-
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
Hello! I'm getting into photography, and would like a little help starting up.
This thread is kind of scary and I know very little about what I should be looking for in a camera, equipment for proper lighting, whether I should purchase another lens with the camera, and probably some things I don't know that I don't know. If somebody could give me a quick catch-all beginner's tutorial on this stuff, or link me to a post with that information I'd be delighted. Since it's probably something to keep in mind, my budget is $800.
I plan on doing a little photoshopping as well, and I'm wondering if Lightroom 2 is worth the $180 (separate from my camera equipment budget). Any opinions?
This thread is kind of scary and I know very little about what I should be looking for in a camera, equipment for proper lighting, whether I should purchase another lens with the camera, and probably some things I don't know that I don't know. If somebody could give me a quick catch-all beginner's tutorial on this stuff, or link me to a post with that information I'd be delighted. Since it's probably something to keep in mind, my budget is $800.
I plan on doing a little photoshopping as well, and I'm wondering if Lightroom 2 is worth the $180 (separate from my camera equipment budget). Any opinions?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Arthrus said:
I would just get a Canon T1i (or Nikon equivalent) with the Kit lens. If you go with a Canon, maybe get the Canon 50/1.8 for $100. The final cost all together should come out to around $800 or so (maybe a little over). You'll have a competent Zoom lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) for general shooting during the day and Landscapes and a fast prime (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II) for times when you're out at night, indoors, failing light or moments where you want to play with that thin Depth of Field you see people posting up. All other lenses be them expensive or cheap alternatives are just there to pick up when you've finally become aware of what type of photographer you are (will you end up liking the flexibility zoom lenses? or the absolute speed and Depth of Field control of Primes?).
I wouldn't worry about lighting equipment at the beginning, just use that giant light source in the sky and become acquainted with the various lighting it imbues the land with throughout the day. Hell, I've been shooting for around 3 years and haven't touched off camera lighting yet! All natural, baby... lighting that is.
DarkJediKnight
Member
Hi, a semi-camera noob here.
I'm getting married soon. I want to get my fiancee a decent dig camera that's compact, while taking great pictures for a scrapbook of our life. It should shoot 720p video as well. She likes SLRs but they're too bulky. What's a good camera that should sway her from her SLR lust? I'm thinking around $300.
I'm getting married soon. I want to get my fiancee a decent dig camera that's compact, while taking great pictures for a scrapbook of our life. It should shoot 720p video as well. She likes SLRs but they're too bulky. What's a good camera that should sway her from her SLR lust? I'm thinking around $300.
i thought all your "finished" car images were hdr, hence the halo around the car on the ground where it is lighter than it should be etc.zhenming said:
at any rate its not a good comparison as the second shot is different from the first shot for starters. and the second shot looks post processed vs the first which doesnt look that processed.
sorry if it wasnt a professional test ok lol thats the only two images i had with similar angles that show off the use of a polarizer and one without. basically one has crazy reflections and the other one does not lol and you can get that "halo" via many other methods. Strobist for one.captive said:
From what I've seen on the flickr examples(the people say they don't post process), colors end up being more saturated and reflections diminish.
The reflection in the water is pretty much non existant.
You can see how the filter also cuts down on the haze.
Seems to be really good for outdoor stuffs. I was just wondering what Gaf's personal experiences and thoughts were.
The reflection in the water is pretty much non existant.
You can see how the filter also cuts down on the haze.
Seems to be really good for outdoor stuffs. I was just wondering what Gaf's personal experiences and thoughts were.
kaskade said:
Nothing can't be fixed in post-processing. I mean, yea, I know pp degrades the image quality, but all my photos go through pp anyway. And if you have several lenses, you may need more than one cpl(s), and big size high quality cpl isn't cheap. Me personally? I tend to forget turning it to the right angle.:lol
Sure, if you are a pro or becoming one, just go ahead, cpl does help in some cases.
A good circular polarizer is the first filter anyone shooting with a DSLR should be buying. IMO. You can't really replicate the effects in Photoshop. Get a 77mm CPL and then some step down rings to get to 72mm and 67mm (if nec.), then get something like a 58mm CPL and step down rings for 55mm, 52mm, etc. You really should only need to buy 2, depending on the lenses you own, not one for every lens.
Also, just so people aren't confused, the 2nd example kaskade posted, the polarized photo is on the left while on the other photos it's on the right.
Also, just so people aren't confused, the 2nd example kaskade posted, the polarized photo is on the left while on the other photos it's on the right.
exactly, for me its one extra thing thats distracting from taking pictures.luoapp said:
I don't use a CPL i think my pictures look fine. www.flickr.com/photos/wryphotography is my flickr if anyone would like to take a look.
chaostrophy
Member
luoapp said:
You never need more than one polarizer if you plan ahead- get one for your biggest lens, and step-up rings to use it with your other lenses.
