File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hello /p/
Im getting ready to start photography class's and was wondering if this would be a good camera to start with "seeing as im using a HP M305 3.2mp right now i need the upgrade!" http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-S
tart?ProductSKU=DSLRA100K&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalSLRCameras_BodyandKits
it uses duo stick so i like that i can look at my photos on my psp as well a thing i like.
So is it worth the $800 price tag? or is there something better you would recommend to me
>> Anonymous
>>38071
> something better you would recommend
Nikon or Canon.

http://dpreview.com/
http://www.dcresource.com/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
well i got a canon slr recently, and i love it. i would sugest the rebel xti. its great. and if you go to http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ you can find it for about 800.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:02:04 10:41:30RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time0.4 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length53.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height750
>> Anonymous
The alpha licks balls for high ISO noise
get a Digital Rebel XT or XTI (if you want canon)
A D50, D40 or D80 if you want Nikon.

You can get used XT's and D50's for about 350$ right now aswell, Its the lenses that will cost you anyway. so start off with a cheap body and find out what you need in a camera.
>> ac
Additionally, when playing with it in the store, the Alpha felt slow as molasses to me compared to my Rebel XTi. Also, Canon and Nikon both have a much broader selection of lenses.

If price is really that much of an issue, you can get a Nikon D40 for less than the A100. Only 6MP instead of 10MP, but [INSERT STANDARD MEGAPIXEL-MYTH RANT HERE]
>> Anonymous
>>38082
i hate the megapixel debate. i'm so sick of people claiming that more megapixels is not necessarily better like it takes some sort of camera guru to figure out that if your crappy lens is focusing the light poorly onto your crappy sensor then more megapixels means just more useless data and a bigger crappy picture.

all other things equal, more megapixels = better.
>> Anonymous
>>38084
But not all things are equal when bumping up the megapixels...
More sensors packed into the same space creates worse noise for one, also slower FPS is usually a drawback, theres many other drawbacks, but those are generally the 2

Larger sensor sizes is what you should look for really. Canon's 5D is uber expensive, but Canon and Nikon's 1.6x and 1.5x crop are decent enough.
>> Ruskie
     File :-(, x)
A challenger appears.

K10D \o/

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareGIMPMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:09:14 18:53:02Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/20.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/20.0Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width6144Image Height4096RenderingNormalExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>38091
funny how the Canon 5d was used to take this pic
>> Anonymous
>>38089
thankfully none of this will matter in a few years. when noise is virtually eliminated because sensors dont cost as much and everyone can afford 20 megapixel cams with lightning fast processors, all ppl will be talking about is lenses and battery usage.
>> Anonymous
If you want quality, use film. If you want more quality, use medium format. Money spent on an expensive medium format is much better spent than on digital.
>> Anonymous
>>38102
Dynamic Range is the next big hurdle in digital after noise.
>> Anonymous
that is a sexy camera, bu i myself am making a 4x5 bender.

also, buying a nice d40.
>> Anonymous
>>38104
dear film guy;

film cam:digital cam :: vinyl:digital music.

film will simply be an obsolete dinosaur in a few years' time, used and appreciated only by purists (read: not professionals). Digital is good enough for publication, indistinguishable from film in the layman's eye, and far more convenient.
>> Anonymous
A Canon 400D or Nikon D40 are better alternatives. Much better quality at a decent price :)
>> Anonymous
ok well from what ive heard it seems im better off buying a cannon rebel, compaired to sonys'.
Well, since the rebel is the same price i will stick with it, thanks for the information was a real help in deciding what i needed.
>> Ruskie
>>38095
Why is that funny?
>> Anonymous
>>38091

Agreed. Spend your money on this instead. The Sony ain't bad btw. Anything with built in IS = win.
>> Anonymous
>>38107
Dear Digital Photographer:

If you actually paid attention to quality, you would notice that digital gives too much grain to print larger than 11x14 most of the time. Small works can look nice, even beautiful, but film will not be obsolete when people realize it's true quality. Digital will not reach the quality of medium format in several several years, that is, if it ever can.
So pick up a film camera, they're better in the long run and you feel more attached to a photo when you get something good.
>> Anonymous
Nikons are better quality, I believe. Check out e-bay if you really really want a digital camera. Or you can buy a 13 $ Holga for medium format. Your choice.
>> ac
>>38147
Grain? The issue with large prints from digital is resolution, not grain. And that's really not as big an issue as you seem to think--the 16x20 I've got hanging in my hallway interpolated from a 5 megapixel digital picture looks perfectly fine (other than, you know, being a fucking sunset. But I was just starting out, so gimme a break). Yeah, if you want to be able to count the nose hairs on a person 200 feet away, get yourself a medium or large-format camera, but good digital SLR will get you just about equal quality to a 35mm film camera when you take into account the other factors that effect image quality--notably, noise at high ISO is less than film grain at high ISO, and digital shots don't have to deal with dust and scratches on the negatives (dust on a sensor is an issue, but most modern cameras have ways to deal with that).

Additionally, there's the cost issue. Digital costs more--but only up front. There is zero incremental cost. Those rolls of film and developing add up, especially when you're talking medium or large-format, even when you do your own developing. This is especially true with someone who's just starting out learning the ins and outs of photography, like the OP, who will have to take a *lot* of shitty photos before he or she starts to figure out what makes a photo look good, but even a seasoned pro could benefit from being able to take 1000 pictures of something until he's sure that everything's 100% perfect in the shot.

