chaostrophy
Member
Lucky Forward said:
Makes sense to me. The D700 is 12 MP, and from what I've read it's one of the most highly regarded cameras available at any price.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
Makes sense to me. The D700 is 12 MP, and from what I've read it's one of the most highly regarded cameras available at any price.
chaostrophy said:
The actual megapixels don't matter so much as pixel density and it all depends on what your final output is.
The d700 is full frame so the crop part is more like 6 mp as a crop sensor in density.
And noone would argue that 100s of megapixels are required for, say, satellite images (number pulled from butt), but inappropriate for regular use. 12mp is more than sufficient for people wanting to make even 12x18" prints, I assume. I've seen 5mp prints at 8x12 that indiscernible from higher prints.
Never print? Then probably don't need more than 6.
Of course your application of the file may require more resolution - if you crop a lot, for instance.
Lucky Forward
Member
I've had my 20D almost four years now, and I'd actually forgotten how many megapixels it has (I looked it up, it's 8.2). It's never occurred to me that I need more than that, my Canon printer does 13x19 prints and they look great.mrkgoo said:
Lucky Forward said:
Man, my English is getting poorer and poorer (I meant to say that '..is indiscernible from similar prints with higher resolution files.").
Yeah. I thought 10mp was too high when I bought my 40D, but it's probably about right. Of course, more resolution IS better - it gives more options - but only if other aspects of the sensor aren't compromised (which they normally are).
Another reason why I really want the 5dMkII - it has the equivalent pixel density of a crop sensor of about 8.2 mp. Like, perfect.
CIRCULAR POLARIZERS
i don't think i have the cash for a set of GNDs and cokin holders (or a singh ray vari-nd) so i'm thinking of starting my filter collection with a CP, since it's the only effect i can't easily approximate. what are people's feelings on CPs? for ultra-wide (is it really useless because of the angle variation over the FOV?)? for the wide-to-normal range?
un/fortunately, the lenses i'm looking at putting these on are 77mm thread, so a CP will be at least 150+ (nikon brand, yikes!).
i don't think i have the cash for a set of GNDs and cokin holders (or a singh ray vari-nd) so i'm thinking of starting my filter collection with a CP, since it's the only effect i can't easily approximate. what are people's feelings on CPs? for ultra-wide (is it really useless because of the angle variation over the FOV?)? for the wide-to-normal range?
un/fortunately, the lenses i'm looking at putting these on are 77mm thread, so a CP will be at least 150+ (nikon brand, yikes!).
fart said:
I have a 77mm Heliopan Circular polariser worth about US$200 - I had to get the slim one, because on a wide angle lens, I get vignetting wide open, particularly since I have a UV filter on as well.
What effect are you looking for? To bluen skies? Or to eliminate reflections on glass/water? Or just to play?
To be honest, I feel a circular polariser is a near must for any outdoor/nature photography. It's expensive (but you don't need an expensive one), but you get a lot of it. A little know feature is that it removes reflections off leaves making greens greener.
Also, get one to fit your largest lens and some cheap step-up rings for your smaller lenses.
Let me just say that I have absolutely no knowledge on anything photography related. My birthday is coming up though, and I can't think of anything better to get than a camera. I love looking through the photography thread on this forum, and other sites. Could anyone just tell a complete noob where to start. I have no idea what I should be looking for in a camera, a lens, and whatever else I need. I'd also be interested in picking up books, or if anyone knows any beginner web sites. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it!
Fart: Telephoto lenses can be a lot of fun - there are loads of reasons to use a tele than to just shoot from far away.
Do you mean a small compact point&shoot style camera, or a large SLR (single lens reflex) style camera?
What do you intend on doing with it? Snaps? "artsy" stuff?
If it's an SLR you're after, here 's a good place to start:
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/
It's Canon-centric, but covers a lot of basic info and has a lot of great links.
Nitsuj23 said:
Do you mean a small compact point&shoot style camera, or a large SLR (single lens reflex) style camera?
What do you intend on doing with it? Snaps? "artsy" stuff?
If it's an SLR you're after, here 's a good place to start:
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/
It's Canon-centric, but covers a lot of basic info and has a lot of great links.
i'd say go p&s first. a) camera doesn't matter for developing the eye, and b) P&Ss are easier to have with you. dpreview.com's reviews are the best equipment reviews as far as i'm concerned, and you might want to check out their recent p&s roundups, but for the most part it won't matter which you buy as long as you like using it and it fits in your budget.
