File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hello /p/

I've been throwing about the idea of getting one of those "fancy" cameras. I don't know crap about taking pictures but I feel I've taken a few good ones with my current point and shoot, Canon SD800 IS. I'll post a few examples.

I'm somewhat interested in learning, but would like to know a few things. Cont.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Most of my photos are taken outdoors in various weather conditions. Sunny, cloudy, rainy, or snowy. I am sure special gear is needed for rainy conditions and that's extra expense, so I can live without it.

I take pictures of my dog while outdoors, and of scenery. Most pictures are taken in the mountains, so I'd like to take long distance nice pictures.

But I'd also like to take pictures in forested areas where there's heavy shade, especially if it's cloudy and in the forest as my Canon SD800 Can't seem to shoot in there. Cont.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
There's often snow when I hike, but it's also often drylands, marshes, forests, lakes, rivers, and so on. My backpack is usually about 20-30 pounds for a 7-10 day hike, so I don't really want to add on TOO much weight, but it would be nice to be able to take some amazing pictures given I learn how to do so.

So I'd like a list of good camera base models, recommended leneses, but consider that too many lenses is more weight. I'd also very much prefer digital.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
As for my budget, I'm not entirely sure I'm pretty flexible. I wont buy it -now- but I can work towards saving up for it as I'd rather buy once and be done with it, so a flexible camera would be nice rather than a difficult camera that can only have certain lenses used only for certain situations.

I forgot to mention I also do photography on the beach as well. I would also like to be able to photograph animals from a distance, so a nice zoom would be good, as the one on mine can be decent at times, but usually turns out like shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I do indoor photography as well of my snakes, and I'd like to be able to take pictures of action shots if possible. I realize I'm asking for a lot, but I'm very flexible on the limitations of the camera and can sacrifice some things for other things.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is a shot I took of one of my snakes while indoors, I think it is nice.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:08:26 08:55:36Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1650Image Height1050
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Just showing a few more of the pictures I've taken and enjoyed, maybe you guys will like them, perhaps not, I don't know how good my eye is for these things and I'm sure you guys can give some criticism.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is the best picture I was able to take with the Canon SD800 in forested and cloudy conditions. The rest were terrible. Using flash made it look like it was nighttime.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
In the forest in light conditions it can look really nice, though.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is an example of my fustration with Canon SD800, I wish I could have captured this scene well.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is a different snake from>>106577

More pinkish and red, it was taken using macro. An example of an up close shot I'd like to take from a decent distance, not too keen on putting a camera in a snake's face.

This one was nice in concept, IMO, but the quality could have been much better. Still, it made a OK 4x6 picture, unlike most of what I've posted some of which I've framed in sizes between 8x10 to 18x24.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I hope someone out there enjoyed my contribution and I'm certain a lot of my error's are due to user error more than camera error, but a pointer down the right path would be helpful.

The Canon SD800 is handy as it's light, easy to carry around, and generally all-purpose for my hiking but there are a lot of times I'm frustrated with what I perceive to be it's limitations.

Thank you for your time.
>> Anonymous
/p/ is not your photo gallery. We do not need an exhibit with all your favourite 11 pictures. Your question is weak at best.

>..."fancy cameras"
Get a Holga.

>I'm somewhat interested in learning, but would like to know a few things.

Just use extrem shutter speed.
>> Anonymous
>>106588

Make that 12, you posted an image while I was busy pulling my hair out at this thread.

Again, I don't even get what you're asking, this is just a photo dump.
>> Anonymous
>>106589

A quick scan through had a lot of complaints about people not being specific in what they want to accomplish so I wanted to show examples of the type of photography I usually take in order to get a good recommendation on a camera given my habits.

If I was overboard then my bad.
>> Vincent
Your shots are quite decent, in fact I think they are pretty good.

You look like you like the wide angle end, So make sure any camera / lens combination you look at has a good wide end available.

Say a Nikon DSLR with an 18-70, would be even wider than the widest you are used to on your 800 IS, (Or Canon of course)

Depends on what you plan on spending, $700 will get you a good all around lens and a lightly used DSLR body.


But truthfully for your outdoor pics, it doesn't look like you are too limited with what you have. Indoors is a different story, so the indoor pet pics I can see you warranting an upgrade.
>> Anonymous
>>106592

Your only error was trying to get something useful from this board...

Post this content on the Luminous-landscapes forums, and you'll get quite a few interesting and well thought out responses. Better yet read them, and find what you need to know.

You've got the following...

small and light, weatherproof, and works in low light for long hikes in shade and cloudy days, for landscapes... with some indoor photography of slow moving animals. You want some zoom reach too.

It would help if you had a budget in mind. You want to buy it and be done with it. Sort of an all in one package.

