Photography / Camera chat thread.

[stewie]

There always seems to be a healthy debate about photography whenever someone asks about new cameras etc so how about having a seperate photo thread in the photo section itself ? just a thought

[TC3]

A thread talking about photo techniques etc might be a good idea. Plenty people here who have good knowledge and plenty who dont. Maybe someone should start of with a question and let the thread evolve.

No question is too basic as we all started somewhere

[Specialone]

Ok, i'll start what the feck do i do ?

[stewie]

Ok, i'll start what the feck do i do ?
Ok, you've got a blank cheque, you can go anywhere, can afford any equipment and can photograph anything you like what would you ? me ? I'd go for some kind of Leica system, preferably film not digi, head for the Mojave desert.
Ok, its maybe not doing a portrait of Mandela or something else but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

[Electro]

New question on the thread.

I would like a dslr and have a budget of £250. Been looking at D350 or 400 but i know the 400 would be a body only deal and the 350 would be at least a package. Seen the Sony A200 and after that i got bored doing my research. Anyone got any ideas for the price i am willing to spend?

Cheers, Electro.

[keith_d]

Ok, you've got a blank cheque, you can go anywhere, can afford any equipment and can photograph anything you like what would you ? me ? I'd go for some kind of Leica system, preferably film not digi, head for the Mojave desert.
Ok, its maybe not doing a portrait of Mandela or something else but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Money no object - I'd buy a couple of Nikon D3s and have enough money in the bank to do a year of voluntary work for the WWF documenting their projects around the world.

[jambo]

New question on the thread.

I would like a dslr and have a budget of £250. Been looking at D350 or 400 but i know the 400 would be a body only deal and the 350 would be at least a package. Seen the Sony A200 and after that i got bored doing my research. Anyone got any ideas for the price i am willing to spend?

Cheers, Electro.
That's not a stunning ammount of money. And as you are aware it's going to mean a 2nd hand deal.
Canon 350D/400D both good cameras (My trusty 400D has done me well)

When looking at deals bear in mind a new canon 1000D can be had with a lens for ~£350.
Nikon D40 or similar might be availible for that sort of money?

Jambo

[stewie]

New question on the thread.

I would like a dslr and have a budget of £250. Been looking at D350 or 400 but i know the 400 would be a body only deal and the 350 would be at least a package. Seen the Sony A200 and after that i got bored doing my research. Anyone got any ideas for the price i am willing to spend?

Cheers, Electro.
I saw and advert for a new Nikon D60 the other day for £269, I'll see if I can rack it down for you

[mister c]

New question on the thread.

I would like a dslr and have a budget of £250. Been looking at D350 or 400 but i know the 400 would be a body only deal and the 350 would be at least a package. Seen the Sony A200 and after that i got bored doing my research. Anyone got any ideas for the price i am willing to spend?

Cheers, Electro.
I have a Canon 300d, old but good. I paid £230 for it with 2 lenses, 2 batteries, charger, 2GB worth of memory cards & a Lowepro bag to keep it all in.

My daughter also bought a Canon 1000d off Ebay with a bag & lens for £285, so there are some bargains to be had & I have to say that for budget cameras they take some damned good pictures.

[Electro]

I have a Canon 300d, old but good. I paid £230 for it with 2 lenses, 2 batteries, charger, 2GB worth of memory cards & a Lowepro bag to keep it all in.

My daughter also bought a Canon 1000d off Ebay with a bag & lens for £285, so there are some bargains to be had & I have to say that for budget cameras they take some damned good pictures.

Seen some of your pic Mr C and they are looking pretty good mate.

I`m aware the camera will be 2nd hand, i wouldnt really want to spend extra on new as i more than likely will end up dropping it or summat equally depressing lol.

[dyzio]

What sort of lens should one be looking at if you're planning a few visits to race tracks?

I was thinking about a SIGMA 70-300mm f/4.0 5.6 APO (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-70-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-APO-DG-MACRO-CANON-FIT-UK-/180610097989?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2a0d336345), but it doesn't look like it has any image stabilisation or a hsm motor. hen I found this Sigma 50-200mm f4-5.6 DC Optical Stabiliser HSM (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-50-200-HSM-OS-CANON-DIGITAL-NEW-UK-DEALER-/200561754167?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2eb2698037).

Any idea if a 200mm lens would be "sufficient"? Camera is a Canon 400D.

Cheers

[mister c]

I use a 70 - 300 Canon lens on my 300d which seems to be ample for the circuits I've been to. Mine aren't image stabilised & I dont "bin" many of my pictures. Sometimes a bit of blur gives it some mood :)

[Filipe M.]

What sort of lens should one be looking at if you're planning a few visits to race tracks?

I was thinking about a SIGMA 70-300mm f/4.0 5.6 APO (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-70-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-APO-DG-MACRO-CANON-FIT-UK-/180610097989?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2a0d336345), but it doesn't look like it has any image stabilisation or a hsm motor. hen I found this Sigma 50-200mm f4-5.6 DC Optical Stabiliser HSM (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-50-200-HSM-OS-CANON-DIGITAL-NEW-UK-DEALER-/200561754167?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2eb2698037).

Any idea if a 200mm lens would be "sufficient"? Camera is a Canon 400D.

Cheers

200 mm might be a tad on the short side, but depending on distance it might be do-able.
Personally, assuming I'd be using the lens mainly for race tracks, I'd give a bit more importance to ultrasonic / hypersonic / whatever motor drives with manual focus override than to optical stabilization.
Reasons? A few: ultrasonic motors are usually quicker (which you'll need...) and if you have instant focus override without having to flick buttons back and forth it's a lot quicker to pre-focus the camera when the autofocus sensor screws it up completely for you and starts hunting from minimum distance to infinity and back :lol:
The lack of optical stabilization wouldn't bother me as much because you'll probably be shooting either at very fast shutter speeds (and there is a lot of controversy about using OS / VR at 1/500s or faster, with a lot of people saying it does more harm than good), or panning with the bikes / cars at slower speeds, where you actually want a blurry background and sharp subject. If the OS / VR system isn't good enough to be able to detect panning motion and disable the axys of stabilization in the direction of panning, you will want to turn it off anyway...

