 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
 stigofthedump
  
Location: Busan, South Korea
Gender: Male
 |  | Re: Want a camera - particular features, any ideas?
<Reply # 440 on 4/2/2008 2:00 AM >
|  | | | Just grab yourself a Canon G9. I got one and have fallen in love with it.
|
|
heli55
  
Location: Halifax
Gender: Male
| | Re: Want a camera - particular features, any ideas?
<Reply # 441 on 4/2/2008 2:08 AM >
| | | | Hey,
I shoot with a Minolta Maxxum 7D. It's a bit older now (I bought it used, E-bay). It was one of the first cameras to have in-body image stabilization AFAIK. So any lens you slap on it will get stabilized.
For obvious reasons it works better with smaller focal lengths. It also has a little graph that shows you how 'stable' the image is, which is cool cause you can use it to see how to best brace yourself.
But it doesn't work miracles. It lets you shoot much much slower than you'd normally be able to, say 1/3rd of a second. But anything much more and it doesn't work as well.
Part of the problem is how it's done. The sensors it uses (MEMS gyroscopes) to sense your jitter will naturally start to drift a bit with time. Hence for a long exposure the camera can't compensate for you slightly moving the camera - the image stabilization is designed to get rid of jitters that make your image blurry. As well the CCD can only move so far (about 15mm on the 7D), again limiting how much it can do.
On anything over about 1s I turn IS off, and just brace the camera the old fashion way. As well on a tripod you are supposed to turn it off, for the reason that it will probably do more bad than good. (Note this is for the 7D IS, which is several years old now, maybe newer ones are better?).
If you are looking for a new camera, Minolta sold their brand to Sony Alpha. I haven't use the Alpha 100 or 700 though so can't say how they are. The reviews I've read of the A100 aren't great - the A700 is the real successor. But the A700 is quite expensive. Remember that any Konica Minolta AF lenses will work with the Sony Alpha, it's all the same mount.
But I do hate Sony for all the crap they've pulled, it's too bad Minolta sold their brand to Sony really 
WRT live view: I don't miss it at all. I much prefer to look through the viewfinder to be honest. But that's totally personal - but if you have a chance to try a camera do see if you *really* need live-view.
HTH!
-Colin
|
|
insainly sound
Location: Bay Area, CA
Gender: Female
How'd we get here, and how are we getting out of here?!
| |  | Re: Want a camera - particular features, any ideas?
<Reply # 442 on 4/2/2008 2:27 AM >
| | | | Liveview! That's what I didn't say anything about! Live view on DSLRs doesn't work the same way that it does on a point and shoot... Live view on most SLRS doesn't allow for AF to work in tandem and the other thing is it has to close and re-open the shutter to take the photo...
Check out my photo blog! |
|
insainly sound
Location: Bay Area, CA
Gender: Female
How'd we get here, and how are we getting out of here?!
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 443 on 4/2/2008 4:14 AM >
| | | | Posted by sandaili
I have seen that the reviews for that lens show people like it, but when they change to other lenses they notice the shots are a lot clearer.
What lenses do you typically use? Do you switch a lot or do you have one similar to that in that you can pretty much keep it on for all of your shots?
L
|
Right now I use two lenses, a Nikkor 17-35mm and a Nikkor 80-400mm, but that leaves huge gaps (obviously), so I am looking at the Nikkor 35-70mm to fill that gap. I'm also looking at the Tokina 12-24mm. That being said, the less focal range, the less CA that will be apparent in the photos. Which is why I bought the 17-35mm lens, I constantly get good results! However, all things considered, you might look hard at the Nikkor 18-200. It's VR (Vibration Reduction), IF (Internally Focused), and got oodles of focal range, so it can be left on for 99% of your photos. I almost got that lens myself!
Check out my photo blog! |
|
Lord Awesome
Location: Valparaiso IN
Gender: Male
Arbiter
| |  |  | Re: Want a camera - particular features, any ideas?
<Reply # 444 on 4/2/2008 5:39 AM >
| | | | Well, it locks the mirror up. And then focuses before shooting and then shoots. Or you can prefocus. But in the sense that the live view is kind of meant to assist in manual focus, it can be effective as a tool for that purpose. For stuff like macro photography, or like shooting over something, It may be helpful. Also, god knows I have trouble seeing out of my viewfinder when there is not much light.
