Re: OT - digital cameras
- From: Slide <wdflannery@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:54:32 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 17, 12:02 pm, "Jon Fox" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Patrick L" <patrickREMOVETHIS@ jazzytunesREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in messagenews:%9F%i.591$hV2.129@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jon Fox" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:473e5e18$0$8613$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I know that some of you in the group are photographers, so I thought I
would seek some advice. We are looking into buying a new digital camera,
and would like to upgrade from simple point-and-click to a higher quality
SLR. My wife believes that a couple hundred bucks range will do the trick
nicely, I am under the impression that that price range will not
noticeably improve our current point-and-click status.
Any thoughts or recommendations?
Thanks.
Jon
I'm a professional photographer. My first question is, do you plan on
doing a lot of shooting in low light without flash?
A couple of hundred bucks isn't going to do the trick. I'm not even
shooting with high end gear, and my Canon 30D, body only, was $900. With
the external flash and a few more lenses, (high end lenses), I'm in the
$3K range.
A Canon digital Rebel would be probaby better for you, or the Nikon D40.
They are serveral hundred, and you still need lenses, and as for lenses,
add another $300 or $400 for a consumer grade medium telephoto zoom. But
if shooting in low light is your objective, then you will need a
wide-aperture single focus lens(a 50mm F/1.8 are inexpensive, and will get
you by in most concert or nightclub shooting, without flash). Most of
these "amateur" grade SLRs have built in flashes, but they really suck,
you can get external flashes, you don't have to get a fancy one, for a
very reasonable price. I wide aperture telephoto zoom is a pro grade
lens, and will set you back about $1100 or so (my 17-55 F/2.8 image
stabilized lens was $1100, but it allows me to shoot in low light and have
zoom capability. In real low light, then I would shoot with the 50m
f/1.4, or rent a 50mm F/1.2 or 85mm F/1.2, which, Nikon has no equivalent
aperture, though Nikon has F/1.4 primes, which should be good enough for
most low light shooting).
Patrick
Patrick and everyone -
Thanks so much for the thoughts. It seems to be the consensus that anything
under the $500-600 range (Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon D40 as Patrick states
above, or similar) will not be worth the trouble.
My needs are most definitely as an amateur. I don't plan on taking a whole
lot of low-light pics, although performance pics are a possibility from time
to time. Mostly, I just want to be able to take higher-quality pics of my
family.
Again, thanks to everyone for the input.
Jon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If you want to take better pics of the family - here's the thing -
there is the camera - and there is the light. It is not possible to
take good portrait photos with an on camera flash, and unless you're
really good, not possible to take good indoor photos with available
light.
Conclusion - you need off camera flash. That makes all the difference
for indoor portraiture. Then you gotta learn how to use it ..... no
biggie but it requires a directed effort.
Let's see .... a sample .... the Machingura or BlueHandBand photos at
www.berkeleyscience.com/jam
You gotta have off camera light to take even OK pics like these, I
think.
Slide
.
- References:
- OT - digital cameras
- From: Jon Fox
- Re: OT - digital cameras
- From: Patrick L
- Re: OT - digital cameras
- From: Jon Fox
- OT - digital cameras
- Prev by Date: Re: video - Red House
- Next by Date: Re: video - Red House
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - digital cameras
- Next by thread: Video Lesson - slap and pop guitar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