This said, I'd be looking for a Canon 70-300 lens if you're on a budget. If your budget is smaller than that, I've also heard some praise for Tamron's newest 70-300, but have never used it before so it's just hearsay. If money isn't really a problem, then I'd be looking at a 70-200 f/4L or f/2.8L with a 1.4x teleconverter! ;)

[dyzio]

Unfortunately out of the two, only the later one has a high speed motor. I really like the fact that it can be bought new for around £150 :)

The 70-300mm usm Canon sounds nice but it's over £300 :/

[Filipe M.]

Unfortunately out of the two, only the later one has a high speed motor. I really like the fact that it can be bought new for around £150 :)

Is that the Tamron or the Sigma in your previous post? If it's the Tamron, then it's probably one of the older cheap versions, the new one should be closer to the Canon's price...

[dyzio]

The "shorter" Sigma from the previous post: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-50-200-HSM-OS-CANON-DIGITAL-NEW-UK-DEALER-/200561754167?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2eb2698037

[dyzio]

Although this Canon looks interesting, gonna have to look for some reviews:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5-6-USM-III-550D-60D-7D-/330506413347?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item4cf3b7a523

[Filipe M.]

Although this Canon looks interesting, gonna have to look for some reviews:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5-6-USM-III-550D-60D-7D-/330506413347?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item4cf3b7a523

Mmm the couple of reviews I've read so far aren't very encouraging... softness at the telephoto end (common in this price range), USM motor but without full time manual override, and cheap build.
Unfortunately you do get what you pay for, just like with Nikon's 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G. Cheap as chips, but cr@p quality.
If you don't want to spend much more than that, then it's either looking at a shorter zoom (and Canon makes a very honest 55-250 lens both with USM and IS), or 3rd party lenses...

[fizzwheel]

200 mm might be a tad on the short side, but depending on distance it might be do-able.

I'd have to say based on my experience that 200mm isnt enough. I struggled with my 200mm and Donnington and also at Thruxton as well. Because of the extra catch fencing / distance the spectators are away I found that I was taking my pics and then having to crop them afterwards which I didnt like.

If you can afford it, go for the 300mm it's much more flexable. I know it costs more but I havent regreted it.

[dyzio]

Mmm the couple of reviews I've read so far aren't very encouraging...

Sounds like you are correct :(
I've found some reviews as well and they said the same thing :(

So far the 200hsm Sigma looks ok, but I'll keep an eye out on others, I don't need it right now.

Cheers

[Electro]

Well i just stumped up £185 for a Sony A200 with a 15-55 lens which i thought was a pretty good price. Need a lens now to cope with distance. I have had a read and there is a nice something-300 that seems to be a good choice (will have to trawl through the things i`ve read to find the brand). Really looking forward to some hopefully good pictures soon :)

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO seems to be very popular.

[Richie]

stickied, renamed and cleaned up a tad or 2 :0)

[stewie]

stickied, renamed and cleaned up a tad or 2 :0)
:thumright:
Anyone know much about this micro 4/3 mullarkey ? thinking of getting a 'compact' style camera for a trip next year, would love something like a Leica M9 but a bit out of my league tbh and actually its not 4/3's I think ;) but want something I can slip in a pocket and get some grab shots with.

[Filipe M.]

The Leica M9 uses a full frame Kodak sensor, so it's actually bigger than the APS-C (1.5x / 1.6x crop ratio) sensors in the current consumer / prosumer DSLRs... ;)

The m4/3 sensors are smaller than APS-C, with a 2x crop ratio, so not too big but not that small either, and allowing for smaller lenses to be used. Excellent ratio between portability and quality, but still expensive, and depending on the lens(es) you get, it might stop being pocketable really quickly... I believe only the 17 mm (35 mm equivalent) pancake lenses are small enough to still be considered pocketable, but then again it always depends on how big your pockets are :lol:
May I suggest taking a good look at the Nikon P7000 / Canon G12 instead? Smaller sensors, but a lot more compact than an m4/3 system, and cheaper when you consider the lenses you'd have to get to cover the whole range the P7000 provides. Of course the image quality might not be as good when you start shooting in low light, but it might be the difference between getting a shot or none at all because you left the camera at home due to size...

[stewie]

Cheers Filipe, its a bit of a minefield out there tbh with every week a new updated upgraded model hitting the stores,just need something small and light with good optics that I can pull out at a moments notice, a pancake lens would defo be on the shopping list, saying that it doesnt have to be digital either, I still use film and might even go for something like a voigtlanger or rollei even, although digi has certain advantages I suppose.

[Filipe M.]

Cheers Filipe, its a bit of a minefield out there tbh with every week a new updated upgraded model hitting the stores,just need something small and light with good optics that I can pull out at a moments notice, a pancake lens would defo be on the shopping list, saying that it doesnt have to be digital either, I still use film and might even go for something like a voigtlanger or rollei even, although digi has certain advantages I suppose.

Voigtlander.... mmmmmm....... drools..........


Right, back to the real world.
While I do like shooting film (and being driven insane with the results, especially when trying to scan them into something I don't mind seeing on a screen), I have to admit that it wouldn't be my first choice for a carry anywhere camera, not only because of camera size (35mm rangefinders can be small, but still bigger than a digital compact) but also because of the digital convenience niceties like the ability to change ISO on the fly.

