File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
This is my camera: the Canon Powershot S50.

My question is this: I'm looking into getting into photography more, and I'm wondering if this'll be enough for me to get more serious about it. If so, what resources can you refer me to to learn the basics of photography?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S2 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size6.00 - 72.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution192 dpiVertical Resolution192 dpiImage Created2006:02:02 21:29:24Exposure Time0.6 secF-Numberf/2.7Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width927Image Height768RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeProgramFocus TypeClose-Up (Macro Mode)Metering ModeCenter-WeightedISO Speed Rating50SharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOnCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeMacroSubject Distance0.190 mFlash Bias-1.00 EVWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number104-0479
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
No and google.
>> Anonymous
Yes and library.
>> Anonymous
S50 is slow as hell and it's hard to shoot anything because of the slow lcd and useless optical viewfinder. The controls also leave a lot to be desired. It was OK 4 years ago, not now. Nearly every new camera beats S50. Of course S50 works for taking snapshots, but not much else.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
buy Nikon D-40. It's a good camera to start with if you whant to get serious
>> Anonymous
>>54469
any recommendation for starter nikon lenses? (besides the kit ones)
>> Anonymous
>>54471
50mm f/1.8 AF-D
>> Anonymous
D40's kit lens is good. Shoot with it for some time and then look what you need and have money for.
>> Anonymous
I took a look around and my gaze fell upon the Canon EOS 350D. I know it's made, in some way, for the masses, but I think it should suffice to give me decent shooting pleasure at a reasonable price, right?

Also, what's the real difference between the 350D and the 400D? Is the 400D better just 'cause it's newer? What are the going opinions on this?
>> Anonymous
>>54504
I'm in roughly the same situation (same camera, beats some newer ones from other brands imo). The 400D has a couple of extra megapixels and a bigger LCD (which replaces the dedicated status LCD) as well as a bigger image buffer (so you can shoot continously for longer), that's about it. It really depends if those are worth the difference between the price of the 350D (if you can still find one, try eBay) and the 400D to you.
>> Anonymous
>>54504
Go for the D40.

Roughly the same price as the 350D and better in a lot of ways.
Don't fool yourself with MP's, they're just a myth and mean nothing unless you want to print out REALLY large pictures.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos350d%2Cnikon
_d40&show=all

Read that and the reviews made by the users and you'll see why the D40 is a better choice.

Nikon D40 is the right choice.
>> Anonymous
Of course megapixels matter, if you crop. With more pixels you can crop more.
>> Anonymous
>>54508
It's not that important in the bigger scheme.
>> Anonymous
>>54513
qft
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>54472
It's a nice lens. The AF-D version is made in China, though, and it's lower quality than it's predecessor.

Pic somewhat related- the Noctilux oh god I want one.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>54521
Where's your Noctilux now?
>> Anonymous
>>54472
50mm f/1.8 AF-D won't autofocus on the D40.
>> Anonymous
its not so much the image quality that bugs me with digital its the colors, rather the lack of and how they tend to be wrong.

still i think digital is the way to go. what we have now is very good, in ten years it should be fucking fantastic.
>> Anonymous
>>54532
You're right. I forgot the D40 was crippled in that regard. I really don't think it's too much of a problem though.
>> Anonymous
>>54537
Manual focusing at f/1.8 isn't always convenient and accurate, especially with D40's not-so-big viewfinder. So it most likely will be quite of a problem for a beginner.
However, I don't think a 50/1.8 is so essential, I'm mostly with>>54502on this matter.
>> Anonymous
>>54536
1. Get a camera that can shoot in RAW mode.
2. Adjust white balance and colors to your liking in Photoshop.
3. ??????
4. PROFIT!
>> Anonymous
>>54538
I'm personally against learning photography with anything but a prime lens. With a prime lens you're forced to do some footwork to find the best way to compose a shot, and you can't selectively exclude details by zooming in on the subject matter. This really encourages more rapid development of a good eye for photos. I agree that with the D40, starting out with a 50mm f/1.8 is probably not a good idea though. My bad.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54504
The 400D is a bit easier to use, as I understand it. I own a 400D (well, XTi. Yay America!) but have never really used a 350D, so this is just what I've read about 'em:

On the 350D, to change something like ISO, you have to hit the ISO button, go to the ISO you want, and then hit 'set'. With the 400D, you hit the ISO button, go to the ISO you want, and then continue shooting. The 350D has an extra button that you need to deal with each time you change something other than aperture and shutter speed.

Also, the 400D has a deeper buffer, which means you'll pretty much never hit a buffer flush when shooting JPEGs unless you're just flat out holding down the button for a minute. And I believe it has a faster rate of fire, too, but I'm too lazy to look that up.