I have been reading a lot of dpreview's reviews, i like how in depth they go. I just wish they could review more lenses quicker.fart said:
I got some CP last week, those of you that use them do you use them pretty much the whole time if your shooting outside?
captive said:
Nope. I only use it when I have a reason to use it. That said, often I am lazy and will not pull it out when I need it, or once it's on, I can't be bothered putting it away.
It may sound lazy, but there's no way I'm just going to chuck a $200 filter in my pocket or what have you - it needs to be put away and taken out properly.
Lucky Forward
Member
For people who always use a filter to protect the front lens element, check this out:
Front Element Scratches
Front Element Scratches
Lucky Forward said:
Yeah I've seen that doing the rounds. Where did you come across it?
Anyway, I believe it's to do with the optics and the way every part of a lens contributes to every part of an image - obscuring a small part of the element itself (as opposed to being a part of the image) has little effect on the outcome. I'm not sure what effect an entire filter will have, since you are actually putting something in front of the whole image.
Thrillhouse
Member
I've been using an Olympus DSLR for a few months now and I am nothing but pleased. It's small, cheap and takes just as good pictures as any other SLR in that price range. There is some extra noise on higher iso's, of course, but is a little bit of noise really that bad?captive said:
Olympus Zuiko-lenses are simply awesome, have a good range and are often surprisingly cheap. What I miss however is an affordable and bright prime lens. The only alternative right now is the sigma 35mm, 1.4, which is quite expensive, at least by my standards. The Lens selection isn't nearly as big as Canon or Nikon, but instead you can get a whole lot more for your money.
+cheap and small
+"Olympus colour"
+good and cheap lenses
+ surprisingly good kit lenses( much better than their Nikon and Canon counterparts from my own experience)
+ larger depth of field, if you're in to Macro
- a bit noisier due to the smaller sensor
- fewer lenses and accessories to chose from
- lack of a cheap prime lens ( which is what most photographers start with, having to pay 400 $ for the sigma lens in the beginning is a killer)
- larger depth of field, not so good for portraits etc
Lucky Forward
Member
Canon POTN forums...I think the point is you needn't worry too much about a small scratch affecting your overall image quality.mrkgoo said:
Lucky Forward
Member
No, I registered there as Lucky Forward a few years back, but I mostly just lurk occasionally. I posted a few of my shots there in the past, and it seemed they would just slide off the front page with only a comment or two...small fish in a big pond, I suppose. There seems to be much more of a feeling of community here on GAF.mrkgoo said:
I know what you mean. I mostly hand out there for the gear side of things. Lots ofbgrear info there. Community feel here is good - you're like a superstar here too. Well in my eyes.Lucky Forward said:No, I registered there as Lucky Forward a few years back, but I mostly just lurk occasionally. I posted a few of my shots there in the past, and it seemed they would just slide off the front page with only a comment or two...small fish in a big pond, I suppose. There seems to be much more of a feeling of community here on GAF.
For anyone out there in the UK I'd like to give a shout out to CameraBox and Digital-Cameras.com.
I ordered my LX3 from digital-cameras.com today and had the delivery address as my work address, unbeknownst to be someone else at work ordered a lens from CameraBox to be delivered to work as well. They're actually the same company and they phoned to ask if it was OK to consolidate the shipment and put it on an overnight. That's customer service for you!
Back on topic, my LX3 comes tomorrow and I can't wait. I waited until PMA was over on the off chance that something new would be unveiled but I've been into tech long enough to know you can play a waiting game forever. Ordered, it'll be here tomorrow and I can't wait.
It'll go to loads of places my D90 would never dream of going...
I ordered my LX3 from digital-cameras.com today and had the delivery address as my work address, unbeknownst to be someone else at work ordered a lens from CameraBox to be delivered to work as well. They're actually the same company and they phoned to ask if it was OK to consolidate the shipment and put it on an overnight. That's customer service for you!
Back on topic, my LX3 comes tomorrow and I can't wait. I waited until PMA was over on the off chance that something new would be unveiled but I've been into tech long enough to know you can play a waiting game forever. Ordered, it'll be here tomorrow and I can't wait.