While it's true that raising ISO on a small sensor compact will degrade image quality faster than on a bigger sensor thingy, the choice is there for you to make should you need it. Of course, with film, changing ISO means changing the roll (potentially wasting some film if you need to change it mid roll), or pushing it in development if you're shooting stock that will respond well to doing it, and again if you need to do it mid-roll, you just lost the pictures that were shot before that... unless you know a lab that will split the film and process each bit according to the ISO it was shot at. If you do, give us a shout and I might consider moving to the UK! :lol:

On the other hand, the lenses on the compacts won't be as good as what you can get from the likes of Voigtlander, and they're slower. The P7000 has a variable f/2.8-5.6 28-200mm equiv zoom, which is decent on the wide end, but I can imagine by the time you get to 50mm equiv you're already at f/4 or near... in a funny way this negates the higher ISO advantage because you'll be 2 stops slower than a normal 50 mm f/2 prime, and 3 stops slower than a decent f/1.4 prime... If you go for the f/1.1 Nokton then you're pushing into 4 stops territory (and no depth of field, but that's a different matter! :lol: ), which if you're shooting 100 ISO film would be close to shooting 1600 ISO on a compact, and I don't think you want to do that! ;) Maybe film isn't such a bad idea after all, then! ;)

Or just go back to your first option and take a look at the Panasonic GF2 with a decent set of lenses. The offer is growing, and while you won't get Voigtlander or Rollei quality, you get decent high ISO performance and fast-ish glass to go with it! :) Oh, and HD video! :lol:

[Specialone]

Just a heads up for anyone looking at buying a camera in the near future.

Had an email off jessops...

D90 with 105mm lense now £679 (i paid £799 1 year ago)
D5000 with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses £569

Some good packages around at the moment :)

[Bluefish]

Just a heads up for anyone looking at buying a camera in the near future.

Had an email off jessops...

D90 with 105mm lense now £679 (i paid £799 1 year ago)
D5000 with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses £569

Some good packages around at the moment :)

cheers mate am checking it out now :D they were 769 :smt019

[Bluefish]

I've also heard some praise for Tamron's newest 70-300, but have never used it before so it's just hearsay.

is this the one you are talking about Filipe? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TAMRON-AF-70-300mm-f4-5-6-Di-LD-Macro-NIKON-D80-D40-D60-/120679827730?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item1c19140912 cos it's £99 from jessops :D

[Filipe M.]

is this the one you are talking about Filipe? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TAMRON-AF-70-300mm-f4-5-6-Di-LD-Macro-NIKON-D80-D40-D60-/120679827730?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item1c19140912 cos it's £99 from jessops :D

Nope, that's the cheap version without optical stabilization (they call it VC - Vibration Compensation). The other one (http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_telephoto/a005.html) will be a bit more expensive than that...

[Bluefish]

Ok, worth getting at that price though?

[Filipe M.]

What camera do you have? D90 or D5000? Sorry I get lost trying to keep track of everyone's models...
If it's the D5000 (or lower) then it's pretty much your only (cheap) option.
If it's a D90 (or any other with built-in motor) there's a Nikon 70-300G f/4-5.6 for around that same price.

These lenses have already been discussed here, I can't remember what thread though, but I believe the general consensus was something along the lines of "if you're only going to use it every now and again and can't justify spending 3x or 4x as much for the Nikon VR version, then go for it". There are trade-offs though, and to me they were too many to live with so I ended up spending more on the VR version... and to me they were:
- lack of stabilization needs stupid high shutter speeds (or a tripod) to get "sharp" static photos (1/500 should do, 1/1000 or shorter is better); leading to...
- it's still a "slow" lens, with f/5.6 max aperture; this means on a bright sunny day, and following the old sunny 16 rule and shooting with the sun on your back you'll be doing f/5.6, 1/2000s @ ISO200 or thereabouts. Step in to an open shade and you'll lose at least 4 stops, so that'll be f/5.6, 1/500s @ ISO800. Anything darker than that and you're in ISO 1600 and upwards territory; which leads to...
- it's not a very good lens when shot at maximum aperture, it's quite soft and you can never get the impression of crispiness when shooting above 200 mm. To regain some sharpness you have to stop down to at least f/8, or even better, f/11. Plugging these numbers into the above calculations, we get...

With optimum light conditions: f/8, 1/1000 @ ISO200 or f/11, 1/500 @ ISO200.
Step into that open shade and you're in trouble: f/8, 1/500 @ ISO 1600 or f/11, 1/500 @ ISO 3200.

Of course there are worst case scenarios, and if you shoot at shorter focal lengths (say 70 to 200) you can get away with slower shutter speeds / lower ISOs, but the tendency to go for the long end will always be there.

The Nikon G version also has very high chromatic aberration (purple or green fringing in very high contrast areas), which to me was noticeable even through the viewfinder. I'll pull it out of the box one of these days and shoot a comparison against the VR version to try and illustrate some of the differences.

All of this said, it's still £100 vs. £400, and if it's what I call a trackday lens (where you want to mainly get panning shots of bikes or cars zooming around the track) then the lack of stabilization isn't much of problem, and neither is shooting at large apertures since panning is all about slow shutter, smaller apertures and a truckload of technique :lol:

[Bluefish]

hi filipe, it would be for a d90 to be bought this weekend hopefully, would be used mainly for landscapes, but don't really need a zoom lens immediatly, so i guess i would be better to wait a bit and save the pennies for the more expensive nikon lens. thanks for your help mate cheers, andy.

[Filipe M.]

hi filipe, it would be for a d90 to be bought this weekend hopefully, would be used mainly for landscapes, but don't really need a zoom lens immediatly, so i guess i would be better to wait a bit and save the pennies for the more expensive nikon lens. thanks for your help mate cheers, andy.

