[systemerror909]

Photography is my other main hobby, so I feel pretty confident saying to people to not waste their time with film. I'll probably receive a lot of flak for this, but film is very time consuming, requires a far more complicated setup for making prints and ultimately if you shoot enough is much more expensive.

Digital is very cheap now. I paid $1200 for a new Canon 20d two years ago (and justified it because I shot enough film it would actually save me money: $5 slide film +$5 processing=$10/roll) and you can now buy this camera used from a reputable dealer for $465:

KEH Camera: Canon Digital - Camera Bodies - 20D 8.2 M/P WITH CABLES, CD, BATTERY & CHARGER (REQUIRES CF CARD ), DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA

I would highly recommend this camera at this price. This is an extremely versatile camera with all the controls anyone could possibly want and excellent ergonomics for easy access to these controls. Unlike an entry level nikon dslr, this is a very solid camera, with a real heavy duty magnesium body. Speed is excellent, it shoots 5 frames/second.

8mp is plenty of resolution too, I routinely made 12x18 inch prints this past semester from this camera with excellent results.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronin74 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Arainach, which disposable do you mean? His Hasselblad or Linhof? Are you thread baiting or crapping or both?

I mean the $5 film cameras you can get in your camera drug store. The lenses, meters, and other parts that they contain are more technically advanced than anything Ansel used. The point of a good camera is to get out of the photographer's way. Ansel (or any other great photographer) with a $5 disposable will produce much, much better results than most snapshot-takers with a Hasselblad, 1Ds, or D3.

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mean the $5 film cameras you can get in your camera drug store. The lenses, meters, and other parts that they contain are more technically advanced than anything Ansel used. The point of a good camera is to get out of the photographer's way. Ansel (or any other great photographer) with a $5 disposable will produce much, much better results than most snapshot-takers with a Hasselblad, 1Ds, or D3.

Agreed totally

 

[systemerror909]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mean the $5 film cameras you can get in your camera drug store. The lenses, meters, and other parts that they contain are more technically advanced than anything Ansel used. The point of a good camera is to get out of the photographer's way. Ansel (or any other great photographer) with a $5 disposable will produce much, much better results than most snapshot-takers with a Hasselblad, 1Ds, or D3.

Quite possibly one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on these forums. Maybe he could if the exposure the scene required was exactly the same as the fixed shutter speed and fixed aperture that the point and shoot required. Disposable cameras do not contain light meters, have one fixed shutter speed, one fixed aperture and a fixed focus lens.

Maybe you're not familiar with Ansel Adams, but he used a highly sophisticated metering/film processing system that involved spot metering a scene, and then custom developing of each individual sheet of film to control for the amount of contrast of each scene. Control over basic things such as shutter speed, aperture, iso and film development time were essential to the work he did. While not automated system regardless how sophisticated can really replicate this, a camera such as a 1Ds has controls over shutter speed, aperture, iso, and uses an evaluative metering system to try to approximate the same exposure in a way that a disposable camera cannot.

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by systemerror909 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quite possibly one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on these forums. Maybe he could if the exposure the scene required was exactly the same as the fixed shutter speed and fixed aperture that the point and shoot required. Disposable cameras do not contain light meters, have one fixed shutter speed, one fixed aperture and a fixed focus lens. Maybe you're not familiar with Ansel Adams, but he used a highly sophisticated metering/film processing system that involved spot metering a scene, and then custom developing of each individual sheet of film to control for the amount of contrast of each scene. Control over basic things such as shutter speed, aperture, iso and film development time were essential to the work he did. While not automated system regardless how sophisticated can really replicate this, a camera such as a 1Ds has controls over shutter speed, aperture, iso, and uses an evaluative metering system to try to approximate the same exposure in a way that a disposable camera cannot.

I think the point was you don't need a 7000 dollar camera to take an award winning picture. The photographer is the key element in the photo taking. The disposable camera statement was a little extreme, but it hit the point.

 

[ronin74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mean the $5 film cameras you can get in your camera drug store. The lenses, meters, and other parts that they contain are more technically advanced than anything Ansel used. The point of a good camera is to get out of the photographer's way. Ansel (or any other great photographer) with a $5 disposable will produce much, much better results than most snapshot-takers with a Hasselblad, 1Ds, or D3.

Also agreed that, as I mentioned to someone else on another thread, it's not the (photographic) gear but how you use it.

Gear-wise, I disagree. You'll never find Ansel's 1 degree spot meter or German glass on a $5 camera. And before I get on pixel-equivalent-film rant, I'll stop now and wish you all a Happy New Year!

 

[ronin74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif The photographer is the key element in the photo taking.

Agreed:

 

[artizen65]

To the OP.

DSC_0136.JPG photo - Michael P. Meyers photos at pbase.com

One thing that it doesn't say is that this is a medimum JPG file. Not even fine or letalone RAW.

99% of the pics on my pages suck. They are just snap shots for family and friends.