It'll go to loads of places my D90 would never dream of going...
bggrthnjsus
Member
people with DSLRs, do you have a backup point and shoot that you use for taking pictures in places where you wouldn't want to take your camera out of concern for its safety? i was thinking about picking up this new canon powershot d10 when it comes out if i have enough rewards points on my amazon.com visa to pay for it...mainly because it's waterproof to 33 feet, so i can take it snorkeling and diving whenever i go on vacation.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001SER460/?tag=neogaf0e-20
that picture in the description is hilarious, it says 'shockproof' from 4 feet, and there's a picture of a dude rock climbing, like hundreds of feet in the air
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001SER460/?tag=neogaf0e-20
that picture in the description is hilarious, it says 'shockproof' from 4 feet, and there's a picture of a dude rock climbing, like hundreds of feet in the air
bggrthnjsus said:
I'm too in love with the image quality I get from my DSLR and lenses that I don't see myself ever getting a point and shoot. Just suck it up and carry the gear around is what I say.
I guess maybe one day I'd like to get something like the Canon G10, but I'm content for now.
bggrthnjsus
Member
yea my other option was to put those points towards a new body (probably a 50d) or a new canon 24-105LFutureman said:
bggrthnjsus said:
To be honest, I briefly toyed with the idea for the very same reason (same camera too). Mostly stuff that is smaller and a bit more weather resistant. But then I remembered a camera is there to take pictures - no better way to ruin a shot than to not take it. It's just that an SLR is a huge thing to lug around all the time. I would, however, gladly make a better purchase such as a lens over a new P&S.
I would get one if it had enough features that my SLR didn't.
Lucky Forward
Member
bggrthnjsus said:
I have a 20D and I bought a G7 to complement it two years ago, and I'm really happy with it. My feeling is, if I'm going out primarily to shoot pictures, I'll take my DSLR with appropriate lenses, but if I'm just out and about with the possibility of getting some shots, then I bring the G7. Though the G7 doesn't shoot RAW, it has very nice image quality and a useful zoom range. I've taken quite a few of my photo assignment shots with it.
mrkgoo, thanks, I'm just glad I found a forum that doesn't mind me posting a million dog pictures.
Material541
Member
This camera seems interesting:
Casio EX-FC100
http://www.photographybay.com/2009/03/04/casio-ex-fc100-hands-on-review/
Casio EX-FC100
http://www.photographybay.com/2009/03/04/casio-ex-fc100-hands-on-review/
well, so, i've definitely considered this pretty heavily as i'm poor. on the one hand, glass defects (eg, scratches in coating or glass) do lower contrast, but except with a very very wide angle lens and/or a very very small aperture, the actual defects themselves will not be in focus. furthermore, a cheap protective filter will also degrade the image by adding another surface for reflections another air/glass barrier, etc.Lucky Forward said:
on the other hand, i'm incredibly clumsy. for me, the big value of the filter is very rarely having to clean the front element because i've stuck my thumb on it or something stupid like that. i can always take the thing off in a shooting situation that i know will be safe.
note that this goes for the pricier lenses only. with eg kit lenses there is absolutely no point to a protective filter.
Material541
Member
Out of curiosity, how much money do you guys spend on lenses and such? After reading this thread, I feel like purchasing a D40 with 18-55mm lens kit on Amazon on a whim, but I feel like one lens won't really cut it.
the 18-55 will cut it. it's a great kit lens and the range covers 90% of what i tend to photograph. it's sharp and contrasty and great. the only thing it won't get you is low-light photography with a flash.
similarly, the d40 is awesome. tiny, ergonomically sound with a great sensor. i don't think you can go wrong with that kit. the biggest drawback (which isn't a drawback to 90% of folks) is that some older nikon autofocus lenses will not autofocus on it. if you don't plan on buying old lenses or don't mind focusing (and in some cases metering them) yourself, you're good to go with this body.
eta: my current lens stash is 600$ (2 lenses). to be fair, i do have 1400$ in lenses coming tomorrow (another 2). the only thing expensive lenses tend ot get you is: low-light ability without flash, build quality, special optical effects eg macro, fisheye, very wide or very narrow field of view.
similarly, the d40 is awesome. tiny, ergonomically sound with a great sensor. i don't think you can go wrong with that kit. the biggest drawback (which isn't a drawback to 90% of folks) is that some older nikon autofocus lenses will not autofocus on it. if you don't plan on buying old lenses or don't mind focusing (and in some cases metering them) yourself, you're good to go with this body.
