What type of camera do you use? - Page 2

initiald · #21 Posted **Nov 22, 2008, 12:10 AM**

How much of a game-changer do you guys think is the D90? Shooting HD video with your DSLR? Brilliant! I hope towards the end of '09 the price will have come down enough so I can upgrade.

The Chemist · #22 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 5:48 AM**

I've got an Olympus E-500 - one of the original cameras with a built in ultrasonic sensor cleaner (pioneered by Olympus). I only have one lens (18-180) and it's a pretty decent lens/camera combo. I wish I had more money for an E-520 or a new lens to complement the one I have, as the 18-180 is a little bit heavy.

Jibba · #23 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 6:02 AM**

I have a p.o.s. Sony point-and-shoot from 2003. It was $699, too. The lens isn't bad but the image sensor really sucks--night shots are often really noisy, so much so that shooting above ISO100 is worthless. It does have manual controls, though, and the shutter speed can be adjusted from 1/1000 down to a minute, and there's also manual aperture, focus, and ISO.

Bigtime · #24 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 3:49 PM**

This seems like the right place to ask my question:

Right now I have a Canon Powershot SD870IS point and shoot that I've been using. For about a week right now I am borrowing a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi 450(?). For an amateur like myself is this a good camera to step into from only using point and shoots before?

I tried a couple of tripod night shots with it last night and had a question about how this one picture came out, take a look:

This was a 5 second exposure shot, but I noticed the red lights on the tower just right of the Calgary tower appear to also be visible further right in the shot. Is this caused by some slight camera shake on the tripod? Or is it indicative of an issue with the camera itself? Or is it just newbie error?

Thanks for any comments and advice you all can send my way, it would be much appreciated.

Tony · #25 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 5:08 PM**

Camera shake that may have resulted from pressing down on the trigger? Try putting the camera on a short timer instead.

initiald · #26 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 5:16 PM**

You mean to two red lights in the middle of the photo that seem to be a result of lens flare? It is often caused by taking the photo through a window. Or using a cheap filter on your lens.

Bigtime · #27 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

Camera shake that may have resulted from pressing down on the trigger? Try putting the camera on a short timer instead.

I used the 2 second timer on that picture, perhaps I should set a custom one slightly higher?

Quote:

Originally Posted by initiald

You mean to two red lights in the middle of the photo that seem to be a result of lens flare? It is often caused by taking the photo through a window. Or using a cheap filter on your lens.

I took the picture outside on my balcony. To my knowledge the lens and filter are the standard one sold with this camera. It has received very little use by the current owner (my father) since he got it in late July of this year.

flar · #28 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 5:41 PM**

It could be a lot of things, it looks like there is some white light above the red lights too.

Although I have never experienced this, I've heard that it's possible on long exposures that the sensors on the camera could be picking up artifacts from a previous shot. Or it could be a UFO.

i_am_hydrogen · #29 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 6:24 PM**

It's lens flare.

Bigtime · #30 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 6:34 PM**

Thanks for the replies everyone! I'm wishing it was the UFO option, that wouuld be great!

Jibba · #31 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 9:39 PM**

Yeah, looks like lens flare to me, too. Camera instability while exposing the shot would have led to way more exposed elements than just a selected set of lights from a single building in the photo. It also looks like it could have been a reflection in the window through which the photo was taken, and the particular set of lights that appears a second time could have been in such a position as to not have been obscured by the rest of the photo.

Bigtime · #32 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Yeah, looks like lens flare to me, too. Camera instability while exposing the shot would have led to way more exposed elements than just a selected set of lights from a single building in the photo. It also looks like it could have been a reflection in the window through which the photo was taken, and the particular set of lights that appears a second time could have been in such a position as to not have been obscured by the rest of the photo.

Thanks for the input, however do note that I was outside on my balcony taking this photo. There was zero chance of reflection from a window on this one!

I'll be playing around with this camera over the course of this week. Figuring out all these fancy new things like ISO settings, exposure and aperture settings.

Jibba · #33 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 10:23 PM**

^Got ya. Sorry if you mentioned that earlier; if you did I missed it. If the camera body is unstable to induce that much movement of a particular element you usually end up with something like this:

Or in an extreme case something like this:

By the way, the shot looks nice; I like Canons a lot. Unfortunately I don't know much about that model (or many others for that matter), so I'm not really of much help as far as purchasing goes. I will need some help myself when I get a new one, which will be as soon as I can scrounge up that extra $1000

.

HomeInMyShoes · #34 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 11:25 PM**

^You should take something for those shakes Jibba.

Bigtime · #35 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 11:52 PM**

I kind of like the look in the first one!

BFHeadstone · #36 Posted **Nov 25, 2008, 1:56 AM**

I am looking at getting the Nikon D60 as my jump into dSLR. Does anyone have experience with it?

Kingofthehill · #37 Posted **Nov 25, 2008, 5:46 AM**

I use the archaic Canon 20D and a few lenses.

I'm scooping up a 5D soon, though.

Jibba · #38 Posted **Nov 25, 2008, 7:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^You should take something for those shakes Jibba.

Too much coffee probably

.

Tony · #39 Posted **Nov 25, 2008, 4:39 PM**

If you have a filter on the lens, take it off and try again.

Upward · #40 Posted **Nov 25, 2008, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I use the archaic Canon 20D and a few lenses.

I'm scooping up a 5D soon, though.

If you think the 20D is archaic, then the 5D won't be much of an improvement.

Seriously, though, I am in a similar situation. I have a 20D and some good lenses. I am not really interested in the new 50D (or even the 40D, although it's now pretty cheap and that makes it tempting), because it would really just be a new toy with a nicer interface and some features that won't fundamentally change or improve my photography. The 5D, on the other hand, provides only slight interface improvements (at least it has a larger screen; the 20D's looks pathetic compared to even cheap point-and-shoot cameras these days), but it's really all about the sensor. The full-frame sensor literally expands the field of view that a particular lens provides, relative to a 20D.

I am eagerly waiting to see how much the price of the 5D drops when the 5D Mark II becomes available. If the price drops enough, I'll get a new one. I don't mind buying used, but one would have to be cautious about buying a used 5D because it could potentially be over 3 years old and have a large amount of shutter actuations. I won't get a used one unless I can find out how old it is.