File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, I'm thinking of getting into photography. It seems like a really cool hobby and I'd like to give it a go. I haven't really taken any pictures outside of going on a vacation and things of that nature with a point and shoot camera (I use a 5MP Sony camera - DSC-W1 or something like that) but once I do obtain a good enough camera, I can imagine I'd be playing around with it quite a bit. So anyways, I don't know a thing about what cameras are good and which aren't.

I hear the XTI or whatever is pretty decent but again, I don't have any actual knowledge on these things. I would actually prefer for the camera to be able to do videos, as well. I dunno if it's uncommon in good digital cameras or what, but it'd be nice to have this option. So yeah, any advice'd be appreciated.

Pic is related as it's something I took myself with the aforementioned Sony camera (albeit resized by quite a bit).
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-W1Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:07:23 11:07:00RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length9.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1944Image Height2592
>> Anonymous
SLRs cannot do video.

Google/wiki around.
>> des
>>45397
Fuji seems to make the best digis for video and I think they're over their xD aids and are adding sd or cf cards to most cameras as well as or instead of xD.
The S9600 looks really nice and would probably do you well
in b4 get an slr
>> ac
>>45398
That's actually not as obvious as you might think for people who don't really understand how SLRs work. I didn't realize it until I'd been lusting after digital SLRs for quite a while. I had just assumed that the reason they wouldn't show me a preview on the LCD when I was in the store playing with 'em was because there was a setting screwed up somewhere.

(I like to think I've come a long way since then...)

>>45397
Yeah, if you want a camera that can do video, steer clear of the SLRs. For the most part, their design fundamentally precludes video. And for those whose design doesn't fundamentally preclude it, I'm pretty sure they just don't do it.

I'd recommend something like the Canon S3IS.
>> Anonymous
>>45414
The S3IS is win, but I had to replace mine and decided to try out a Panasonic FZ-8. It's even better, though one has to shoot to RAW to take advantage of most of that.

RAW is to JPEG (what most cameras can only shoot) as negatives are to Polaroids, OP. If you're prepared to learn how to work with RAW (i.e. willing to learn and also to plop down a hundred dollars for at least Photoshop Elements), then get the Panasonic FZ-8 or the larger version, the Panasonic FZ-50, which has more megapixels and on-lens zoom and focus adjustment... those little rings you see professional photographers turning on their lens, as opposed to the little thing you jiggle on the top of your camera now.
>> Anonymous
OP here. The FZ-50 looks pretty nice, but I want to be able to shoot really quick consecutive shots - I'm guessing real SLRs allow this a lot more than something like this, no?
>> ac
>>45492
Yeah, if you want to shoot with any sort of rapidity, you're going to want an SLR. The XTi's really good for this 'cause it's got an extremely deep buffer--I've never run out the buffer shooting JPGs, only RAWs, and only RAW when I'm shooting a bunch in a row. I think you can do like 27 frames at 3fps before it hits its buffer limit (and more than that if you've got a fast card, 'cause it'll be writing pictures out to the card during this).

The fast rate of fire is one of the big reasons I switched to an SLR.
>> Anonymous
Anything smaller is considered a "wide angle" lens. That means it shows a wider field of view than what the human eye sees. 28mm is a typical sort of wide angle lens; 35mm is a typical less-wide-angle-but-still-wide-angle lens. Despite 50mm being called a "normal" lens, I understand that most photographers end up using a lens at or about 35mm more than any other. I know I do.

The thing about wide-angle lenses is that the wider the angle gets (i.e. the shorter the lens), the more distortion there is. Things will appear bent and so on. This is usually undesirable and is pretty much not a concern at most wide angle lengths, especially things like 35mm. Sometimes, though, it can be used to artistic effect. "Fisheye lens" photographs you may have seen- where everything is all bent around and so on- are an extreme, extreme wide angle lens.