And it may be possible to duplicate the effect in post, it's not trivial like duplicating a colored filter by changing white balance is.
i have one, I never use it.zhenming said:you should get one your shots are great! but a cpl would bring it up another notch you photography makes for a good cpl combo
i agree they are helpful for certain things like removing reflections or darkening sky or saturating foliage.
Typically though I want the reflections in water. and its a pain in the ass to take off and on and worry about putting it back in the bag. Also i don't recomend using it for sunset/sunrise shots which I do a lot of, as they will produce extra flaring. They can also produce vignetting on a lens.
So for me i just don't use them anymore.
Lucky Forward
Member
Polarizers can be very useful for reasons already described here, but like any filter it should only be used to get a specific effect in a specific situation -- don't just go around shooting with a polarizer on thinking it will make your pictures "better".
A good rule that has stuck with me is that you should only use a filter when you can consciously verbalize to yourself why you want it for a particular shot: "I'm using the polarizer because I want to darken the sky and make the clouds pop," or "I want to remove the reflections from the car," or "I want to make the foliage a darker green," etc.
A good rule that has stuck with me is that you should only use a filter when you can consciously verbalize to yourself why you want it for a particular shot: "I'm using the polarizer because I want to darken the sky and make the clouds pop," or "I want to remove the reflections from the car," or "I want to make the foliage a darker green," etc.
Borman said:
Win.
i bought mine back (f/2.8) in march. i'm semi-new to photography and never had any great lenses before, it took me a while to get used to it.
i've gradually gotten more comfortable with it and love it. $1700 was a lot, but i probably use it more than my 18-55, especially when i'm shooting video.
for anyone interested, Creative Live is doing a free webinar on "vision driven photography" today. thought i'd share, they're just getting started right now at: http://creativelive.com/live/
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
For you Sony users, Zeiss posted on their Facebook page that their jointly developed with Sony ZA 24mm f/2 lens will be announced next Tuesday!
Any of you guys read Thom Hogan?
His post today says he's hearing rumors that Sony may stop producing full frame sensors which would affect Sony and Nikon.
I've heard from multiple sources now that Sony Semiconductor is about to drop FX sensors from their lineup. What I'm hearing is that high management in Sony is saying that full-frame cameras and sensors aren't bringing the payback necessary to make them long-term profitable. This is essentially forcing Sony Imaging to consider dropping future plans for full-frame cameras (A850, A900, and follow-ups), though I'm sure we'll still see some FF products from them that were already in progress before the stream of sensors dies out. Some of the sources for the rumor appear to be Sony employees who are lobbying for keeping full-frame in the lineup. They seem to hope that news of the impending decision on the Internet will generate a wave of protest that Sony management can't ignore.
http://www.bythom.com/
Yes Nikon uses Sony sensors in their full frame cameras. The next paragraph at his site explains why it would affect Nikon.
His post today says he's hearing rumors that Sony may stop producing full frame sensors which would affect Sony and Nikon.
I've heard from multiple sources now that Sony Semiconductor is about to drop FX sensors from their lineup. What I'm hearing is that high management in Sony is saying that full-frame cameras and sensors aren't bringing the payback necessary to make them long-term profitable. This is essentially forcing Sony Imaging to consider dropping future plans for full-frame cameras (A850, A900, and follow-ups), though I'm sure we'll still see some FF products from them that were already in progress before the stream of sensors dies out. Some of the sources for the rumor appear to be Sony employees who are lobbying for keeping full-frame in the lineup. They seem to hope that news of the impending decision on the Internet will generate a wave of protest that Sony management can't ignore.
http://www.bythom.com/
Yes Nikon uses Sony sensors in their full frame cameras. The next paragraph at his site explains why it would affect Nikon.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
Does Nikon use any of Sony's sensors for FF models? It's probably not a bad idea for Sony to drop out of the high-end SLR market since it seems like Nikon/Canon have too strong of a grip there. I think focusing on NEX and the APS-C Alphas allows Sony to target a more open market and allow them to have better interchangeability between models.
captive said:
If Sony does drop the FX sensor, I can see that being interpreted as retrieving from the DSLR market, and consumers will lose the confidence without a flagship production showing where the whole line goes. On the other hand, I've heard their NEX-3 and 5 are selling like hot cakes, it won't be a bad idea for them to focus on the P&S and NEXs.
Forsete
Member
Well that would suck. Having moved to FF I don't want to go back to APS-C. I was under the impression that both A900 and A850 has sold well, Sony commented that the A900 performed over expectations a while back and it has gained a lot of praise.
Its also a little odd since they just announced that a 35mm camcorder was in development.
Valkyr Junkie: IIRC Nikon has the 25MP A900/850 sensor in the D3X.
One idea can be that Nikon has not gone with a Sony 35mm sensor for the next generation of FF cameras and Sony cant defend the economics of developing new ones.
