File :-(, x, )
Help plz color !pzxMQZFzQc
Hey /p/ I seek your help because I'm tottaly confused. I love photography but I don't have much money so I have a crappy digital camera. The good thing is I just won a prize, 350 us dollars,and I'm thinking about buying a new camera. I know it's not much money, I want your help to decide what model should I buy. Plz /p/, plz help me!

(the pic is just a crapy shot from the old camera)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:08:21 19:33:24Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1152Image Height450
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>51309

to be honest, I rather like the shot. I'd say google around a little bit, call and get some recommendations from your local camera shop on best-seller cameras for beginners. Write them down, go ahead and look on the internet a bit. See what features you like, what features you don't. If your camera store offers the option, take one out for a test drive and see how it feels in your hands. Decide how much you can afford for camera and how much for lenses, then see what happens.

I dont' shoot digital, so that's the best I can suggest
>> elf_man
With 350 as a base, you could get an entry level dslr for relatively low cost.
>> Anonymous
>>51320
Seriously. That's better than a good majority of what's posted on /p/.
>> chasis
>>51309
actually I really like the shot too
>> Anonymous
I think somebody's bullshitting their modesty.
>> ac
>>51352
Good general strategy. If you assume your shots are crap, and they are, it's fine. If you come on here with a shitty picture and are all like 'ZOMFG I AM TEH ANSELL ADUMS!!!1!' then you'll come off looking like a complete twat.

And even if you're all like "This shot is awesome. I'm awesome" when your shot *is* really awesome, you'll still look like a bit of a dick.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
Canon S2 IS for $199.
>> Anonymous
>>51358
Actually, I'd suggest the S3IS for $300 flat. Or any superzoom. Having shot with the S3IS and the Panasonic FZ-8, I think they're both great cameras, but the FZ-8 is better for the same price for slightly better handling, more megapixels, and RAW mode.

If you're willing to spring a little bit of extra cash, you could pick up an FZ-50: a superzoom that is exactly like a DSLR except smaller, lighter, quieter, and unfortunately without interchangeable lenses.
>> Anonymous
/r/ a link to huge.jpg
>> ac
>>51364
>a superzoom that is exactly like a DSLR except smaller, lighter, quieter, and unfortunately without interchangeable lenses.
Also lacks:
* DSLR quality sensor (high ISO with heavy noise reduction is not the same as a high ISO with low noise)
* DSLR size sensor (Oh, I'm sorry, did you want to manipulate your depth of field? TOO BAD!)
* DSLR speed (if you can measure the shutter lag, you're gonna miss shots with it. Ditto for the start-up time. Maximum rate of fire is more forgivable to have at all, but 1.4 seconds between shots is still ass)
* Real optical TTL viewfinder. This is a personal thing, and I used to be all "LCDs are just as good", but then I actually *used* a real optical TTL viewfinder on an SLR and I can't stand to go back.
>> Anonymous
>>51364

...
>> Anonymous
>>51373
>DSLR quality sensor (high ISO with heavy noise reduction is not the same as a high ISO with low noise)
>DSLR size sensor (Oh, I'm sorry, did you want to manipulate your depth of field? TOO BAD!)

I'm pretty sure the FZ-50 has a sensor comparable to a DSLR. Not 100%, since I've not shot with it, but it's a ten megapixel sensor. No one could be stupid enough to make a shitty sensor and bother to give it that many megapixels.

It is probably smaller, though.

>DSLR speed

I have not had any shutter lag problems with its smaller, simpler sibling, the FZ-8, while shooting extensively with it.

>Real optical TTL viewfinder.

I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer -good- (emphasis on the word good) EVFs over optical viewfinders. In addition to losing the reflex mirror, they let one see the exposure as it will turn out.

>did you want to manipulate your depth of field? TOO BAD!

Even if the FZ-50's sensor is smaller, this is possible on a superzoom. One must zoom all the way in and stand far back, but it's possible.

This is one of those situations, though, where both sides have an advantage: sure, it's harder to get a small depth of field, but it's much easier to get a large depth of field- better, say, for street photography and other things where one would have to prefocus. Tradeoff: noise and harder to have a small depth-of-field versus easier to have a large depth of field.
>> Anonymous
Think about portability. Camera doesn't matter if you can't bring it with you. If all you can use is a compact, then it really doesn't matter too much what you pick--they're all roughly the same. Canon is the safe choice, though Nikon is good too. Others are usually a bit less refined, but you'd be hard pressed to see much difference.