Telephoto lenses are anything longer than about 50mm. You'll see things broken down as "medium telephoto," which is lengths like 75mm or 90mm and such, and then just plain telephoto, which is usually about 135mm, and then "super telephoto," which is things like ~300mm and more, those huge, long lenses you see sports photographers using.
>> Anonymous
Telephoto lenses, too, have things about them that can be an advantage or a disadvantage. Instead of the image becoming rounder and being distorted in that way, as with a wide angle, it becomes flatter and objects that are farther apart appear closer together.

All that is the issue with a lens in terms of its equivalent to it on 35mm film cameras. However, the actual focal length (6mm, for instance, on my FZ-8) is what matters when it comes to something else important: depth of field. "Depth of field" just means how much of what the camera sees in in focus.

The shorter the lens, the more the depth of field. Wide-angle lenses will have more in focus than normal lenses, which will have more in focus than a telephoto. This is one reason why telephoto lenses are typically used for portrait photography: besides rendering the face flatter, it's easier to focus on just the face and blur out everything else that would distract from it.
>> Anonymous
Focal length matters here with different types of cameras. An example might help: On something like my FZ-8, when the lens is 6mm, with regards to everything but depth of field it works just like a 36mm lens would on a 35mm film camera, because its sensor is smaller than a piece of film. However, with regards to depth of field, it really does work like a 6mm lens: almost everything will be in focus. For the type of photography I usually do, this is great, and it's one of the reasons I'm one of the few who prefers a high-end digicam to an SLR with a larger sensor. However, the downside is that when I do do things where I want the background blurred, like simple portraits, I have to zoom it all the way in to its real maximum, 72mm. In this case, it'll have the depth of field of a medium telephoto, but otherwise I have to treat it like the 432mm lens it acts like otherwise. Think about the sort of photography you want to do while you're deciding on what camera to get.

Oh, and some lens terms: a "prime" is a lens with one focal length; a "zoom" or "vario" lens is one where it can be adjusted. Primes tend to be smaller, lighter, and better made than equivalent zoom lenses, but they have the disadvantage of being fixed, and therefore less versatile.
>> Anonymous
An 18-55mm lens would probably be smaller and lighter than an 18-135. If money is an issue and you want an SLR, I would suggest getting the 18-135, though. It'll give you the option to slide between every focal length (lens length) between those two, and will let you work with the shallow depth of field of medium telephoto lenses. 18-55 would only give you up to a normal focal length. If you have the money to buy two lenses, get both the 18-55 and some telephoto that will take you on from there. If you have tons of money, get a shitload of primes and two zoom lenses like that.

However- if the 18-55 Nikon you're looking at is this one:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2170

I would reconsider it. Do you know what aperture is with cameras? In brief, it's how much the lens will open up to let light it. That lens only opens up to f/3.5. (The f/x scale is a measure of aperture. The smaller the number, the larger the aperture, and the more light it can let in.) That really isn't enough for an only lens; I would get something that goes down to at least f/2.8, like:

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1929
(Which would open up more telephoto options for you.)

or
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2147.
>> Anonymous
>>45617
35mm is usually whats called normal for DSLRS because with their 1.4-1.6x or so crop factors, it comes close to the 50mm normal for 35mm film cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>45616
Thanks for the lengthy explanation. I didn't know there was so much behind lenses and all that pertained to them. It seems like most camera kits come with a lens of f/3.5 and up though....

Oh yeah, and I was wondering - how do you figure out how much optical zoom each lens has? With point and shoot cameras it tells you off the bat whether it's 3X or 5X or 6X or whatever, but these SLR lenses go in depth with a lot of specs and whatnot, but that doesn't really tell me anything.

And as far as what type of photography I plan on doing, I really haven't decided. I'm thinking about getting really into this hobby but what I like most are probably landscape/nature shots and things like that.
>> Anonymous
>>45626
lets say, 35-105mm lens. 105/35 = 3 so its 3x zoom. lets say 200-300mm lens. 300/200 = 1.5 so its 1.5x zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>45627
Thanks. Now all I need to do is decide what SLR to purchase. Dammit, why do they have to be so fricking pricy...