It all boils down to this: The picture you take with a digital camera is always going to be a hell of a lot better than the picture you don't take with a film camera because you were afraid of wasting a frame of film, or didn't want to lug your big-ass medium or large format camera around with you.
>> Anonymous
>>38147
therein lies the problem. I love film and i totally feel you on the quality issue, but PEOPLE don't. you and i know the difference between analog and digital. analog -- music, video, picture, whatever -- is an impression of whatever's being recorded, and digital is only a representation. you can never get the same quality with digital as you can with analog, you can only get closer and closer. what i'm saying is that we are already close enough that 95% of people don't notice or care, and in a few years it'll be more like 99% and then some. there's never, ever going to be a big backwards migration to film. the only people who will use film in a few years will be purists like you.

for similar examples please look at what happened to LPs and tapes when CDs came along and vhs --> DVD.
>> Cancer that's killing /p/ etc. des
>>38158
yes, it's only you, the other guy and everyone else are philestines. Choose what you like for the art or what's going to MAKE YOU MONEY for the job. If art is your job, choose what you like. There isn't some vast fuck conspiracy against film nor for digital-sources. Damn.

>>for similar examples please look at what happened to LPs and tapes when CDs came along
LPs and casette tapes are horrible compared to pretty much anything else. I like listening to vinyl, but to claim it's more accurate than CD or ever reel tape is ridiculous. The big problem people (read: audiophiles) had with CDs, without realising it, is that in the early days of CDs, they were mastered shittily because people weren't used to it. Same thing with early DVD surround mixes, some of them are amazingly poor.
>>and vhs --> DVD
Find me a VHS purist, please, it would brighten my week. I think you mean LD -> DVD. LD IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S ANALOGUE ZOOMJ
>> ac
>>38158
You realize that film doesn't have infinite resolution, right? There's a point where you've got individual film grains. Additionally, just like digital sensors, film has a limited exposure range (although, granted, it's a bit wider for film).

The fact of the matter is, 35mm film only offers a theoretical resolution advantage if you have a really good lens, really fine grained (i.e., slow) film, and everything in the photo stays nice and still for you. Medium and large format still have a clear advantage, and likely will for some time to come (although I know of at least one site that has some strong arguments against MF vs a 12MP digital), but your "film is always better" argument is just as wrong as a "digital is always better" argument.
>> ac
>>38169
Not to mention that vinyl gets a little bit worse every time you listen to it (unless you spend $10K on a laser turntable--and the only one of those I know of achieves its laser-turntabling by use of an ADC, which means you're getting digitized music just like a CD), whereas a CD sounds just as good with each and every play.
>> Anonymous
i know that i have nothing to gain by continuing this conversation, but i am drawn to it inexorably. internet arguments are so magnetic.

anyway guys the main message i'm communicating is that digital sources and formats are overtaking analog in all areas of technology and that it's a bad idea to reccommend to a newbie to learn to use what is basically an obsolete format in a world that has less and less use for it.

i guess also there's some stuff i didnt know about film and i talked ahead of myself. just saying that analog generally is purer than digital because it's an impression whereas digital is only a representation. like in sound, the waves are recorded as they occur in real life and play back the same way under ideal conditions, but in digital, the sound wave is represented by measurements that can never as accurately recreate the wave. i just sort of transplanted that idea to other analog v digital situations i guess.
>> rollin, looking for the one they call eazy des
     File :-(, x)
>>38173
>>...that it's a bad idea to reccommend to a newbie to learn to use what is basically an obsolete format in a world that has less and less use for it.

I don't agree. Anyone who has more than a passing interest in photography should at least have a basic grasp of understanding for exposing, developing and printing black and white film. At the very, very least, consistantly properly exposed slide film. These things will help them no matter what path they end up walking upon. There's a reason schools still have people start with a manual capable camera and a roll of Tri-X. (well, probably more tmax these days)

I will agree that telling someone to get a film camera if they specifically say they only want a digital is a bad idea. It's just shitting in their thread and fagging up /p/. Sort of like this thread.
OP, talk to your teacher and ask what they would suggest. If it's a course regarding mostly composition or photoshoopdawoop, it probably doesn't matter.
clowns, lol.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2007:03:20 16:08:26Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating250Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashImage Width700Image Height559
>> budn3kkid !Cm70.WCjAw
>>38109
Canon 400D i may agree, but Nikon's D40/D40X should be shot to hell... AF-S lens ONLY?!
Give'em at least a D80... it's roughly in the similar price-range as the 400D WITH the similar uninhibited lens options (for their respective manufacturers).
>> Anonymous
Digital graphic artists nowadays must first learn how to do cave paintings.
>> Anonymous
>>38189
IF you can afford all the quality AF-S lenses out there the D40 isn't really that limiting

Funny enough its more limiting for people with a lower budget. Can't AF with the ever popular 50mm f1.4/f1.8 etc
>> ac
>>38256
I'm guessing that Nikon's gonna start coming out with more AF-S lenses now that they're apparently moving away from the motor-in-camera way of doing things.
>> Anonymous
>>38248
lolinorite

at what point does the 'old' way -- of ANYthing -- become antiquated? it varies person to person. I imagine that i'll never use a film camera in my life. never have before, will never need to.