If you want to spend from $700 to infinity, I'd suggest you buy a DSLR. Pentax k10d may be a good option, as its weather sealed...

If you want to spend something more reasonable like $300, I'd suggest you look at the Canon S3is (the discontined one). A powershot with a long zoom range, and its relatively light...

You might also take a look at what cool things you can do with the CHDK firmware mod on one of those Canon S3is (not the S5is) if you were interested.

http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/tag/chdk/

Truthfully, most of your frustrations with your present cam aren't going to be completely fixed by a 'fancy' camera.

The sunset and landscape pic you have posted require a technique like HDR photography, or at least a composite image, using a tool like photoshop.

You could seriously benefit from a camera with manual controls (set your own aperature, ISO, and shutter speed), some simple tripod like an Ultrapod II (which is great for hiking) or a gorillapod... or even a monopod/hiking pole.

Low light indoor photography is a pain. Spend $100 on lighting, rather than $500 on lenses and bullshit.

Just my opinions. There are probably much better answers to be found elsewhere.
>> Anonymous
Go here...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/

Great pictures! Thanks for posting them!
>> Anonymous
>The sunset and landscape pic you have posted require a technique like HDR photography, or at least a composite image, using a tool like photoshop.

Or you could just change your aperture until the colors of the sunset come out. Leaving sunsets underexposed, even if just by one f-stop, can bring out the richness of colors in the sky.

Why waste time making a composite or photoshopped image?
>> Anonymous
>>106670

Yeah sometimes that works, but often the scene has more of a dynamic range than the camera can capture.

Its pretty quick to do nowadays. Like 15 seconds total.
>> Anonymous
Thanks everyone, I will check out the forums. I picked up a copy of Outdoor Photography a week ago and am still figuring out all the photography terms and what they mean. Reading the forums should help with that.

As for my budget I should have been a little more clear. I was expecting to pay in excess of $1000 and where that ends, I'm flexible. If I could get a nice base model, and a nice all around lens to get my foot through the door so to speak, and work towards getting other lenses you guys recommend, that was going to work for me.

Like say you recommend a base model and a lens for $1000, and recommended 4 lenses that are $500 each, I could buy the base, then pay for the lens as I get the money.

But it seems you guys vouch for the forums a lot, so I will ask for some advice there.

As for my photos, you're right when the picture is taken from a reasonable distance (like the OP picture, up to maybe>>106574picture, it can look nice.

But most of my long distance mountain shots look like crap and are blurry or "flat" looking. That's where my concern was.

Thanks for the advice.
>> Anonymous
Where exactly do you live? It's very pretty. Your dog is a badass, btw.
>> Anonymous
>>106737

Bay area CA but I hike everywhere.
>> Anonymous
I'll add my two cents since you do seem to be genuinely interested, I actually thought the post was going to be a huge troll.

Buy a Canon Digital Rebel XT or XTi (or Nikon D40, all around pretty good but it can't auto-focus with a lot of lenses. . Nikon's way of forcing you to pay more in the long run).

The XT is Canon's current bottom of the line DSLR, and they just dropped the price to an excellent $400 for the body only new (don't get a kit, the kit lens sucks terribly). This is a great starting point because it gives you a good $600 wiggle for two good lenses you won't ever replace.

When you read the name of a lens, it contains two numbers, such as "50mm 1.4." (If it's a zoom, then obviously it'll be more like 18-55/ 3-5.5.6). The first number is your focal length, second number is the lowest possible f-stop, which is how much light you can get in, basically.

Different people look for different things in lenses, personally, I think the f-stop is the most important. If you want to take your indoor shots, or just get nice shots of your dog on those cloudy/overcast days, or just any time in the evening outside, you need the lowest f-stop possible (lower is better). I'd always give priority to f-stop over focal length; your feet can walk you forward or backward (in MOST situations), but you can't magically make more light, in any situation. If one lens looks so much more useful than another for the same price, the seemingly more expensive one has a lower f-stop, that's why.
>> Anonymous
>>107005
All that being said, I'd vote for:

a 50mm / 1.4 lens as your primary. 50s always have and always will be the sweet spot for an always-on lens. I don't know squat about making lenses, but at any given price point your f-stop will always be lower (better) on a 50 than a 35, or an 85, or whatever else. The 50/ 1.4 goes for $300. It will get you the best indoor shots you can take. It also has great depth of field, meaning no 'flat' pictures. Focus on your snake's face and his body is ZOMG TIME TRAVEL blurry and cool.

Use the remaining 300 to get a 24mm/ 2.8. It's only 290, it's not ultra-wide but it's fairly wide, and the f-stop is good.

