|
Question Mark Mound posted:edit: Well the 600D does have that in-camera tutorial as to what each feature does and an auto-scene selector, but ideally I'd be able to learn enough to not need it after a couple of
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Question Mark Mound posted:So looking at comparisons of the 550D and the 600D, the main difference appears to be a movable LCD screen on the 600D, whereas the 550D is lighter, smaller, higher ISO, stereo microphone and faster startup. 550D and 600D have the same sensor, so not sure where you got that higher ISO spec. They are the same. The 600D has wireless flash control, which I use all the time, and was the deciding factor for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
..also they both have mono microphones, but with an input socket for a stereo microphone. The 600D should have everything that the 550D has, plus a bit more. According to dpreview, the improvements found in the 600D are: * Vari-angle display * Scene intelligent Auto Mode * 'Basic+' creative controls in scene modes * 'Creative Filters' can be applied to images in playback mode * Multi-aspect ratio shooting (3:2, 4:3, 16:9, 1:1, previewable in Live View) * Integrated Wireless flash controller with multi-flash support * 'Video Snapshot' mode * Auto Lighting Optimizer now adjustable in 4 levels * Feature Guide * Image rating (1-5 stars) * Eye sensor for LCD display replaced by 'DISP' button * Marginally larger and heavier If those are worth the extra depends on you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Question Mark Mound posted:Nothing on Gumtree at the moment in my area unfortunately. Woah, Gumtree exists in the UK? Edit: Welp, turns out Gumtree started in the UK, I always thought it was Australian (you know, "Gumtree"). Double Edit: And it's owned by Ebay? Wow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Quick question about SD cards, does it particularly matter what kind I use in a camera? I picked up a nikon D7000 recently and my slightly wacko dad said I should go out and get some $60 high speed cards while I went ahead and got some $10 ones from amazon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
I've been really happy with my Nikon D5100 and 35/1.8 prime lens, and reading the Understanding Exposures book really helped me improve and think about my pictures. So ehh, thanks thread! However, I'm really hoping to improve my indoor/evening/event pictures. Specifically, I do a lot of dancing and would like to take better pictures of dance events. So that's low light with moving objects. And I think I'm going to need some sort of soft/indirect/bounce flash for this, I think? Here are some examples of what I want it to look like: http://photos.brightwood.ie/Dance/The-Mooche-2013/30084629_C3LBqN#!i=2586063286&k=RcHfcSj
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Quick question about SD cards, does it particularly matter what kind I use in a camera? I picked up a nikon D7000 recently and my slightly wacko dad said I should go out and get some $60 high speed cards while I went ahead and got some $10 ones from amazon. Buy the cheapest Class 10 card you can find. I grabbed 4x 16gb for $60 total and have had no issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Quick question about SD cards, does it particularly matter what kind I use in a camera? I picked up a nikon D7000 recently and my slightly wacko dad said I should go out and get some $60 high speed cards while I went ahead and got some $10 ones from amazon. Yes and no. No impact on most shots, but low transfer rates impact video and high speed shooting, as the buffer can't clear fast enough. High speed is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:I've been really happy with my Nikon D5100 and 35/1.8 prime lens, and reading the Understanding Exposures book really helped me improve and think about my pictures. So ehh, thanks thread! The pictures you linked don't have any flash at all they are lit by stage lights. You could get a similar look from flashes if you set up for off camera flash, gel them, and mimic the position of the stage lights but I don't think that's what you're after. You want a real speedlight (nikon word for flash) that TTLs and articulates so you can use it as a bounce flash. The entry level model is the sb700. It replaces the sb600 and there are some tradeoffs between the two. Both will do the job you need so decide what is right for you. Here's a good comparison: http://speedlights.net/2010/09/16/nikon-sb-700-flash-specs-vs-sb-600-and-sb-900/. The sb910 (or the 900 it replaces) is the next step and it's an awesome speedlight so pick that up if you are bankrolled like Star Wars sex parrot. Oh and I forgot to mention. Bounce flash is at its best with a white 10-12 ft ceiling. You will not get the best results if you are shooting at a stage with a high, dark colored ceiling. In that case your best bet is off camera lighting but I get the feeling that's a little more than you were bargaining for. Besides, with any of the speedlights I mentioned you can grow into it later. Dren fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Dren