I really want to get the Pentax K20D, but the live view isn't really part of the reason. I'm pretty sure I'd never use it. I have a friend with an Olympus with live view and it just seems sluggish and irritating under normal shooting conditions.
Hey yeah you, fat ass. Not interested. |
|
micro
  
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: Want a camera - particular features, any ideas?
<Reply # 445 on 4/2/2008 2:10 PM >
| | | | I'm beginning to wonder how many people owning cameras with liveview actually use the feature. I'm sure it has its advantages, but I think it's generally a gimmick designed to entice point and shoot owners to purchase a DSLR.
|
|
insainly sound
Location: Bay Area, CA
Gender: Female
How'd we get here, and how are we getting out of here?!
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 446 on 4/2/2008 2:46 PM >
| | | | Posted by micro
I'm beginning to wonder how many people owning cameras with liveview actually use the feature. I'm sure it has its advantages, but I think it's generally a gimmick designed to entice point and shoot owners to purchase a DSLR.
|
The only time I wish I had liveview is when I'm in buildings where it's necessary to wear my respirator
Check out my photo blog! |
|
heli55
Location: Halifax
Gender: Male
| | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 447 on 4/2/2008 9:08 PM >
| | | | | but I think it's generally a gimmick designed to entice point and shoot owners to purchase a DSLR. |
I suspect as much... as when people pick up my SLR they are disappointed that you can't see the picture on the LCD.
How does liveview work in the dark? aka on point and shoot once it gets a little dark liveview is useless on them. I assume that's a limitation of the image sensor though so would SLR do any better?
-Colin
|
|
metawaffle
King of Puns
Location: Brisbane!
Gender: Male
Purveyor of Fine Lampshades
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 448 on 4/2/2008 9:59 PM >
| | | | Posted by micro
I'm beginning to wonder how many people owning cameras with liveview actually use the feature. I'm sure it has its advantages, but I think it's generally a gimmick designed to entice point and shoot owners to purchase a DSLR.
|
I didn't think I'd ever use the liveview mode that my D300 offers, and I was almost right. It does come in handy occasionally when composing a shot with the camera in an awkward position (on a tripod, of course), so there are certainly times when I've been glad to have it. That said, if it wasn't there, I wouldn't be particularly upset.
The biggest issue with liveview, for me, is that in very low levels of light, it's completely useless. While you can ramp up the brightness a little, it's just not meant for night photography.
http://www.longexposure.net |
|
heli55
Location: Halifax
Gender: Male
| | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 449 on 4/3/2008 10:26 PM >
| | | | Another feature to look for that I assume all D-SLRs have:
A remote control mode. Where you can plug your camera into a laptop and take pictures through that. Then you can review the image on your laptop screen, and instantly know how it turned out w/o needing to zoom in or anything.
Perhaps if live view could stream to the laptop screen it would be pretty useful!
But either way it's great for doing studio work. I just can't get a good idea how the picture turned out on the little LCD on the back, especially if you are shooting a small DOF.
-Colin
|
|
Ram23
Location: Cincinnati, OH and/or Queens, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 450 on 4/4/2008 3:20 AM >
| | | | What do you guys think of the Canon EF-S 17-85mm?
I'm looking for a replacement for the kit EF-S 18-55mm (I broke my auto-focus), and trying to keep the price under $500 if at all possible.
Any suggestions for a standard zoom for a Digital Rebel XTi?
Cincinnati UE Photos: http://zfein.com/photography |
|
metawaffle
King of Puns
Location: Brisbane!
Gender: Male
Purveyor of Fine Lampshades
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 451 on 4/4/2008 4:08 AM >
| | | | If you stretch your budget a little further, you could consider the Canon 17-40 F/4L...
http://www.longexposure.net |
|
starberries
Location: West Chester, Pennsylvania
Gender: Female
| | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 452 on 4/4/2008 5:56 AM >
| | | | Posted by TheReference
I am seriously considering purchasing this camera since I cannot afford at this time of my life to buy a new SLR or a "SLR-Like" camera, AND it is one of the TOP rated cameras by Consumer Reports (though it is not a "Best Buy"). Unfortunately I still have very little experience with advanced camera photographic techniques.