This trio will give you a solid body for what you want to spend, a good wide-angle for fitting a lot into a shot (when the lighting is good - but this particular wide angle won't need GREAT lighting like some others would), and above all a fantastic medium- length lens that can take photos in nearly any lighting you want. This just leaves you needing a telephoto but it can wait, the starting price isn't doable for three lenses.

for the same 600 as those two lenses, you could get a zoom that covers the same range, but it won't save you any weight (fixed-length lenses are smaller and lighter, yet of better quality usually), and their light performance is poorer. . the way I see it you kind of limit yourself more but using a lens that seems more useful.

Whatever. My two cents.
>> Anonymous
>>107005
Yea typo. 18-55 / 3.5-5.6*.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>107006
>50s always have and always will be the sweet spot for an always-on lens.
Well that's just not true. "Have" yes, "always will be" no. They were the sweet spot in the 35mm film era and might be the sweet spot in some theoretical full-frame digital future, but 50mm with a 1.6x crop is not what you want for your primary lens.

Also, he seems to do mostly outdoor photography in pretty good light, which means the 18-55 kit lens wouldn't be a big problem for him. Although it doesn't really make sense to get the 18-55 II now that the 18-55 IS is out and awesome.

So yeah, I'd recommend the XT + 50mm f/1.8 (for low light indoors work) + 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS (for outdoor wide work, and situations where you need image stabilization rather than a wide aperture--in a lot of cases, it'll keep you from needing a tripod in lower light outdoors where the 50mm with the wider aperture wouldn't work) + the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS (which I don't currently have any real experience with, but which is my next planned lens purchase)
>> pscaught !!qifqbrqZZcu
>>107045
Sorry, I didn't mean focal length only, but that at 50mm you seem to get 'more aperture for your money' than other focal length lenses. That HAS always been the way and I don't see it changing.

For focal length though, yea, pain in the but on croppy cameras.
>> pskaught !!qifqbrqZZKu
>>107046
who says "croppy cameras" and misspells "butt" at the same time?
>> pscaught !!qifqbrqZZcu
>>107047
We do, I guess.
Yesss, weee doo. .

sss.
>> pskaught !!qifqbrqZZKu
btw, love the first two pictures. really nice, but no exif blah blah blah.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Before you buy a camera, you need to spend time learning how to take the kinds of pictures you want. Spend some time at the library, or bookstore. Start reading now. You aren't going to get better results out of a fancy camera.

You will probably get worse results at first... work to figure out how to get better results, and then realize the limitations of what you bought... cry, and have to buy it all over again... because its not what you needed>

Many people here are recommending you buy all this camera crap, and you are going to end up having to buy the bag shown to put it in, and keep it cushioned, dry, and dirt free.

You REALLY need to answer your questions about how to take the pic you want, before trying to decide what to take them with...

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:12:29 07:59:32White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time2 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.1Exposure Bias-1.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length47.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
You want indoor action shots,
You want telephoto animal photography,
You want landscapes and nature, and macro.

You want to be able to do it in the rain, and the shade. Want it rugged and weatherproof...

Its expensive and heavy if you go the DSLR route.

You'll be happier with something like a Panasonic dmc-fz50, Sony DSC-H3, or Powershot S5IS. Buy a waterproof case for weatherproofing. No dust or dirt in lenses cause you have to change them. Much smaller and lighter. Image quality is just as good at low ISO.

Learn to use the camera, and you'll see you don't need 10lbs and $1000s of dollars worth of equipment.

BTW, these photos are among the best I've seen on here... and from people with alot more expensive equipment.

Good luck
>> Anonymous
Ok first, a lot of awesome information since I last posted. Especially the explanation of lens numbering system, I have a basic understanding of what they mean now so some things make more sense.

Also all very good advice. I've been reading here and there about photography, the Outdoor Photography magazine I picked up caters to the more experienced people it appears. So I am going to need to learn more basics.

Any book or online source recommendations for learning?

>>107060

One thing to consider is that I generally will know the weather and conditions I will be shooting photos in before I go out. When I know I'm going into the forest, or that it will be cloudy and raining a lot, I can pack for that, and bring my point and shoot for sunny days.

But if I know it's going to be good weather, I can leave the stuff for cloudy or poor light conditions home. I also won't be taking too many action shots while backpacking.

Usually, I will plan to backpack to either see nature or see animals. So If I went out looking for animals (I track Mountain Lions, Grizzlies, Black Bears, Coyotes, Foxes, Wolves, and so on), I would bring a high zoom lens with (if I understand correctly) a fast shutter.

I've never been able to get a good shot of animals because I'm at least not stupid enough to get too close. I get a good distance, put on bionculars, take a photo "proof" that I saw them, and take off before they feel I've been trepassing too long.