posted:The pictures you linked don't have any flash at all they are lit by stage lights. You could get a similar look from flashes if you set up for off camera flash, gel them, and mimic the position of the stage lights but I don't think that's what you're after. My camera is not quite as good as his but having actually looked at the settings for some of those pictures, I'm going to take some test shots and see if I can get away with just using much higher ISOs in pictures. I don't think I've actually set it any higher than ISO800 at any point. I think that's just based on bad memories of trying to use high ISOs on old point and shoot cameras about 10 years ago.. The 5100 is supposedly pretty good at dealing with this so let's try that first of all. Otherwise, those speedlights do look pretty good and I'd definitely consider saving up for an sb700.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
With a bit of post you can easily deal with a 5100's ISO 1600.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
I forgot to mention that if you ever take shots of people lit with stage lights you should spot meter on them. If you do matrix metering (the default) the people will most likely end up overexposed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Dren posted:I forgot to mention that if you ever take shots of people lit with stage lights you should spot meter on them. If you do matrix metering (the default) the people will most likely end up overexposed. This, and gently caress all red LED stage lights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Thanks very much for that, that's very useful. Seriously don't feel bad, stage lighting is some of the most challenging conditions under which I've ever shot (and I've done a drat lot of it). Feel free to shoot me a pm if you have specific questions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:This, and gently caress all red LED stage lights. Coloured stage lights in general, but especially LED; couple of the acts I covered last weekend used either bright red or blue spots, the blue is acceptable-ish as you seem to get more defined shadows, but bright red is just awful to process and get anything acceptable back, skin just goes a uniform red with nasty highlights.   Conversely, a nice clean white spot will give you a good photo 9/10 times, the pic I just put in the Portraits thread was just what I like best from stage lighting. Related; with bright coloured stuff like this, do folks prefer 'realistic' and keep the colours like they actually were, or process them towards a more natural colour?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Coloured stage lights in general, but especially LED; couple of the acts I covered last weekend used either bright red or blue spots, the blue is acceptable-ish as you seem to get more defined shadows, but bright red is just awful to process and get anything acceptable back, skin just goes a uniform red with nasty highlights. It's not perfect, but with some work in post you can make red-out photos passable. I did it last fall with some weird performance art, but it wasn't as good as this: http://petapixel.com/2013/04/21/quick-tutorial-on-removing-red-fill-light-from-concert-photos-in-lightroom/
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Another 'help me buy my first camera' post, I'm afraid. I'll try to provide as much info as I can to be a little less annoying. My wife would like to buy me a camera for my 30th birthday as I've been toying with the idea for a couple of years. I take tons of photos with my wee Coolpix and feel photography is something I'd like to explore further. I've played with SLRs a little in school / college, but I've forgotten pretty much everything but the creepy kid who used to hang out in the darkroom. Her budget isn't massive, as far as photography goes - around £400 - but hopefully enough to get me started. I can likely spare £200 or so of my own money for another lens (or two, unlikely eh?) / bag / other paraphernalia. She'd also rather buy new as it's a gift. A kit lens would be handy for the take-it-out-the-box-and-play-with-it-right-away factor as I'll likely not order anything for a week or two after I get the camera but if there's a body-only option that I'd be stupid to ignore, I can wait. Starting out, I don't have a particular style that I'd like to focus on. The camera'll likely be used for a bit of everything (learning, mainly) although I'm usually drawn to portraiture / street photography / fashion (anything with people, really) over still life or architectural stuff. I'm also fairly confident with Photoshop and the idea of retouching photos kinda appeals to me. This is all once I, y'know, figure out how to use the stupid thing, so I don't expect that providing this info will narrow my price-limited options much. Anything that'll be an alright all-rounder for the next few years would be perfect. One other thing that might be important, though, is video. I really like to make little edits. Nothing particularly ambitious, mind, just daft wee things that'll end up on YouTube or my website. I've noticed a recent trend in skateboarding for dudes