No worries.
If you want a cheaper option and don't mind losing a bit on the long end of the range, there's another two options to consider:

55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR - mostly plastic, pretty much the same build quality as the kit lenses, but very good value for money (more so than the ones we were talking about). Of course you're losing 100 mm on the tele end, and it's still a mainly plastic lens, but it works;

70-210mm f/4-5.6D - proper old school metal, you'll probably only find them second hand (try www.graysofwestminster.co.uk , they usually have them in stock) but it'll be around the same price as the lenses we were talking about. You lose VR, internal ultra-sonic motor and 90 mm on the long end, but it's stupid sharp (I mean really stupid sharp), built like a tank and it focuses quite fast with the D90 built-in motor. The one oddity about it is the old-style push / pull zoom, i.e., instead of rotating a ring like the new lenses, you push and pull the whole barrel to change length.

Of course you are losing a bit of range on the tele side of things, and if you already have the 18-105 kit lens then 200 / 210 might seem short, but it's worth thinking about them.

[Specialone]

I got my nikon 300mm vr lense back in october, my mate has the D90 also but has at present the tamron 300mm lense which was about £120 or so.
I have used his lense before getting mine and found it ok, he used mine when i got it and within 5 mins could tell the difference.

Imo Andy, save your pennies until you can go for the nikon VR lense, you wont regret it.
Btw im no expert, far from it, just coming up to my first year of DSLR.

My next purchases when budget allows, the 90mm tamron macro lense, a nikon flash, a trigger timer (i like time lapse stuff) and a bigger bag to keep it all in :)

My wife got me some decent filters for xmas, they didnt come in time for the actual day but came a couple of weeks ago, the polarising one looks good.
I might invest also in a filter holder which you can slide in coloured / graduated coloured filters.

BTW Filipe, thanks for all your technical info, i find it very interesting :)

[Filipe M.]

I got my nikon 300mm vr lense back in october, my mate has the D90 also but has at present the tamron 300mm lense which was about £120 or so.
I have used his lense before getting mine and found it ok, he used mine when i got it and within 5 mins could tell the difference.

Imo Andy, save your pennies until you can go for the nikon VR lense, you wont regret it.
Btw im no expert, far from it, just coming up to my first year of DSLR.

My next purchases when budget allows, the 90mm tamron macro lense, a nikon flash, a trigger timer (i like time lapse stuff) and a bigger bag to keep it all in :)

... and then another bag because it fits better, and then another one because it looks better, and then another one just because... :lol: photographers and bags, it's always the same thing, I went through 4 or 5 to get to the one I have now, started out with a small Crumpler thingy that was brilliant but too small, then a LowePro Sling (which I still use for body + flash + 2 lenses), then another bigger Crumpler that turned out to be big enough but the wrong shape and horrible to use, and now the Kata 3N1-30 that can carry 2 bodies + lenses + flashes + assorted tat. Of course you then need a trolley to carry it around, but it comes with the insert for said trolley so that's all good! :lol:

Oh, and you won't regret getting the Tamron. It's as sharp as they get, and then some more, and for the price it's nothing short of amazing. No VR, but when you use it for Macro you'll need a lot more than VR to keep stuff from blurring... ;)

My wife got me some decent filters for xmas, they didnt come in time for the actual day but came a couple of weeks ago, the polarising one looks good.
I might invest also in a filter holder which you can slide in coloured / graduated coloured filters.

Cokin? That's usually a very good brand, not exactly cheap but very decent quality.

BTW Filipe, thanks for all your technical info, i find it very interesting :)

You're welcome, I'll be quite happy if people are able to pull some decent info out of my long winded ramblings about gear and whatever I'm in the mood to write about at any given day! :lol:

[Milky Bar Kid]

I think I shall stick to the MBK speak advice thread....brain hurts now..

[Specialone]

Also another heads up from me, I got a subscription to practical photography for Xmas, got the first mag last week.
Anyway, they are doing an offer at the moment 6, yes 6 issues for £10 :smt104.

Haven't read the T&C tbh but it's probably some kind of tie in for another 6 months, which is still a lot less than mine was.
Mag price normally £3.99.

Hth

[Filipe M.]

I think I shall stick to the MBK speak advice thread....brain hurts now..

Let me translate it for you then:

Small f/ numbers, like f/4 -> big aperture -> lots of light goes into camera (out of focus stuff gets really out of focus)
Big f/ numbers, like f/11 -> small aperture -> not so much light goes into camera (out of focus stuff isn't that much out of focus)

Small 1/ numbers, like 1/2000 -> very short time -> not so much light goes into camera (freezes action and movement)
Big 1/ numbers, like 1/100 -> longer time -> more light goes into camera (blurs movement, doesn't freeze action)

Small ISO numbers, like 100 -> sensor not very sensitive -> needs lots of light (little noise in pictures)
Big ISO numbers, like 1600 -> sensor very sensitive -> doesn't need as much light (lots of noise in pictures)

Mix and match according to the conditions and Bob's your uncle! :lol:

[Specialone]

Let me translate it for you then:

Small f/ numbers, like f/4 -> big aperture -> lots of light goes into camera (out of focus stuff gets really out of focus)
Big f/ numbers, like f/11 -> small aperture -> not so much light goes into camera (out of focus stuff isn't that much out of focus)

Small 1/ numbers, like 1/2000 -> very short time -> not so much light goes into camera (freezes action and movement)
Big 1/ numbers, like 1/100 -> longer time -> more light goes into camera (blurs movement, doesn't freeze action)

Small ISO numbers, like 100 -> sensor not very sensitive -> needs lots of light (little noise in pictures)
Big ISO numbers, like 1600 -> sensor very sensitive -> doesn't need as much light (lots of noise in pictures)

Mix and match according to the conditions and Bob's your uncle! :lol:

The holy Grail, getting it all right :)
I'm getting more used to this and what I find works once I use again next time.
I'll take a few of the same shot and keep adjusting until I get it to where I'm happy.