eta: my current lens stash is 600$ (2 lenses). to be fair, i do have 1400$ in lenses coming tomorrow (another 2). the only thing expensive lenses tend ot get you is: low-light ability without flash, build quality, special optical effects eg macro, fisheye, very wide or very narrow field of view.
bggrthnjsus
Member
yeah i mainly would be using it if i'm just going out or something; last time i took my rebel xt to a bar somebody spilled beer all over me and my camera...that d10 would be beerproofLucky Forward said:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
My "backup point and shoot" is a D40. It's small enough. Add on SB-400 or replace kit lens with Sigma 30mm 1.4 or new Nikon 35mm 1.8 to taste.bggrthnjsus said:
bggrthnjsus
Member
oh man that's a good idea too, if i used that money and saved up a little i could have a new body (probably a 50d?), and use my xt as a backup. although i couldn't put it underwater...but i may just be addicted to the idea of having an underwater cameraRentahamster said:
Thrillhouse
Member
I have an E-420.captive said:
I'm a bit skeptic about the 50mm. It's an incredible lens for sure. But if you intend to use it for only macro, I'd go for the 35mm. The 35mm cost less than half of the 50mm and can achieve 1:1 enlarge rate unlike the 50mm. If you want a prime lens the 50mm is a bit too narrow, although it's bright enough, unlike the 35mm. But if you can live with a 3.5 aperture, the 35 is a better choice even for general photography.
The best, in my opinion is to combine the 35 mm macro with the sigma 1.4 lens. This combo costs about as much as the 50 mm, and gives you a whole lot more.
Anddd I'm back. And am growing, apparently, more impatient with this whole camera purchasing scenario.
Found this "deal":
Canon XSi Body
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
All for the high, high price of $1179 Canadian...so, roughly $980 American considering the exchange.
On the one hand, it's expensive, a fair deal more expensive than it probably should be when there's no second lens. On the other, the lens sounds like it is both a) close to my current zoom expectations with my old S2 IS and b) a good all-around travel lens, which would be my immediate use of the camera and my likely continued use of it in the future.
The better news is that, since it is at a more speciality location, I could probably see if I could barter my way down a little in-store, get something thrown in. It's just that I'm capable of spending this much money on a camera, and this seems like it would get me off and running on an SLR with a lot of potential.
Stupid decisions - so annoying.
Found this "deal":
Canon XSi Body
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
All for the high, high price of $1179 Canadian...so, roughly $980 American considering the exchange.
On the one hand, it's expensive, a fair deal more expensive than it probably should be when there's no second lens. On the other, the lens sounds like it is both a) close to my current zoom expectations with my old S2 IS and b) a good all-around travel lens, which would be my immediate use of the camera and my likely continued use of it in the future.
The better news is that, since it is at a more speciality location, I could probably see if I could barter my way down a little in-store, get something thrown in. It's just that I'm capable of spending this much money on a camera, and this seems like it would get me off and running on an SLR with a lot of potential.
Stupid decisions - so annoying.
Lucky Forward
Member
Anyone else keeping track of how many exposures they've shot on their DSLR?
My 20D is almost four years old, and since the IMG number rolls over when it gets to 9999, I went back through my archives and found it had rolled over twice and I'm currently at about 25,000 images. I remember reading somewhere that the 20D's shutter mechanism was rated for 50,000 actuations, so I'm good for another four years!
My 20D is almost four years old, and since the IMG number rolls over when it gets to 9999, I went back through my archives and found it had rolled over twice and I'm currently at about 25,000 images. I remember reading somewhere that the 20D's shutter mechanism was rated for 50,000 actuations, so I'm good for another four years!
bggrthnjsus
Member
i think you can also track exposures by the filenames the camera will make (?)Lucky Forward said:
bggrthnjsus said:
Thats not exact number of you change memory cards, reset the counter, etc.
Sometimes you can find the exposure count through EXIF data too. My N40D that I got back in December is at around 5000, but that's mostly just toying around with continuous shots
Lucky Forward
Member
Yeah, that was the IMG number I was referring to, my camera names them IMG_0001 and starts counting from there until it hits IMG_9999 and rolls over to IMG_0000. It doesn't matter if I switch memory cards, so the number must be stored internally.bggrthnjsus said:
BTW, I think the most shots I ever took in one day was at an airshow two years ago: 5GB in memory cards + 5fps burst mode = over 900 RAW images.
- Status