General Photography Chat

[ue]

The Chemist, I'll leave the first one for someone else. But I will try to help you with the rest. Filters I've heard/seen don't help too much in the way of image quality...in digital. But, a UV filter is very great because it protects your lens from the elements. If you scratch it, it is a lot easier to replace a UV than a lens.

With Noise reduction, you just got to try and have a low ISO, usually 400 and under, but 100/200 is the best. Sometimes that is hard.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

TFilters I've heard/seen don't help too much in the way of image quality...in digital. But, a UV filter is very great because it protects your lens from the elements. If you scratch it, it is a lot easier to replace a UV than a lens.

This isn't true. Filters do their job just as well with a digital as film. A circular polarizer can be fun to play with.

The UV filter doesn't do much though other than act to "protect" your lens. Personally, I've never needed a UV filter as I'm generally careful with my camera and I would assume any hard bump or hit on the lens that can actually damage the glass, an extra piece of glass infront of the lens itself would be useless, not to mention any damage inside the lens itself.

[toyota74]

thanks bfheadstone.....ill take your tips and try them.Guess i
have to get off auto settings and experment with apeture etc.
Im gonna select some senery out the window and take pic
after pic with different settings.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Tony

This isn't true. Filters do their job just as well with a digital as film. A circular polarizer can be fun to play with.

The UV filter doesn't do much though other than act to "protect" your lens. Personally, I've never needed a UV filter as I'm generally careful with my camera and I would assume any hard bump or hit on the lens that can actually damage the glass, an extra piece of glass infront of the lens itself would be useless, not to mention any damage inside the lens itself.

Yeah I was meaning more about UV filters. Sorry I was unclear.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

A few questions of my own:

1. I know the rule of shutter speed faster than 1/focal length to make clear images. Now, does this mean absolute focal length or focal length in 35mm equivalent? For example, my lens on my Olympus E500 has a maximum focal length of 180mm (360mm in 35mm equivalent) so should I be shooting faster than 1/180 or 1/360?

1/360

But if it is a legacy film lens (i.e. designed for 35mm film), I am not sure, probably would be 1/180 instead of 1/360. But yours is not, I'm assuming.

My camera lens has maximum focal length of 22.9mm (110mm equivalent) and I need a shutter speed faster than 1/100 for reasonably sharp images. 1/25 just is not enough.

[Aleks]

So I've wanted the D90 for a long time but I began to look at the EOS 50D and it's a pretty good camera. What do you guys recommend?

[Doady]

Remember lenses are the most important thing, check out what each system has to offer. Also, the 50D does not compete with the D90, the D300 is closer if I am not mistaken. The 50D is more advanced (and expensive) than the D90.

[Aleks]

Really? Costco.com is selling the 50D for 1270 [1 lens 23-135] and the D90 [used to sale] for 1300 [1 lens 18-105]. They're not selling the D90 anymore and I noticed the 50D was around the same price range so I thought maybe it's time to switch from Nikon to Canon.

[ue]

You've already invested equipment into Nikon. Best to stay with them.

[Aleks]

Yes but they're the stock lens. I didn't want to buy lenses yet because 1. I have a D40X and 2. I wasn't into experimenting with equipment. So if I get a D90 I want to start investing on fisheye lenses and other stuff.

I found some camera's on Craigslist that are used but I'm not sure whether I should buy an used camera, especially from Craigslist. Would you guys rather buy new or used? I'm also not trying to buy expensive equipment because I'm tight on monayy. One last thing, does selling my D40X for 450 bucks sound good? Two lens, 18-55 and 55-200 [stock], carrying bag, dvd's, blah blah blah...?

[ue]

What's wrong with trying a fisheye, tele, wide angle, 35mm, 50mm, whatever on a d40x? that shouldn't hold you back.

[Aleks]

It's not that it's wrong but I don't have enough money to buy them just because. I'd rather experiment with a better camera so I can slowly progress. The D40X is a good camera, but in the myspace photo world. Compared to the photographers it's crap.

Or maybe it's the photographer but I still feel like experimenting with the D90 or the 50D will help me a lot more. Then I'll move to other camera's like the D700, D3... that's if I stick with Nikon. Plus I'm gonna have to have an internal hard-drive for my computer because the 65,000+ pictures in my computer are filling it up! And now that I've been shooting RAW and saving more than one file it takes more memory too.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Aleks

It's not that it's wrong but I don't have enough money to buy them just because.