My question is whether I will be able to utilize this camera to take the more artistic type photographs (i.e. purposely create blurs from background images being out of focus, slowing shutter speed, etc). I also want to know whether I will be able to utilize many of the similar advanced camera techniques as SLRs offer.
Thank you in advance for your guidance and advice. This camera I should be able to buy for $250. Now I want to see how little I may be able to get a well rated (by Consumer Reports) SLR-like camera for (whatever that means). The hyperlink below SHOULD direct you to the Canon S3 IS Specifications webpage.
http://www.usa.can...#ModelTechSpecsAct
|
I'm stoked for you if you choose to buy this camera. It does offer you all of the typical settings and scene selections that are on most Canon cameras (and I assume they are also the identical settings offered on the Rebel xts). The only difference is the lens. That being said, though, I can't promise that it would be equally wonderful as a more expensive camera with a more expensive lens, but it surely offers you the range and flexibility to learn some of the more advanced techniques and try your hand at good quality photography without the price tag.
I recently started only using the manual settings on my camera, to practice if I should choose to ever upgrade to a DSLR when I start my photojournalism classes, and I can honestly say that I fell in love with the camera all over again once I started doing that. Yes, you can do the artistic things that you mentioned - to answer your question!
You can also buy the lens adapter that it offers, and they offer a basic wide angle lens, telephoto lens (farther away shots), and macro lens (close-up shots) for a fairly low price. Trust me, you really can do anything with this camera! I wouldn't use it myself if it weren't the case.
Good luck on your search.
|
|
heli55
Location: Halifax
Gender: Male
| | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 453 on 4/4/2008 11:58 AM >
| | | | | (i.e. purposely create blurs from background images being out of focus, slowing shutter speed, etc |
Yes - a lot of these fixed-lens cameras are quite good! But here is some more info that may help you understand the specs:
Focal Length
6.0-72.0mm f/2.7-3.5 (35mm film equivalent: 36-432mm) |
What is important is the '35mm equivalent'. This is what range your lens would be like on a 35mm film camera, which you are probably more familiar with. So at the lowest zoom it will be as wide-angle as a normal 35mm camera roughly. The high end is pretty good though!
As a comparison say the "Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens" which is a standard kit for the Canon SLR mentioned has a 35mm equivalent of 27mm-136mm. So zoomed all the way out ('wide angle') the Canon EF-S lens will allow more image in the field of view. But the fixed-lens camera has a higher 'zoom'.
It does have manual focus mode too. It's a bit more of a pain to use compared to a SLR where it's right on the lens. You have to hit some little buttons and stuff, but you should be able to be pretty happy with that most of the time.
As you can always use the 'focus lock' still, where you AF on a subject the distance you want to be focused on then point your camera at the real subject. This might be how you would do something with an in-focus background but blurred subject.
Maximum Aperture
f/2.7 (W) - f/3.5 (T) |
The lower this number, the smaller a depth of field you can shoot with. As well if you use a low aperture you can shoot with a faster shutter speed. Compared to the Canon EF-S lens this is actually a tiny bit better, the EF-S goes down to about 4.
Shutter Speed
15-1/3200 sec. |
15s would be good for night-time. You won't be able to do shots of stars with 15s, but you could do blurred highway traffic etc. As well you can shoot by reasonable moonlight.
SO Sensitivity
Auto, High ISO Auto, ISO 80/100/200/400/800 equivalent |
This is a carry-over from film cameras. ISO is how sensitive it is to light. On digital cameras this is done by amplifying the signals from the image sensor. So ISO 80 would be for bright outdoor, ISO800 would be indoor / darker environments.
Note that as ISO goes up you have an increase in image noise. So ISO80 would provide very clean images, but ISO800 would allow you to shoot with a faster shutter but the image will be a bit noisy.
