition syndrome is doing them a
disservice.

Yoshi

Just Shoot Me wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
98 at once? That's a good start, but you can do better than that.

Last time I figured it out, I was just over 1000 images a month.


in the last 4 months I have saved 3592 pictures and that is far from the
total amount I have taken.

Quantity should not be the goal. Quality is the goal.
Examine what makes the image look good, choose a few
good images and get image you want. Historically, this was
done with sheet film which was/is expensive, and one learned
to get the composition correct without burning a lot of film.

Where quantity begins to play into the equation is
action, like sports or wildlife. You still need great
composition with every shot and then luck that the action
is interesting too.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Just Shoot Me wrote:

I am a bit of a perfecitonist not with other people but with myself.
If I can do better it bothers me if I do not. I know in the DLSR world
$2,000 is nothing
but would it be better than my brain dead cool pix?

The Nikon coolpix 8400 has a pixel pitch of 2.7 microns, which is
pretty small. For low light performance, the low end DSLRs
will get you 5 to 8x higher ISO with the same signal levels
(same noise in your images). Higher end DSLRs will get you
about 10 to 12x higher ISO. See Figure 6 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter
The unity gain ISO is a measure of effects of larger pixels
collecting more light.

If you want high ISO and wide angle, a full frame camera
is ideal, like the Canon 5D.
If you want to spend less money and have a small DSLR, one of
the entry-level DSLRs still have great low light performance,
like the Canon rebel XT (350D). For more measures of
low light performance, see Figure 1 (higher on the plot is
better), Figure 2 (higher = better), Figure 3 (lower = better),
Figure 6 (higher=better), and Figure 7 (higher = better, indicates
noise performance in shadow areas at high ISO) at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Roger


I am not crazy about panorama views. some rooms are so small all you will
see is wall.
now to make it seem even more crazy. I get around from place to place on
motorcycle with the camera connected to the tripod and in a backpack. So
something with some kind of weather seal or what ever.

With any camera, you can always do panoramas by stitching together
several images. So if the need ever came, it is pretty easy
to learn and you don't have to buy a new lens, but a panorama
head does help.

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
With any camera, you can always do panoramas by stitching together
several images. So if the need ever came, it is pretty easy
to learn and you don't have to buy a new lens, but a panorama
head does help.

Roger

Actually I've found that for simple 2-shot or three-shot "panoramas"
(really, just wide-angle photos), the AutoStitch program handles the job
with great ease, and all you need to do is to select the folder where your
images to join live. It's really that easy. For that sort of work, a
pano head isn't essential (meaning I've never needed one).

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

Cheers,
David