If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:18:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2009-06-14 18:04:50 -0700, LOL said: On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: ----------------- Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried Google but didn't know how to limit the search. So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get started. Thanks again! - Kris You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography. He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head. ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this. Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-) Too too funny! LOL! ...and Kris, if you hadn't noticed before, the above remark is from our resident P&S troll who will try to hide his identity via constant change, and has an agenda which is more destructive than helpful. There are doubts in this Group of his ability to produce images as he has yet to submit any sample of his work. The best advice remains buy what works for you. OH LOOK! It's the useless piece of **** pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL AGAIN! Don't believe anything he ever says! LOL You ****ingly childish idiot. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c wrote:
I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions) a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite feel comfortable with the use my equipment. I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses. I hope that your 81 years haven't contributed to the discrepancy shown by what some guy named nick posted about 5 months ago. If you care to tie up the loose ends it would be appreciated. I have used both Canon and Nikon systems and have accumulated lenses for both systems. The camera in my bag has been the Canon 1DMKll. Many months ago I had been bitten by the update bug and pondered the thought of buying either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. I looked at other cameras and many were reported as being good cameras but I favored getting either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Try as I might, I did my very best to zero in on getting one or the other camera. I read reports, questioned users, and could not readily decide which one to buy. Indecision led to procrastination. Finally, I could contain myself no further and I did the only thing one could do who labored with a muddled mind; I bought both cameras. Yeah, I bought the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300. I'm as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers. If he discovered that both of them were his one assumes, and not from two friends (or a single friend) happy to see him. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not, interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler Autofocus really can handle that concern, and that's pretty simple compared with some of the added AF features that have evolved. Some of today's P&S cameras also have multiple AF points. Nikon's entry level DSLRs (D40, D60) only have three AF sensors, laid out in a horizontal line and you can select the one that is used for some shooting modes, but that's pretty limited. The older D50 has five AF sensors, adding one above and one below the central AF point. The D5000 isn't really an upgrade for the D60. It's positioned between the D60 and the D90 which has 11 focus points as does the D5000. The D300 and all of the Nikon's full frame DSLRs provide many more. The D300 lets you use 11 or 51 autofocus points, 15 of the 51 being the more sensitive cross-type that are sensitive to both horizontal and vertical patterns. In continuous servo mode where you're shooting many consecutive shots of fast moving objects, such as in nature or sports photography, the D300 will track the moving objects as they move away from the selected AF sensor, transferring control to adjacent AF sensors. For this you can choose to use 9, 21 or 51 focus points. Many DSLRs from other manufacturers also have many AF focus points, but none of them are spread as widely across the frame. Since the 51 point AF module is similar (or identical), these 51 points aren't spread quite as widely across the frame in the Full Frame D700, D3 or D3x as they are in the D300. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote in
: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying to make my way through this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera- Reviews.aspx but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance. So here I am. WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens. What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price is a consideration Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Many Thanks in Advance! Kris K. Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've waited so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera can't be beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of exactly what you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to mention high-quality video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs dSLR-pushing trolls. They know not of what they speak. I feel compelled to note that nobody is pushing SLR on me. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm used to using my film SLR, so I did ask about DSLR. I'm looking for my first digital camera (I don't count the crappy little web-cam thingy I got for $20 in Target in 1999), so I just asked what was an obvious Q. for me (i.e., about DSLR). So in all fairness, nobody can blame people for answering the question I admittedly asked. Meanwhile, the link you offered is excellent, and give me additional food for thought: Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats a new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...utdoor_results .shtml That's certainly useful info, esp. the info macro photography...I will add that model to the things I'll look at in detail. In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S camera) from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra 20 lbs. in weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and heavy tripod to be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I did the math. Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A "Pro" setup simply is not in the budget. Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400. Exactly. I'm definitely a "dew on dragonfly sidelit by morning sun" type. Or "lie on freezing ground for 30 min to get *perfect* upshot of frosted grass-blades against Winter sunset sky". I also would really love to be able to do low-light photos, like "running brook in moonlight", or "full moon over snow", and the like, which I don't even bother attempting with film. My frustration w/ film is that, all too often, I get the light wrong, and end up with pneumonia, or covered with mosquito bites, or whatever, for nothing but a smear of blobs (that cost a lot fo money to get developed). It's not the medium I don't like - it's the utter frustration of not getting the settings right, with no way of knowing they're wrong until after getting them developed. But with digital, you can see the shot on those little screens, so you know instantly whether, and how, it needs to be tweaked. That's the attraction for me. That's the one and only thing that dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller apertures on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom settings on P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO benefit. For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to worry about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your dSLR's sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome lenses. That's a good point I hadn't thought of. This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of the 1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end the convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been doing all along. If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or will ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by the free CHDK software add-on for them. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was originally provided by the manufacturer. Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking 1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest speed. You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's maximum 1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill shadows in harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion detection for nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response times are fast enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the pre-strike step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing hand-held lightning photography during daylight this way. Using short shutter speeds and the built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter at the right time. That's never been done before in the history of photography. No need for a tripod and keeping the shutter open hoping for a random lightning event. Just hold the camera in the direction of the storm, composing your shot. The camera snaps off a frame only when there's an actual strike. Wow, now that's pretty nifty... Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures. Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the earth. Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras that run internal scripts. If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk Wow, I never realized! Nice think is the links to the site where you can get the info of what camera was used. So it's easy to see who takes the kids of photos I'd like to take, and see what they used, so I then can look into those models =:-D It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard LOL!! Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links! - Kris |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Savageduck wrote in
news:2009061219480928524-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom: On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. Oh! Well, I'll add that to my list of things to look at in more detail, too...Thanks for the heads-up... - Kris |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Bob Larter wrote in news:4a333f53$1
@dnews.tpgi.com.au: Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Kris K. Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't want to downgrade to a digicam. I thought DSLR is a type of digicam? I want to get away from film because I missed too many shots (that I suffered to get) because of not getting the settings just right, and not finding out until paying a lot to get the film developed. I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to know; if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are reliable (and outdoors-capable). I didn't mean to spark a war. I'm mainly trying to separate mere "snapshot boxes", from cameras I can use to take decent-to-good photographs. My first thought was DSLR, for the reasons I'd described, and I want to retain control over focusing my pictures in whatver area of the frame I want, so I don't like the sound of "auto-focus" - but if "point and shoot" includes some quality items, I'm open to info on them as well. Right now, the variety of types is bewildering, tho' I'm not impressed by what I've seen in the under-$200-range (esp. when a lot of hoo-ha is made over "color choice" - black is fine by me), so the info and links people have generously provided here are a starting point for good cameras within my price-range. I know it takes time for people to offer info, regardless of their viewpoint, so I appreciate that, and really did not mean to start an argument... =:-o - Kris |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
John Navas wrote in
: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:31 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in : Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Kris K. Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't want to downgrade to a digicam. Stooping to his level by insulting other cameras only serves to undermine your own credibility. Cameras are just tools, and no one tool is best for all jobs. dSLR cameras have their place. Compact bridge cameras have their place. P&S cameras have their place. Even cell phone cameras have their place. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/bart.transit.officer.murder.charge Like paint brushes. I use a 90-cent boar-bristle thing for brushing flux onto my stained-glass copper foil prior to soldering; I also OTOH once paid $75 (and that was back when a dollar was much "bigger") for an absolutely perfect Kolinskij Sable art brush for doing lines that would range from 1/3" thick, to *barely* a hairline, that's how perfectly the brush responded (now my hands shake too much for that kind of work, but the principle stands). I know the end result I want; also the $$ the budget allows me to spend. So I need to mesh those. I was thinking DSLR, but maybe I do need to widen my investigations? THe info is grist for the mill and I appreciate people taking the time to offer me that info. Good qoutes from Adams, BTW - Kris |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
tony cooper wrote in
: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. Oh, OK! See, I didn't even know *that* =:-o Now I do I have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view. In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what is in focus in the edge of your image. My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are the same. Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do things like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a tree frog that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that it will be what is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations about auto-focus - it sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because it isn't what I think it is... - Kris |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
John Navas wrote in
: [...] CR is a good general consumer resource, but does a poor job of evaluating specialized products like audio gear (especially speakers), cameras, and the like. Much better advice is contained in reviews by qualified reviewers, which are readily available on the Internet. Some of the best (IMHO): * http://www.dpreview.com * http://www.cameralabs.com * http://www.imaging-resource.com * http://www.steves-digicams.com * http://www.dcresource.com THanks for the links!, all are now saved =:-D - Kris |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
John Navas wrote in
: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote in : Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography. True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great pictures without a great photographer. My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying... Granted, a True Artist can cerate art using ground rocks and a frayed reed (liek the Lescaux etc cave art), but having th ebest tool one can get isn't a bad thing, either G! There are good, hi-end P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size. Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode. The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode, and more total capability than any dSLR. I wrote that one down ... Advanced dSLR users use what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ... Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography. But it's good to know, because I also do computer graphics and 3D modeling, so that part I understood It's all grist for the proverbial mill - Kris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Need help selecting digital camera | Dave Boland[_2_] | Digital Photography | 28 | December 8th 08 10:58 AM |
Selecting new digital camera | Javier | Digital Photography | 5 | November 15th 06 11:34 PM |
Advice request for a digital camera... | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | February 26th 05 02:32 PM |
Need help selecting budget digital camera... | ct | Digital Photography | 3 | February 10th 05 02:30 AM |
>>> Request for Recommendation: Digital camera with specificrequirements | phil w | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 3rd 03 05:46 AM |