[Bluefish]

I think I shall stick to the MBK speak advice thread....brain hurts now..
Lol, i know what you mean, you ask a simple question ;)

[Specialone]

A year ago I felt the same, I read filipes posts and almost decided against getting a camera, it all looked too technical :(
Now I can understand probably 50% of his posts, which for me, is a big step forward :)

[Bluefish]

question, can you always improve the picture using the manual controls, if you know what you are doing, as opposed to using the auto setting.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Speci....my issue is that my brain seems to get confuddled with numbers being involved, it takes me a good few attempts at reading it before I start to get what it means.

[Bluefish]

A year ago I felt the same, I read filipes posts and almost decided against getting a camera, it all looked too technical :(
Now I can understand probably 50% of his posts, which for me, is a big step forward :)

I know a little bit of what he says, not stuff about particular kit as have never used it, or even seen it, lol. Though yeah, can make you want to point and shoot.

[Specialone]

question, can you always improve the picture using the manual controls, if you know what you are doing, as opposed to using the auto setting.

I never use auto, always manual, that way you learn what settings work.
Sometimes I will take a pic in auto or one of the other presets and look at the info on what the camera decided it would use, then go into manual and it gives me a point to start, I'll then tweak it a bit when required.

[Filipe M.]

question, can you always improve the picture using the manual controls, if you know what you are doing, as opposed to using the auto setting.

Think about it this way: the auto setting is just like driving a car / bike with an automatic gearbox. Can you always do better than what it is doing on it's own?

It will depend on the situation. The current cameras are very good at calculating the correct exposure and will nail it 90% or so of the time. It's the other 10%, and usually the trickiest situations, that they will fail. Think overtaking on a tight spot, if you're waiting for the car / bike to downshift one or two gears from top when you smash the throttle then you're probably screwed...

On the other hand, if you already know what you want to do beforehand, then you'll know exactly when and how to do it, and you'll do much better than the auto thingy could ever do.

Back to photography, even within those 90% where the camera nails it, maybe there is something different you wanted to do in the first place, like darkening the shot just a smidge to deepen the colours, or lighten it up because there's something in the shade that needs to be pulled up...

Taking the camera out of the automatic settings is really all about control, and making you think about what you want to do before you press the shutter, instead of just going click.
This doesn't mean you need to go full manual, of course. It's all about taking control of at least one thing exposure related. I shoot 75% of the time on A mode, where I can control my aperture. I let the camera decide the shutter speed, and then I'll override it (when I deem necessary to do it) with the EV +/- control.

[Bluefish]

I see what you mean guys, i recon some of it comes down to how much time you have to get the shot, if your shooting a mountain the it's not going anywhere, but the weather could change, and you loose what you were trying to take, so only change what you have to, s'pose practise and knowing what you want beforhand allow you to set it up for each instance.

[Bluefish]

Ok, another one, you know those brill pics you see on calenders, posters whatever, so a lot of the colours may have been enhanced with filters, but is most of the stuff, effects done on the computer, ie do you really need whatever editing softwhare people use?. just seems a bit fake imo, i would rather have 100 or 1000 not so good pics, and one really good one that has not been touched, that you can say i took that, if you know what i mean.

[Specialone]

Everybody post edits, I generally don't.
I feel the same as you mate, I prefer to capture the shot as I seen it, but one could argue the settings you use are a kind of faking it also.

[Filipe M.]

That is indeed a funny one, and a bit of an historical thing. Let's go back a few (10-15) years to the film era. You used to have different types of film (black and white, colour reversal, slide), but within those different types you also had films that had different behaviours to the same exposure conditions. For instance, Fuji Velvia is / was known for massively deep greens and very high contrast, making it a favourite amongst landscape photographers. On the other hand, shoot a portrait with it and people will look like a pumpkin. If on the other hand you take a roll of Fuji Astia and shoot a portrait, the skin tones will be beautifully rendered, but take it outside and shoot an amazing landscape with it and what you get is "blah" colours. It was pretty much a horses for courses thing, different tools for a given use.

Digital cameras don't have different sensors to use depending on the circumstances. What they have is an electronic thingy that captures photons and turns them into electrons, which then are converted into bits. And pretty meaningless bits at that, because they still have to be mapped to tones and colours so that we can actually interpret them as photographs.
Now this thing can be done inside the camera (and you get jpgs / tiffs / whatever) or outside, in a computer (when you shoot raw), but it always has to be done. What will give you the different look is the algorithm the camera / editor will use, so in a way, all of those brill pics have been enhanced one way or the other, either in camera or outside.
You can try it yourself: take your camera out of auto mode and set it on P, or A, shooting JPEG Fine Large. Match your white balance to the conditions you're shooting in, or just leave it in Auto White Balance.
Go into the shooting menu and look for Set Picture Controls (this is Nikon specific, on a Canon it'll be called something different). Scroll to Standard, then click the right pad button. Once you're there, bring the Sharpening, Contrast and Saturation all the way down to - (careful not to go into A - automatic). Press OK and take a picture of something colourful with that Picture Control enabled.
Now go back to the Set Picture Controls menu, scroll down to Vivid, press right button, set Sharpening at 7, Contrast and Saturation at +1, press OK and take the same picture with those settings.
Bring those pictures into the computer and compare them side by side. Taking nothing else into account, like composition (we're assuming it's the same), which picture do you like best? Which one looks more "processed" / fake?
Both of them came from the camera, haven't been touched by any other photo editing software other than the camera processor itself, which is giving you the choice to have it behave like you want it to, instead of having to go out and buy a different roll of film.

Of course, on top of this you can still have your photos enhanced with Photoshop / Lightroom / Aperture / GIMP / whatever you use. What I mean with this rambling is that not necessarily all "brill" super saturated pictures have been filtered or saturated to pixel death in a computer, you can also fake them inside the camera. ;)

Jeez sorry for yet another page long ramble...... :lol:

[Bluefish]

Thanks for the history lesson Filipe ;) I guess on most cameras these days you can do some sort of editing /processing anyhow, even on my oldish, well 4year old cannon compact you can change the colours, vivid black and white sepia etc as well as full manual controll for exp etc, so using photoshop etc, just gives you more controll, so we is wrong specialone, it's all cheating, lol.