to film tricks using DSLRs over dedicated video cameras and it set a light off in my head that, were I to get a camera, I'd be getting a fancy-ish camcorder too. If one model in our price range has advantages over others in this regard, that'd be super useful to know. I'd probably like to go with one of the big two companies. Nikon appeals to me slightly more than Canon, for no particular reason (we do live in Scotland, so maybe it's the low light). Looking at the OP and using Amazon as a rough price guide, I see the Nikon 5100 at £402 (with kit lens) and the Nikon D3200 at £373.67 (with kit lens). On the Canon side, there's the T3i with kit lens at £415 (when I search for this, 600D comes up, that's right, eh?) and the Canon 50D at £349 (body only). I'm totally open to other models, though. All these goddamn numbers are kinda overwhelming. Any advice at all would be really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Those are decent starter bodies. The kit lens will work fine on sunny days since you don't need a super wide aperture in those conditions. When indoors or evening/night you'll need something with a wider aperture. So either start off with a better lens (a common recommendation is the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 without VC which is anywhere from 300 to 500 USD) or get the kit lens to learn and then sell it for something better. Also get a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 for Nikon since the Nikon 50mm doesn't autofocus with the newer cheaper bodies. That'll cost you about 100 USD and it has great image quality with a really wide aperture (which will give you a lot of blurry backgrounds which look nice).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Those are decent starter bodies. The kit lens will work fine on sunny days since you don't need a super wide aperture in those conditions. When indoors or evening/night you'll need something with a wider aperture. So either start off with a better lens (a common recommendation is the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 without VC which is anywhere from 300 to 500 USD) or get the kit lens to learn and then sell it for something better. Also get a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 for Nikon since the Nikon 50mm doesn't autofocus with the newer cheaper bodies. That'll cost you about 100 USD and it has great image quality with a really wide aperture (which will give you a lot of blurry backgrounds which look nice). After using a Nikon D5000 and a Canon T4i, I really think for someone just getting started Canon is easier to work with. Most of the stuff is in the Q screen and not in a menu (maybe the 5100/3200 aren't like this?). I also have an unhealthy disliking for the direction that Nikon zooms twist (and rear lens/body caps). So I'd go with the T3i with kit and I do second GoldenNugget, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to go with it. Fantastic image quality even though it sounds like poo poo while focusing. This kit should keep you going for a good while as you learn and grow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:After using a Nikon D5000 and a Canon T4i, I really think for someone just getting started Canon is easier to work with. Most of the stuff is in the Q screen and not in a menu (maybe the 5100/3200 aren't like this?). I also have an unhealthy disliking for the direction that Nikon zooms twist (and rear lens/body caps). So I'd go with the T3i with kit and I do second GoldenNugget, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to go with it. Fantastic image quality even though it sounds like poo poo while focusing. This kit should keep you going for a good while as you learn and grow. That's a whole lot of personal preference there. Just go to a store and try the nikon/canon bodies out, and see which one feels better and seems more intuitive to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Go to a store and hold them. Todays entry level cameras are all the same junk plastic formed around good innards. Theres not much difference in IQ between them, its now a matter of ergonomics and which system has a lovely menu system you can work with. The tipping point for some will be whether they have friends who would lend them gear. If you have friends with BRAND NAME CAMERA, it might make sense to get the same BRAND NAME CAMERA so you can borrow their toys. That being said, the D5200 is a good amount of camera for what you pay for. It has some room for you to grow into and wont make you feel limited in 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Coloured stage lights in general, but especially LED; couple of the acts I covered last weekend used either bright red or blue spots, the blue is acceptable-ish as you seem to get more defined shadows, but bright red is just awful to process and get anything acceptable back, skin just goes a uniform red with nasty highlights. Actually, the red photo rules pretty hard. It's really unusual and out of the ordinary, like I'm watching a scene from Jabba's Palace or that singer in The Fifth Element. The way it all looks so smooth, combined with the hint of smoke, on top of the unusual skin coloring just sells it more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