So I'll just use my A900 til the mirror falls out.
Zeiss is always welcome. Sadly my 24-70 f2.8 already covers that range.
Its also a little odd since they just announced that a 35mm camcorder was in development.
Valkyr Junkie: IIRC Nikon has the 25MP A900/850 sensor in the D3X.
One idea can be that Nikon has not gone with a Sony 35mm sensor for the next generation of FF cameras and Sony cant defend the economics of developing new ones.
So I'll just use my A900 til the mirror falls out.
BlueTsunami said:
Zeiss is always welcome. Sadly my 24-70 f2.8 already covers that range.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Canon 7D. Is it worth the cash?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Sony dropping their FF line would truly be mind boggling. Especially considering the money they dropped on the partnership with them and Zeiss which are very much optimized for FF cameras. Also their lines of FF cameras are supposed to be fairly popular and offer a nice cost saving over the Nikon/Canon counterparts.
Yeah, I can see the choice between the ZA VS's being a very big consideration against a prime thats only a stop faster. I've seen an amateur test that pitted that very Vario Sonnar against the Manual Focus primes they produce and the Vario Sonnar matched the 35/2 Distagon and the 50/1.4 Planar at equal apertures.
tl;dr: The Vario Sonnars are pretty much a bunch of Zeiss primes in a tube
Forsete said:Zeiss is always welcome. Sadly my 24-70 f2.8 already covers that range.
Yeah, I can see the choice between the ZA VS's being a very big consideration against a prime thats only a stop faster. I've seen an amateur test that pitted that very Vario Sonnar against the Manual Focus primes they produce and the Vario Sonnar matched the 35/2 Distagon and the 50/1.4 Planar at equal apertures.
tl;dr: The Vario Sonnars are pretty much a bunch of Zeiss primes in a tube
Forsete
Member
BlueTsunami said:
Zeiss goes way back though. Cybershots and Handycams have had "Zeiss optics" for years. (Since they bought Minoltas camera division they have started using G-optics also)
But yes, announcing Zeiss 24mm f2 and a Sony G 500mm f4 both with FF coverage is a little silly if you plan on not supporting Full Frame in the future.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
golem said:
Do you have an online gallery I can check out, if that's not too forward?
Sure, we should all post our Flickrs on here.WanderingWind said:
I have to say though I use it more for video than I do for stills.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theraidgroup/
Fashion Design Workshop and UDEM galleries are from the 7D
http://www.vimeo.com/golem
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
golem said:
Wow. This is the camera I'm getting. Thanks.
Also, I'm totally jealous of your life. :lol
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
So for a first time DSLR, would a Nikon D40 or D3000 be a good choice?
Choosing between them has been a bit difficult. On one hand I've seen some sites say that the D40 is bar-none the best lower-cost DSLR's available and that the D3000 adds some unnecessary stuff that gets in the way. On the other hand, some say the D40 is way outdated (and it is like 4 years old.)
On the other other hand, I've seen some recommend the D5000 since it's better than both and doesn't cost a whole lot more...
Any advice would be appreciated. I wouldn't be getting it very soon, so if there's something on the horizon I should be keeping an eye on, it'd be great to bring it up.
Choosing between them has been a bit difficult. On one hand I've seen some sites say that the D40 is bar-none the best lower-cost DSLR's available and that the D3000 adds some unnecessary stuff that gets in the way. On the other hand, some say the D40 is way outdated (and it is like 4 years old.)
On the other other hand, I've seen some recommend the D5000 since it's better than both and doesn't cost a whole lot more...
Any advice would be appreciated. I wouldn't be getting it very soon, so if there's something on the horizon I should be keeping an eye on, it'd be great to bring it up.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
sneaky77 said:
I'm not set on Nikon, it was just the first company I gravitated to. Does Canon offer anything similar? I heard their build quality on the lower-end was questionable.
Andrex said:
I think the d5000 is pretty comparable to the t2i or t1i, even in build quality, I held both models in my hands at the store and they both felt way too light for me, but the real issue was too small in my hands.. best thing to do is go to a store and hold them and play around with them.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
sneaky77 said:
I'll try that then!
So you're recommending either the D5000 or the t2i/t1i?
Andrex said:
You can go here http://www.dpreview.com/ click on buying guide and then do a side by side comparisson, and you can look at all the differences and what is you're looking for.
The_Inquisitor
Member
Ok big question guys and gals.
I am moving from mac back to windows. I need to export my library along with my keywords and edits. What is the best way for exporting my data and loading it back into LR3 in windows?
I am moving from mac back to windows. I need to export my library along with my keywords and edits. What is the best way for exporting my data and loading it back into LR3 in windows?
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
sneaky77 said:
Thanks for all the help. Subscribed to it. I guess I'm in the thick of things now.
- Status