[stewie]

Speci....my issue is that my brain seems to get confuddled with numbers being involved, it takes me a good few attempts at reading it before I start to get what it means.
Best thing to do is just go out there and play with it til you get the results you want, you'll pick it up soon enough, nice thing about digital is the delete button, if you dont like delete it,and try again.

[stewie]

Ive just got the results back from the lab of my £35 ebay special, Im so impressed I'm seriuosly thinking of binning the D60 and just sticking with the film camera, but that would be a bit stoopid I suppose, so need to start thinking about lenses to fit both the D60 and the f 90, I think the D60 will be getting replaced sooner rather than later so watch this space there may be a bargain coming up :) btw any have any experience of the f 100 or f4 nikons ? Ive read the Ken rockwell stuff but wondered if anyone had any real hands on experience, ta.

[Filipe M.]

Ive just got the results back from the lab of my £35 ebay special, Im so impressed I'm seriuosly thinking of binning the D60 and just sticking with the film camera, but that would be a bit stoopid I suppose, so need to start thinking about lenses to fit both the D60 and the f 90, I think the D60 will be getting replaced sooner rather than later so watch this space there may be a bargain coming up :) btw any have any experience of the f 100 or f4 nikons ? Ive read the Ken rockwell stuff but wondered if anyone had any real hands on experience, ta.

I think you'll find your current selection of cameras will limit your lens choice in a weird way... the D60 needs lenses with built-in motors (AF-S or the 3rd party equivalents) otherwise it's manual focus only, and the F90 needs full frame lenses with aperture rings otherwise it's S and P mode only. This F90 requirement takes out all the G lenses in one go (pretty much all the new lenses), restricting you to AF-S D lenses. Not ideal! If you could upgrade your D60 to a D80 / D90 / D7000 then the built-in motor restriction goes away and you can use pretty much every D lens without restrictions in both cameras.

On the other hand, and answering your other question, I do have an F100 and I flippin' love it. It feels and handles just right, and it's built like a brick. Get one if you can, just pay attention to what Rockwell says about the winder peg. Mine has the square pegs and I never had a problem with it.
By doing this, you remove the last D lens restriction, since the F100 can use pretty much every F-mount lens out there. HTH.

[stewie]

Cheers Filipe you pretty much answered all my questions in one, Ill prob keep the f90 and look for a f100 plus quite fancy a D90 as well, better star saving I guess ;)

[Filipe M.]

Cheers Filipe you pretty much answered all my questions in one, Ill prob keep the f90 and look for a f100 plus quite fancy a D90 as well, better star saving I guess ;)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2232742/d90_f100.jpg

Here you go then!

Oh, photo taken with a D60! :lol:

[mr.anderson]

Look what just arrived on my desk!

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/PhotoFeb0433247PM-1.jpg

Apologies for this rubbish quality of pic - taken on an iPhone.

[mr.anderson]

And speaking of F100's, I have on that I may wish to sell. It's hardly been used. Open to offers if anyone's keen.

[stewie]

And speaking of F100's, I have on that I may wish to sell. It's hardly been used. Open to offers if anyone's keen.
£30 ;)

[stewie]

And speaking of F100's, I have on that I may wish to sell. It's hardly been used. Open to offers if anyone's keen.
Actually might be very interested but it'll be at the start of march though

[Filipe M.]

Look what just arrived on my desk!

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/PhotoFeb0433247PM-1.jpg

Apologies for this rubbish quality of pic - taken on an iPhone.

I hate you. :smt019

*jealous mode off*

Gizza go, Mr.! :D

[stewie]

Look what just arrived on my desk!

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/PhotoFeb0433247PM-1.jpg

Apologies for this rubbish quality of pic - taken on an iPhone.
Yeah I'm not jealous either, criminally underated firm Tokina, the AT-X range are a bit special

[Filipe M.]

Yeah I'm not jealous either, criminally underated firm Tokina, the AT-X range are a bit special

And this one in particular is nothing short of amazing for the price.

It currently sits at the top of my "wanted" list, unless a Nikon 10-24 / 12-24 shows up at a very special price...

[anna]

Mr Anderson I am going to have words with you :smt072

I currently have sat opposite me what is only to be described as a 5 year old in one hell of a tantrum sulk, :smt072:smt072

Mr Pie .. emailing me your "wanted" list doesnt mean that I am going to buy anything off it.... as far as I am concerned it can stay "wanted".. unless of course you wish to buy it for me and upgrade my camera to the D7000 whilst you are at it??? :smt040

[Filipe M.]

Mr Pie .. emailing me your "wanted" list doesnt mean that I am going to buy anything off it.... as far as I am concerned it can stay "wanted".. unless of course you wish to buy it for me and upgrade my camera to the D7000 whilst you are at it??? :smt040

Not really, but if I do get an ultra-wide angle then there might be a 16-85 VR going your way... ;)

[stewie]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2232742/d90_f100.jpg

Here you go then!

Oh, photo taken with a D60! :lol:
Lol

[mr.anderson]

£30 ;)

Actually might be very interested but it'll be at the start of march though

I'm in no hurry to sell, so lets see if that offer warms a bit as summer apporaches. ;)

Yeah I'm not jealous either, criminally underated firm Tokina, the AT-X range are a bit special

And this one in particular is nothing short of amazing for the price.

It currently sits at the top of my "wanted" list, unless a Nikon 10-24 / 12-24 shows up at a very special price...

I actually found out about this lens by our chance on Flickr. I was lusting after the (utterly massive, over priced 14-24 f/2.8 (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/71947/show.html?cm_vc=PPZ1) - which is a little extreme overkill for a DX camera) when I stumbled across this lens. Some people (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm) say it blasts the Nikon version out of the water.