I'm not sure this is the right thread for recommendations, but since this is going to be my parents' DSLR... So my dad is looking to get a real camera - a DSLR - from his point and shoot (which he ditched in recent years for his phone camera). He seems pretty set on a DSLR unless I can find a lot of convincing evidence for other options. My parents have found a love for travel, and realized that their phone cameras don't get them satisfactory photos anymore. He was going to just stroll to a best buy and buy one, but I convinced him to research first... Having only taken some 35mm film camera intro courses myself, I am nowhere near informed enough to advise correctly; thought you wonderful goons might be able to help. Some main (worrying) points: -Definitely a beginner in terms of camera; but he worked as a PD in the TV industry, so I'd imagine he has a good eye for setting up shots, or taking light into account. -He does not handle technology well, so whatever manufacturer has the most intuitive menus. -He... doesn't seem to want to mess with the settings that much. Why a DSLR (  )? I'm wondering the same. Showed him the Canon S10 point-n-shoot recommended in the gear thread, and he outright said no P&S. I suppose he could be convinced to go down to a digital camera that accepts a lens, but wouldn't that be close enough to a DLSR's weight & price to warrant buying a DSLR anyway?-A hopeful point: my (relatively tech-savvy) mom seems excited by the idea, so there's a good possibility for the DLSR to be fully utilized in the future. And if I do tag along on one of their trips, I'd be able to use one, I think(?). He's hoping to spend around $500 or so on the body, and purchase better lenses later, if needed. Should I redirect him to a digital camera (if so, what models)? Or would a DSLR not be much more money than the former? My dad sent me some best buy links (he doesn't use amazon, argh): Nikon D3100 with two lenses? : http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-+D3100+Digital+SLR+Camera+with+18-55mm+and+55-200mm+Lens+-+Black/8864692.p?id=1218918123361&skuId=8864692 Canon Rebel T3i : http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-...3&skuId=1980124 Are there better deals/models that he should be going for? Much thanks in advance 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
If he's tech-averse, I'd steer him towards an OM-D, E-PL, or EOS-M.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
If he's used to taking pictures on his iPhone/Android, you might actually consider the T4i/T5i. Yes it's more pricey, but the touch screen works nearly identically to the iPhone. Tap to take a picture/focus, tap through the menus to set the settings he doesn't want to set. Pinch to zoom, etc. And it's a kickass DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Archer2338 posted:I'm not sure this is the right thread for recommendations, but since this is going to be my parents' DSLR... Drag him to a store and force him to actually try the cameras out to decide what feels better to him instead of forcing you to guess at what his deepest menu desires are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Drag him to a store and force him to actually try the cameras out to decide what feels better to him instead of forcing you to guess at what his deepest menu desires are. Yeah, stop worrying about what store he's buying it from and him not using it to its fullest potential and have him go touch the cameras. He might be instantly sold on the stuff that point and shoots don't have -- good ergonomics, fast AF, and a viewfinder. And he'll be able to decide what menu system works for him, not that it matters on a DSLR because if you just want to take pictures you can set some basic stuff in the menus and pretty much never touch them again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Archer2338 posted:I'm not sure this is the right thread for recommendations, but since this is going to be my parents' DSLR... You should take him to a big box retailer like best buy or an actual camera shop in your area and play around with the OM-D, Fuji XE-1, Nikon D3200/5200 Canon whatever teh gently caress Tinumbered poo poo they are on now. Explain that the sensors in them are pretty much the same when it comes to real world use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Damnit, I saw some pictures taken locally with a 10mm lens, and now I want 10mm lense. And then I see a 10-24 Tamron for $250 on Craiglist. gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