I agree that it is the person behind the camera that makes or breaks the shot.

I have been a Nikon owner since 83 so I am biased. Base your decision on price at this point would be my advice.

Then learn how to use the camera and how to take pictures. You might be amazed at what you come up with picture wise with a little practice.

And just for the fun of it.

DSC_0007.JPG photo - Michael P. Meyers photos at pbase.com

DSC_0076.JPG photo - Michael P. Meyers photos at pbase.com

Now the above two were shot with a D200 using the built-in flash at fine JPG.

Good luck.

 

[haibane]

I like your third one. First one is over sharpened. Second is a bit soft and blah. Third one is a great capture. The thing with a built in flash is its very limited.

 

[systemerror909]

And remember to always shoot RAW. This image was shot at 3200 iso on my 20d and was underexposed about two stops. Thanks to raw editing, this image looks great as a 12x18.

 

[artizen65]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like your third one. First one is over sharpened. Second is a bit soft and blah. Third one is a great capture. The thing with a built in flash is its very limited.

Thank you, Just to clarify none of these pictures were touched with an editor they are as the camera took the picture.

systemerror909 not trying to start a fight but for a newbee that has aspirations of also learning photoshop along with photography I would recommend staying with JPG in the beginning and shooting in fine. He won't be selling to a magazine or other print medimum in the begining, ok I am assuming here.

To the OP mom says Nikon is the only way to go. P.S. she is biased and a long time Nikon user.

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by artizen65 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank you, Just to clarify none of these pictures were touched with an editor they are as the camera took the picture. systemerror909 not trying to start a fight but for a newbee that has aspirations of also learning photoshop along with photography I would recommend staying with JPG in the beginning and shooting in fine. He won't be selling to a magazine or other print medimum in the begining, ok I am assuming here. To the OP mom says Nikon is the only way to go. P.S. she is biased and a long time Nikon user.

FWIW if you shoot in jpeg in camera it is touched by an editor and can be over sharpened in camera

 

[artizen65]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif FWIW if you shoot in jpeg in camera it is touched by an editor and can be over sharpened in camera

Thank you for the information. I shall file it away in the memory banks where hopefully it wont get all jumbled up with everything else.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by niko-time /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay then sirs, what could I get used? I only said that before as I am scared that camera's broke fairly easily, I general buy all my wears used. Things that I will photograph will mainly be scenery, but I do go skiing yearly and would like to hand the camera to my dad and for him to take the odd picture of me mid-jump/grind. So, it needs to have pretty good speed and be fairly user friendly, if that is at all possible. By user friendly I mean that my dad will be able to work out what to do (but this isn't a large necessity). I will probably not own many lenses, probably 2 eventually. I really want to dabble into photoshop though and play with some photo's which I take, I'd love to get good at that.

The DSLRs can take a bit of a beating, but you do still have to care for them of course. If you buy used, get something that looks like it's in good shape, then it shouldn't have seen too much use.


My recommendation for you would be a Canon 20D ($400-$500) and a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 ($250-$300) to start with, and then get the Canon 70-300 IS ($400-$450) when you can afford it. Then you'll have a fast and sharp wide angle for scenery and a really good tele lens for closeups of you doing cool tricks, coupled with a really good camera body.

[prices are guesstimates, second hand]

If you want a newer camera, the Canon 30D costs between $700-$800 used, but I don't think the upgrade is really worth it.


Example pictures from the lenses:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens Sample Photos and Specifications
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

(the macro edition of the sigma lens is an updated version, try to get this one)


If you want to play around in photoshop, then the DSLR is for you. It's the people that don't want to do any post processing at all that should stay with advanced P&S. Remember, shooting RAW is always the best for getting the sharpest pictures, and it's also good in the way that you have a much bigger chance of saving pictures where some setting is a bit off. The histogram is your bestest friend!

If you decide to go down the Canon route, this is where you will hang out:
Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

If you go with the dark side (Canon have white tele lenses, Nikon black

), I think this is a good place:
Nikonians :: The Nikon User Community


You can get tons of information in the forums, and it's also a good place to find used camera gear.

 

[systemerror909]

Quote:

Originally Posted by artizen65 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank you, Just to clarify none of these pictures were touched with an editor they are as the camera took the picture. systemerror909 not trying to start a fight but for a newbee that has aspirations of also learning photoshop along with photography I would recommend staying with JPG in the beginning and shooting in fine. He won't be selling to a magazine or other print medimum in the begining, ok I am assuming here. To the OP mom says Nikon is the only way to go. P.S. she is biased and a long time Nikon user.

I'm advocating shooting in raw, because in photoshop I can make nearly all the changes I want before the image is even converted. In a sense what I'm saying is why even bother learning how to use regular photoshop tools for adjusting contrast, brightness, saturation, sharpening, etc. when you can do all this in raw? I do very minimal work with the rest of photoshop now, because I can get so much done in raw.