[Filipe M.]

I actually found out about this lens by our chance on Flickr. I was lusting after the (utterly massive, over priced 14-24 f/2.8 (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/71947/show.html?cm_vc=PPZ1) - which is a little extreme overkill for a DX camera) when I stumbled across this lens. Some people (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm) say it blasts the Nikon version out of the water.

Ken's review of the Tokina was written before the Nikon 10-24 came out, so he was basing his opinion on that one, and taking into account the 12-24 is almost twice the price of the Tokina, which is both wider and faster.

With the 10-24, the wider advantage goes away, but it's still an f/2.8 vs. a variable aperture zoom that is still more expensive than the Tokina. That's why it's such a no-brainer, especially when it's such an optically brilliant lens!

Guess I'll have to keep saving for mine... ;)

[Specialone]

What are we talking price wise?

[mr.anderson]

Ken's review of the Tokina was written before the Nikon 10-24 came out, so he was basing his opinion on that one, and taking into account the 12-24 is almost twice the price of the Tokina, which is both wider and faster.

With the 10-24, the wider advantage goes away, but it's still an f/2.8 vs. a variable aperture zoom that is still more expensive than the Tokina. That's why it's such a no-brainer, especially when it's such an optically brilliant lens!

Guess I'll have to keep saving for mine... ;)

Ah yes, that is true.


You're welcome to borrow mine if you;re ever in the South West of London.

[Filipe M.]

Ah yes, that is true.


You're welcome to borrow mine if you;re ever in the South West of London.

Thx, that's really nice of you :)

Well technically I am SW of London, just not in the SW of London... oh well maybe next time! ;)

[TC3]

I have had 2 copies of the Tokina 11-16 and sent both back. At infinity the first lens was never sharp and had very bad corner softness in bottom right even shooting at 5.6. The second one gave inconsistent exposures. I tried these on a D90 but was unlucky to get 2 bad lenses but when you do manage to get one thats good that are remarkable for the money. I never did get to try another or any other extreme wide angle lens on the D90 again. I used to have a 10-17mm fish eye for my Pentax dslr which was fun but limited in how you could use it.
The only other lens i have ever had to send back was a Tamron 17-50 2.8 that had real bad front focus. Other than that i have been pretty lucky with lense purchases.

[mr.anderson]

I have had 2 copies of the Tokina 11-16 and sent both back. At infinity the first lens was never sharp and had very bad corner softness in bottom right even shooting at 5.6. The second one gave inconsistent exposures. I tried these on a D90 but was unlucky to get 2 bad lenses. I never did get to try another or any other extreme wide angle lens on the D90 again. I used to have a 10-17mm fish eye for my Pentax dslr which was fun but limited in how you could use it.

I've had a Nikon 10.5mm Fish-eye on my D90 which was great fun, but as you say, fish-eyes are a bit limited. Lets hope my 11-16 doesn't have the same problems yours did.

[TC3]

I've had a Nikon 10.5mm Fish-eye on my D90 which was great fun, but as you say, fish-eyes are a bit limited. Lets hope my 11-16 doesn't have the same problems yours did.

Yeah hope yours is a good one.

[stewie]

Well I've got a bit of cash coming through at the end of feb so if you fancy getting shut of the f100 let me know, i'd rather my dosh went to a fellow orger than some random ebayer :)

[Bluefish]

I now have one of these,
















http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/andysv/014.jpg



just gotta figure out how to work it, don't worry sorted the strap :cheers:

[Specialone]

Nice one Andy :)

You won't regret the D90, it's a great camera.

[Bluefish]

cheers mate, there may be lots of questions now, lol. First impressions are good, some decent wheather would help for tomorrow, not going to happen though is it ;)

[Specialone]

cheers mate, there may be lots of questions now, lol. First impressions are good, some decent wheather would help for tomorrow, not going to happen though is it ;)

Ill let Filipe answer them cos unlike me he knows what he's on about ;)

[mr.anderson]

I've just dug out my Dad's Nikon F - it's the 1968 model with Photomic Head.

It's clearly used, but Grays of Westminster say it's in good working order.

I've ordered batteries and film - going to be a bit of an adventure shooting those first 36 shots and seeing how they come out.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5419188853_9bb88244af_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/5419188853/)

[Filipe M.]

I've just dug out my Dad's Nikon F - it's the 1968 model with Photomic Head.

It's clearly used, but Grays of Westminster say it's in good working order.

I've ordered batteries and film - going to be a bit of an adventure shooting those first 36 shots and seeing how they come out.



That's brilliant, that's what I call a camera with character. :-D Try to resist the temptation to look at the back of the camera too often after you take a shot though, I still fall for it every now and again 8-[ Nothing beats the puzzled look on my 6 yo daughter's face when she asks me to see the picture I've just taken, though :lol:


@bluefishman: congrats on your new purchase, have fun with it :cool:

[Bluefish]

Try to resist the temptation to look at the back of the camera too often after you take a shot though, I still fall for it every now and again 8-[ Nothing beats the puzzled look on my 6 yo daughter's face when she asks me to see the picture I've just taken, though :lol:


@bluefishman: congrats on your new purchase, have fun with it :cool:

LoL at looking at the back of camera :D, and cheers mate, trying to work out what all the buttons do at the mo, probably for next few years as well ;) though i see what you meant when you said ages ago about access to the functions without having to go into the menu, you just turn the dials to alter the parameters :D

[keith_d]

I've got an old Nikon F somewhere in the back of a cupboard, but no photomic head. The shutter speeds were a bit off when I tested them, but that was no problem for shooting black and white.

Keith

[jambo]

Mr.Anderson: Looks like the last of the line "Nikon F Photomic FTn" I used this site to download manuals of my own Canon A-1 ~1978

mir.com (http://www.mir.com.my/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/ffinders/fmeterprism.htm)

Jambo

[stewie]

I've just dug out my Dad's Nikon F - it's the 1968 model with Photomic Head.