So basically I can just plan what I bring in accordance to what my purpose of the trip is to keep the load light.

So I'm OK with tackling things one problem at a time. Like say start with a body and a low f-stop to tackle my camera's biggest weakness - low light conditions. And work from there.

Thanks for the recommendation. Waiting for Luminous Landscapes to accept my registration still.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>I would bring a high zoom lens with (if I understand correctly) a fast shutter.
Wide aperture, not fast shutter. We refer to lenses with a wide aperture as "fast" because the wide aperture allows for a faster shutter speed, not because the shutter's in the lens. The shutter is actually in the camera body, so its maximum speed is a function of the camera you've bought rather than the lens.

(In b4 someone tries to correct me by irrelevantly pointing out leaf shutter cameras)

The aperture is a ratio of the circumference of the lens to the focal length, so it's difficult to make a large-aperture telephoto lens. That's why the big expensive telephoto lenses are so huge--wide aperture means the front element has to be much larger. A 300mm f/2.8 is really massive compared to a 300mm f/5.6.

So any telephoto you get won't be all that fast unless you're willing to drop some serious coin and carry around a seriously heavy lens. But digital SLRs have usable ISO speeds that are 2 to 3 times faster than the average P&S, so that mitigates that somewhat.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>107185
EXAMPLES:
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM: $550, 630g (~1.3lb)
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM: $3900, 2550g (~5.6lb)

I'd recommend going with the 70-300. Your shutter speed will have to be a fourth of what you can get with the big one, but you save $3350 and 4.3 pounds.
>> Anonymous
>>107186

Whoops. Ok, wider aperture. All makes sense. Thinking about it some more it's not like it's THAT neccessary to be able to catch the animals in movement. The only thing that would be worthwhile is if I was trying to take a picture of a bird in mid-flight, but otherwise stills of an animal standing, sitting or otherwise pausing for a few seconds (and they usually do pause for a while when they know I'm around) would make for some good shots.

Thanks for the information.
>> Anonymous
>>107182
I can suggest a couple of things. Get a Nikon D300, either a wide prime or an ultra wide angle for nature shots, a normal prime for general use lens, and a 70-200 with a teleconverter.

These will blow your budget really, but they have their benefits. The D300 is one sturdy and solid camera, and you'd have weather sealing, and has good low light high ISO performance.

The wide prime or your ultra wide angle lens is for your nature shots. Better couple this with a nice small tripod, even a mini tripod would do wonders to your shot.

The 70-200 is one great lens, and when coupled with a good teleconverter it should increase your reach without lugging a much heavier lens, without much loss in optical quality.

The normal prime is pretty self explanatory.

The great thing about having a solid and sturdy camera and lenses is that you can be sure they won't die out in the wilderness, and you can just pack em with bubble wrap along with your clothes so you won't need an extra camera bag.
>> Anonymous
>>107194

$1800 for the body, $1500 for the lens. Yeesh. This stuff can get expensive fast. I found www.dpreview.com so I'll see about comparision shots to see if it's worth it.
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%2270-200mm%20f%2F2.8G%22%20D300&w=all
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Remember that big ass lens is gonna be a pain to carry, and require a heavy duty tripod to use. You are looking at 10lbs of gear.

You will need another backpack. Pic related.
>> Anonymous
>>107399

It's not so bad. My backpack is like 15-20 pounds on a weeklong trip including food and water.

Dog carries own food and water. So I'd only need to carry 30 pounds. Extra weight but may be worth it. Don't know. I'll research some more.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>107895
15-20lbs... I see we have an ultra-light weight backpacking enthusiast with us. (base weight something like 5lbs w/out food/h20 then for week long trip?)

>>107182
I get all your stuff when you finally die from tracking grizzlies.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:26 13:25:12Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height750
>> Anonymous
>>107911

Ha. With grizzlies I'm a pansy. I try to get close but the second I get a goosebump, even if I haven't seen it yet, time to GTFO.

A 7day trip would probably have about 1lb of food per day of nuts and dried fruits. Not ideal, but it works for me. Load gets MUCH higher if I am going more than 7 days without a checkpoint. That's rare, though, as I cover about 20 to 30 miles a day. Hard to go 140 to 210 miles without at least one checkpoint.

Also, Ollie can carry 20LB, and he usually gets 5lb of water no matter what (I can endure better without water than he can), not sure how much food he carries, and some of my stuff sometimes if I want to bring extra, but usually I work by he carries his own shit (boots [dont knock them, they are useful], his paw sealant, his food and water, 50' leash tie out).

It really depends on where we go. Winter, though, fuck that ultralight shit. 100 pound bags.