Super zooms, I'd recommend the Fujifilm FinePix S6000fd. I picked one up to play alongside my Canon 300D, to be used as a company camera in a remote office location. The viewfinder is useless (low res), but all around the camera works adequately in a large variety of conditions, especially low light. I love the ability of a wide angle and the flexibility to get decent pics at ISO 800. Virtually all P+S cameras short of a DLSR choke at ISO 400, even if they list a setting up to 1600+. Fujifilm (select models) is one of the few exceptions to this rule because of their unusual light sensor.

Pretty good buy at just around $300 these days--just pick up some rechargeable NI-MH batteries because it will eat non-photographic alkalines like candy.

Forget about SLRs with $350. If you must, stretch your budget and try to get a Nikon D40 with the kit lens. It's a great, responsive little camera that will last many years. The lenses probably decades. A Canon Digital Rebel XT is an alternate, though I don't really like less snappy operation. Has a bit better color range though, prevents light colors or dark colors going completely white or black. I'm unsure on other makes, but the lens and after market support for Canon and Nikon are huge.
>> Anonymous
>>51376

Review of the FZ-50
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

Notice the ISO 400+ performance is just as bad as most point and shoot cameras with small sensors.

Article on ISO it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/
>> Anonymous
>>51389
>high-resolution sensor
Actually, I don't pay attention to megapixels so long as it passes five or six or so.

>The problem was that I've got these glasses in front of my eyes which block the viewfinder a bit.
I thought the idea behind a diopter was that a diopter-adjusted viewfinder took the place of glasses.
>> Anonymous
>>51391
>And honestly, with interchangeable, focus and aperture ringed lenses. My ideal camera would be that
Sorry, I screwed up my sentence structure in an edit. You can tell what I mean, though.
>> ac
>>51392
>I thought the idea behind a diopter was that a diopter-adjusted viewfinder took the place of glasses.
See, occasionally (it's rare, but it happens) I need to stop looking through the viewfinder. So I still need to wear my glasses. My options then become:
1. Keep lifting my glasses out of the way every time I bring the camera up to my eye. Annoying, my glasses get smudged, takes up a crucial half second or so, etc.
2. Just look through the viewfinder with my glasses on. Accept that the glasses prevent me from getting the full coverage of my viewfinder. This is what I do.

Sometimes, when I really want to make sure of what I've got in my frame, or I'm taking a crapload of pictures without doing anything else that would require me to see things in focus, I'll take my glasses off. Otherwise, I just leave 'em on.
>> elf_man
>>51392
Hm. If my glasses' lenses weren't an expensive material, they would look like coke bottles. Diopter adjustments only take you so far.
>> ebc !!CrSG8WXPtZF
>>51377
>>51387

Pentax *istDL for $320 with kit lens.
you just have to shop around, but you can find an SLR on the cheap
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
Why is your current camera crappy?
>> Anonymous
>>51386

Noise is still noise, no matter how you try and cover it up with software solutions, or try and convince people it's not so bad.

Only way to see if it's acceptable is to shoot pictures yourself and look.

Check page 17 for comparison to a DSLR. Make sure to click on the pictures to see how it affects the overall picture. If you notice the grayscale bar, you'll see that not only is the Panasonic more noisy, it completely blacks out shadows earlier, leaving a poor dynamic range. It's very problematic for low light conditions, where things start to look like a 32 color *.gif.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page17.asp
>> Anonymous
Keep in mind the guys not american so prices will be different. That is if he's telling the truth. Shops hell out his pics tho, not bad at it either.

http://kummando.deviantart.com/
>> Anonymous
>>51357

Suppose. Although he could have just not used an adjective altogether.
>> just photoshop XD maethangel
     File :-(, x)
im the photoshop master, did this in two min.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:30 16:23:43Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1152Image Height450
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>51568

it still looks copypasta'd in. I'd rather see a photograph that looked naturally like that, or if it is majorly shopped i'd rather it look natural. Personal opinion and a bit of a pet peeve.
>> Anonymous
>>51568
just post something on your DA page about "sup /p/" or something
>> Anonymous
>>51568
Zoom + eraser tool ftw?