Most D-SLR cameras go higher here - ISO1600 or ISO3200. At these levels you have a LOT of image noise though, so it's of marginal use. You won't miss ISO1600, as most of the time you want to be shooting ISO100/ISO200 for noise.
A final note: these specs don't tell you about things like glass quality, image sensor noise etc etc. So a D-SLR might be better in some of these... but for learning having a fixed-lens camera is great. Hell I've been looking at picking one up since it's so much smaller than a SLR. Plus if you drop it you don't cry as much
HTH!
-Colin
|
|
Ram23
Location: Cincinnati, OH and/or Queens, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 454 on 4/7/2008 9:40 PM >
| | | | Posted by metawaffle
If you stretch your budget a little further, you could consider the Canon 17-40 F/4L...
|
Would you say it's worth the extra $300 for someone who's a rather amateur when it comes to photography?
I don't plan on buying many lenses, and the wider range of the 17-85 seems to be more appealing, for I don't think I'll ever put down the cash to get a zoom lens for the very few times I need it. All of the reviews I've read have said little negative about the 17-85, but sang praises for the 17-40 F/4L. I guess the big question is how noticeable is the quality difference to an amateur, do you think I'd benefit from it?
Thanks for the advice.
Cincinnati UE Photos: http://zfein.com/photography |
|
metawaffle
King of Puns
Location: Brisbane!
Gender: Male
Purveyor of Fine Lampshades
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 455 on 4/8/2008 10:41 PM >
| | | | Posted by Ram23
Would you say it's worth the extra $300 for someone who's a rather amateur when it comes to photography?
I don't plan on buying many lenses, and the wider range of the 17-85 seems to be more appealing, for I don't think I'll ever put down the cash to get a zoom lens for the very few times I need it. All of the reviews I've read have said little negative about the 17-85, but sang praises for the 17-40 F/4L. I guess the big question is how noticeable is the quality difference to an amateur, do you think I'd benefit from it?
Thanks for the advice.
|
Hmm, tough question  As you take photos with the lenses you have, you'll come to notice which are 'better', and which are not, be it because of sharpness, the quality of the out-of-focus areas, or whatever. I have a 'cheap' lens that I used for a few weeks, then practically never again, because my other lenses were so much better - it's the only lens I've ever really regretted buying. So, I suspect that even if you don't notice the difference right away, you'll come to appreciate it over time.
Now, the 17-85 is hardly a bad lens, so how much difference there'll really be is difficult to say. The extra range is probably a good thing to have, too. In all honesty, you'd probably be quite happy with either one, so you can't really make the wrong decision here!
If it was me... I'd go for the expensive lens. And hey, if you ever change your mind, it's a lens that will hold its value to some extent, too, so you can always sell it later.
http://www.longexposure.net |
|
ryan
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Providence RI
Gender: Male
F/gayz
| | | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 456 on 4/8/2008 11:17 PM >
| | | | Mamiya 7, as far as I am concerned they do not make any other cameras.
I climb stuff!
Remember! Shop smart. Shop S-Mart \http://www.myspace.com/xitstheendx |
|
Stewie
 
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Gender: Male
kill your idols
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 457 on 4/9/2008 7:36 PM >
| | | | I was recommended not to go for the 17-85 simply because the 17-40 f4/L is that much better. Go big or go home theory. In my case I also plan to shoot full frame in the future, so getting this lens would be a benefit to me down the line. It has also come down in price a good bit recently, not so un-affordable any more.
> The hierarchy of power dictates that the person with the most power does the least amount of work and retains the highest benefit. |
|
rooty
Location: Dorval, QC
Gender: Male
| | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 458 on 4/11/2008 2:37 PM >
| | | | For point-and-shoots, I would recommend going with a Canon camera that is compatible with the CHDK mod (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). You will end up with a camera much smaller than an SLR but with many of the same features (including RAW output).
"Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, most of life's problems." - H. Simpson |
|
Air
Location: Canada
| | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
<Reply # 459 on 4/13/2008 12:30 AM >
| | | | Posted by ryan
Mamiya 7, as far as I am concerned they do not make any other cameras.
|
A friend of mine has the 6 and it is indeed SICK.
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 187 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739640605 pages have been generated.
|
|