This is a really dumb easy question, most likely, but here we go: I am looking to buy my first DSLR, I'm thinking of going with the T3i One store sells two models: Canon Rebel T3i 18MP DSLR Camera With 18-55mm IS Lens Kit - $569 Canon EOS Rebel T3i 18MP DSLR with Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II Lens Kit - $649 The Op recommends buying a 50mm lens in addition to the kit lens... so should I just go ahead and buy the 50mm model? Or get the cheaper model, and buy a 50mm lens later on down the line?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:This is a really dumb easy question, most likely, but here we go: I would wait on the 50mm. Mainly because you can find the 50mm for around $100 and it looks like the store is overpricing the lens. Also on a crop sensor the 50mm could be a little tight depending on what you shoot. Having the flexibility of the kit lens will be less inhibiting in learning how to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:I would wait on the 50mm. Mainly because you can find the 50mm for around $100 and it looks like the store is overpricing the lens. Also on a crop sensor the 50mm could be a little tight depending on what you shoot. Having the flexibility of the kit lens will be less inhibiting in learning how to shoot. Makes sense to me, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Canon Rebel T3i 18MP DSLR Camera With 18-55mm IS Lens Kit - $569
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Get the zoom kit, save for a sigma 30/1.4 Or the 40/2.8
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Get the zoom kit, save for a sigma 30/1.4 Which one is the zoom kit... the cheaper one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Which one is the zoom kit... the cheaper one? The one that zooms. "Canon Rebel T3i 18MP DSLR Camera With 18-55mm IS Lens Kit - $569"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
I'd looking to get into photography and birding in particular, and today I will be getting my first camera. I've been doing a lot of reading over the last few days and get the overall impression that the body I buy isn't going to be as important as the lenses - but I'd still like to get some opinions. The biggest issue for me is that I will not be able to purchase a lens for at least 6 months so I'll be running the kit lens. Maybe I'll go find some big birds... My choices come down to: -Nikon D5100 with 18-55mm AF-S DX VR lens - $589 -Sony Alpha A58 with 18-55mm F3.5 - 4.6 SAM lens - $499 -Canon T3i with EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Type II Lens AND EF-S 55-250 mm f/4-5.6 IS Type II Lens - $749 I would really rather not spend 750 as that's quite far outside of my budget, but if that extra couple hundred is seriously worth it I will. Again, I am completely new and will be learning from scratch. Maybe I wouldn't even be ready for birding for several months at which point I could manage a lens. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
An 18-55mm is going to be pretty crap for birds unless you're shooting ostriches. Maybe get a second hand body (with no kit lens) and then the Tamron 70-300 VC? I've no idea what that would cost in dollars though. The main problem with that is if you want to take pictures of stuff that's close to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Tenacious J posted:I'd looking to get into photography and birding in particular 55mm is useless for birds. Every manufacturer sells a 2-lens kit these days, with something like that 55-250mm zoom in addition to the 18-55mm. 200-250mm is a good starting point for birds, if you find yourself really enjoying trying to get shots of birds you'll start lusting after more reach pretty quickly. If you are set against second-hand, find a 2-lens kit. Six months or a year from now you'll know what you want next (e.g. longer glass, a flash, whatever). If your budget really has to be held under $600 (I'm just picking that number because it's nice and round, and close to the first kit you posted), my advice is 1) Go to a camera store (or big-box electronics store like Best Buy) and fondle the cameras. The most important feature, bar none, of any camera is that you WANT TO HOLD IT IN YOUR HANDS. If it's not in your hand, it's not going to get used. Find the manufacturer with the ergonomics you like best. 2) Find a used camera body or camera+lens deal. Look for something 2-3 years old. Budget about $400 for this. 3) Find a long lens, such as that Tamron 70-300 already mentioned, also used, and spend $200. 4) Shoot birds, discover the unique feeling that is a mix of satisfaction and frustration when you figure out just how far you can crop an image and still have something that looks half-decent. Step 1 is important. If you decide you love the Nikon (for example), we can narrow in on some choices. Off the top of my head, I know the Minolta AF 70-210 "Beercan" is a very well regarded lens in exactly the right focal length range a budding naturalist would want, and sells for less than $100 - freeing up budget for a slightly newer/nicer Sony DSRL body. There are other examples, but they rely on first knowing which manufacturer you feel most comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Great, thanks for the nice information. I was just at the store checking them out and I have to say, the Canon was by far the best feeling. Local used I am seeing a 20D + kit lens for $200, or a Rebel XTi with a 70-300mm for $400 (except it has a UV filter). However as you mentioned it's probably worth it to get the Ti3 - it has a 90 day return policy as well so there ya go!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:25
|
|