It's clearly used, but Grays of Westminster say it's in good working order.

I've ordered batteries and film - going to be a bit of an adventure shooting those first 36 shots and seeing how they come out.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5419188853_9bb88244af_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/5419188853/)
You can't beat film, I had a pristine Fm2n a while back that I got for virtually nothing on ebay, wish I hadnt got shut now. :rolleyes:

[allantheboss]

New camera n00b!

This summer I plan on touring with my bro around Europe, and I'm going to be studying abroad in Sydney over the whole of next year. I don't know how to use SLR funky-style functions so don't want to get ahead of myself and don't have a large budget, and will be packing light, so this leads me towards compacts. I expect to be taking many scenic landscape pics in plenty of sun.

My budget is roughly £150-200. More than happy to buy used.

[Filipe M.]

New camera n00b!

This summer I plan on touring with my bro around Europe, and I'm going to be studying abroad in Sydney over the whole of next year. I don't know how to use SLR funky-style functions so don't want to get ahead of myself and don't have a large budget, and will be packing light, so this leads me towards compacts. I expect to be taking many scenic landscape pics in plenty of sun.

My budget is roughly £150-200. More than happy to buy used.

In your place I'd be looking at Panasonic's TZ range, from the TZ6 upwards. Great little cameras with very decent optics, and the newer ones will even have built-in GPS so you can geotag your pictures on the fly. If you do get one you might want to invest on a second (or even third) battery though, as they're just too small and the cameras will eat through them as if there's no tomorrow... especially the GPS enabled ones.

[allantheboss]

Thanks for the advice, but with touring I really can't settle for having bad batteries...

[Filipe M.]

Thanks for the advice, but with touring I really can't settle for having bad batteries...

Hence the recommendation for having a couple of spares. ;) I do believe the camera is worth the hassle, as the image quality and features are just brilliant.

Your other option is to get something that takes AA batteries (Canon A series, IIRC) and carry a travel charger with a couple of sets of rechargeables. The batteries themselves will carry more charge than a standard compact camera battery, and even if you find you run out of juice they are pretty easy to find everywhere. The cameras themselves might be slightly bulkier though, and probably not as good as the TZ series from Panny.

[TC3]

Hence the recommendation for having a couple of spares. ;) I do believe the camera is worth the hassle, as the image quality and features are just brilliant.

Your other option is to get something that takes AA batteries (Canon A series, IIRC) and carry a travel charger with a couple of sets of rechargeables. The batteries themselves will carry more charge than a standard compact camera battery, and even if you find you run out of juice they are pretty easy to find everywhere. The cameras themselves might be slightly bulkier though, and probably not as good as the TZ series from Panny.

Had great experience with the TZ7 and upgraded to TZ10. Maybe it was my model but it could not cope very well in outdoor lighting and would often blow out areas (extreme over expose) never mind how careful you were. May have just been the one i had though!

[Filipe M.]

Had great experience with the TZ7 and upgraded to TZ10. Maybe it was my model but it could not cope very well in outdoor lighting and would often blow out areas (extreme over expose) never mind how careful you were. May have just been the one i had though!

That's weird, I tried a TZ7 for a while and it didn't do that with me... actually one of the areas I was very surprised at was precisely how well the metering handled funny contrast situations. :shock:

I'll see if I can borrow it back from my dad and have another play, now I'm intrigued...

[mr.anderson]

Mr.Anderson: Looks like the last of the line "Nikon F Photomic FTn" I used this site to download manuals of my own Canon A-1 ~1978

mir.com (http://www.mir.com.my/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/ffinders/fmeterprism.htm)

Jambo

Thanks for that Jambo, shall come in handy for sure.

[keith_d]

One final comment on the Nikon F. IIRC, Photomic heads are notorious for having the resistive track which senses the aperture position crack. So if the meter starts jumping around when you change the aperture on the lens you might have to use a separate lightmeter.

Keith.

[TC3]

That's weird, I tried a TZ7 for a while and it didn't do that with me... actually one of the areas I was very surprised at was precisely how well the metering handled funny contrast situations. :shock:

I'll see if I can borrow it back from my dad and have another play, now I'm intrigued...

The TZ7 was great and had good exposures. It was the TZ10 that had the problem.

[Filipe M.]

The TZ7 was great and had good exposures. It was the TZ10 that had the problem.

Oh right, that's more in line with what I experienced then :)

[Amanda M]

Following on from the Lumix posts, I have a TZ6 as my pocket camera and that exposes really well too. It's a cracking little camera and ace for those times when I can't be doing with lugging the D90 and all my stuff around with me (rare but it does happen) :D

[Bluefish]

On the D90, what are the shutter speed settings? cos i'm confused, going up from 1 sec is simples, but going down from 1 it then goes 1.3, 1.6, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200, 4000/sec now the thousandth of a sec i get, but 1.3 1.6 i don't i guess it is tenths of a sec, but surely from 1 sec you would go 9 tenths 8- 6 tenths etc then to 100's then thous :confused:

[Milky Bar Kid]

On the D90, what are the shutter speed settings? cos i'm confused, going up from 1 sec is simples, but going down from 1 it then goes 1.3, 1.6, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200, 4000/sec now the thousandth of a sec i get, but 1.3 1.6 i don't i guess it is tenths of a sec, but surely from 1 sec you would go 9 tenths 8- 6 tenths etc then to 100's then thous :confused:

I bet that now I have read that post 3 times and tried to understand it, I am FAAAAAAAAAAAAR more confused than you!!! LOL!

[Bluefish]

;) the pro's will understand it, i hope, lol. mind you it don't really matter cos you keep turning the dial till you get the pic you want, just recon it's better if you understand these things, and at the mo i don't.