These are the main reasons I'm glad I went with the XTi. That and, of course, the fact that moar megapixels = better photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>54538
Then step down and shoot at a lower aperture, and only use the f/1.8 capability when really needed.

It'll be a 50mm f/1.8, but he could use it like a 50mm 4/[insert smallest apertuer available on the lens in question, since I've never used it.)

>>54521
Do you has a Leica?

If not, the Noctilux would be useless. If you do has a Leica, please post results.

But yes, I think everyone on this board would like a Leica and a Noctilux.

>>54531
Info, plox, although I'd be surprised if it's optically as good as the Noctilux. I know of at least one faster lens that has been made, but I hear it is a horrible piece of glass.
>> Anonymous
>>54539

doesnt work like that im afraid. its the bayer sensor technology thats limiting.
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
>>54452
To get somewhat serious while still learning basics isn't that well of a idea. I could recommend the Canon Powershot A6x00 series or A710IS [200 to 300 dollar price range], due to the manual controls on it [lense, shutter speed, ect. Especially A710IS for the flash controls on it] or even recommend the S3IS [300 or so dollars] if you wanna start trying out dSRLs [more closer to Profession Types].
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>54550
"Rekord-4" 52mm/f0.9, made in the USSR in the late 60s. Fits Kiev rangefinder bodies and probably pre-war Contax bodies (from which the Kiev rangefinders were copied). Also, there was a similar 35/f0.9 lens called "Rekord-5".

I have no info on the optical quality; only a small number of these were made. Generally, the more expensive Soviet lenses of that era were very good optically-wise, but rarely on the Leica level.
>> Anonymous
>>54552
Well, then get a Sigma if you're so picky.
>> Anonymous
>>54452
With any camera you can only be as serious as your determination.
>> Anonymous
>>54611

do you own a sigma? can you give us details? im very interested and they seem to be at a low price for what they offer.

anyone on /p/ have one?

the foveon sensor is at least a start to changing things untill they roll out larger, better sensors insted of the cripple ware crap we are being fed.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54685
I've heard very bad things about them.

Never actually used (or, for that matter, seen) one myself, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
>> Anonymous
>>54685
I don't own a Sigma. I considered buying a SD10 at one point, but after taking a few shots in the shop concluded that it was ridiculously expensive for a xbox huge camera that produced a mess of pixels instead of images at ISO 1600. Also, lenses for Sigma mount are kinda hard to get (why don't they use a standard mount like K or 4/3 if they already have the license?) I dunno if the new SD14 is better.
>> Anonymous
1. Sigma doesn't work.
2. If you think your Sigma works, check section 1.
>> Anonymous
>>54696
One more thing, the SD10 was advertised as 10MP, but in reality it shoots 3.2MP images. Images sharper and much more detailed than images from any other 3 megapixel camera, but they're still 3.2MP. Also, I hadn't found a way to make it shoot JPEG or RAW+JPEG (it always seemed to shoot RAW by the number of shots remaining), but that might be due to me failing to use the menus.
>> Anonymous
Was it a Sigma camera that required 2 types of batteries (one lithium, like in film cameras, and some AAs IIRC) to operate?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54698
Nope. The original Sigmas were raw-only.

>>54699
Yep.

Both of these claim to have been fixed in the new model, but I'm not sure if that's actually shipping yet...
>> Anonymous
>>54699
The SD10 that I tried shooting with required only AA-type rechargeables. Which is a huge plus IMO because proprietary lithium-ion bricks for other DSLRs cost a lot and have a nasty habit of dying in cold weather.
>> bw !ef8V18P/FY
>>54701
Shooting in cold weather is easy if you have 2 batteries and a warm pocket. Swap batteries when one starts getting low, and as it warms it'll recover. I do this all the time in -25C Canadian winters. I can shoot all day doing this. No permanent harm comes to the batteries either.
>> Anonymous
>>54700

>>I've heard very bad things about them

this is the thing, i cant find a review for the sd14 anywhere thats in any detail.its on sale now in the uk. the photos on the sd14 site look amazing but i wouldnt trust their site alone.

ive heard very good things about the colors that the camera produces. apparently the foveon sensor cant really be judged in megapixles as its not the same technologhy as the bayer sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>54871

here are some examples you may like, remember they are from the sd14 site so i take them with a pinch of salt...do canon and nikon offer sample images as sigma have?

http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/portrait/img/sd14-po-005.jpg
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/portrait/img/sd14-po-004.jpg
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/still-life/img/sd14-sl-007.jpg

two portraits and a marco butterfly