If you have a limited budget, wouldn't it more sense to invest in lenses instead of new bodies, especially a new body with a completely different lens mount?

Originally Posted by Aleks

I'd rather experiment with a better camera so I can slowly progress. The D40X is a good camera, but in the myspace photo world. Compared to the photographers it's crap.

No offense, but it sounds to me that you don't know much about photography at all. It seems to me that you should be sticking with the D40x if you are saying things like this.

[Aleks]

a) Yes but aren't there more compatible lenses for the D90 than the D40x?

b) I never said I was a professional, I just want to get a better camera where I have more options to play around with and get better over time without having to change camera every couple years.

c) That post doesn't help me decide whether to buy a new camera or stick with the one I have now. If you think I don't know anything about photography because of the myspace comment then you misread it. I don't actually use my camera just for silly photoshoots and myspace pics.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Yes there are more lenses. I'm looking at a new body now and the D90 is tops on my list because the auto-focus motor is in the body. On the not-so-professional line of Nikons like the D5000, the auto-focus is built into the lens.

I'm not sure you'd get a lot more mileage out of the D90 over your D40x. Some more megapixels, but all in all, good photographs and creativity are more a function of the person than the camera. I'm certainly no professional photographer, but I've been using a point-and-shoot the last little while. The creative process and photography in general is a learning process and there's always stuff to learn. If a new camera body is going to help you want to take photos and push yourself forward on your journey then it makes sense. It's good you're asking questions and trying to work out what it is you want/need out of your camera.

[Tony]

Aleks,

Apparently the noise reduction feature on the 50D isn't as good as those made for Nikons. At least that's what the guy at Henry's told me. That said though, that's a good price for the Canon but I've been seeing the same kit package for sale around $1399 CDN at many places lately, they must have just dropped the price.

I'm actually considering getting the 50D.

Oh and one more thing, Canon SLR's tend to use CF cards, I believe that Nikon uses SD. So if you switch, you may have to reinvest in mem cards.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I'm not sure you'd get a lot more mileage out of the D90 over your D40x. Some more megapixels, but all in all, good photographs and creativity are more a function of the person than the camera. I'm certainly no professional photographer, but I've been using a point-and-shoot the last little while. The creative process and photography in general is a learning process and there's always stuff to learn.

Weirdddd... I was thinking the same thing a couple days ago. About how I need to get more creative with photography and that the camera probably doesn't matter as much as what is being photographed. Then the next day I was in Ken Rockwell's website and I read his "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" thing. And the next day your posted this!

So anyways, I've put my camera up for sale. And I found a D90 with the 18-105mm and 70-300mm lens for 1300 from a woman that thinks it's too big for 'her style' of photography [whatever that means]. I have to go see it still but I hope it's what I expect.

And yeah, I like SD cards for some reason. But I only have 1 4gig memory card so I can invest on another if I switch.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Aleks

a) Yes but aren't there more compatible lenses for the D90 than the D40x?

b) I never said I was a professional, I just want to get a better camera where I have more options to play around with and get better over time without having to change camera every couple years.

c) That post doesn't help me decide whether to buy a new camera or stick with the one I have now. If you think I don't know anything about photography because of the myspace comment then you misread it. I don't actually use my camera just for silly photoshoots and myspace pics.

Yeah sorta. But only with autofocus. You have the same type/amount of selection if you're doing manualfocus.

[Aleks]

Woo-Hoo! Someone wants to buy my camera for 500 bucks cash. I'm also having a yard sale to get as much money as I can and the rest I'll get from a relative!

The best part is that I'll be saving around 600 bucks and about 180 bucks in taxes! I hope the camera is in good condition. She said she bought it at Christmas and doesn't use it that much. Plus that means I'll be able to get a Tokina 11-16mm lens [I don't think I'll get the Nikon 10-24, it's like 800 bucks plus tax].

[bulliver]

^ You convinced somebody to buy a D40 for $500? You should sell cars sir, you'd do well. The 10-24 is over $1000 CAD at local shops here. The Tokina about $700.