Camera guys

Jump This said:
My wife wasn't at all interested in wheelin'......not until we went to Moab and she got to take pictures of the Jeeps and the area. Whenever it got more tippy than she wanted she just got out and took pictures!
And she loved it!
So now she wants a nicer camera for Christmas.
She has no training or experience and is not too great on manuals (I normally read up for her and answer questions as she needs.)
Now for the question, what would be a great 'starter' camera for her.
We are talking digital here, $500~$1000 maybe..

Rick
Click to expand...

Being involved in photography for the last 25+ years I can offer a lot of help here. The advice of going to a store is a good one except a lot of camera shops have shut down these days. If you have a Ritz camera in a mall around you I'd take her there and let her feel out the different cameras. If it is an SLR that you decide on stick with Cannon or Nikon. I prefer Cannon for a couple reasons. One is the IS technology that they started in the late 90's with video cameras and binoculars. If its a point and shoot she wants then I would look at Olympus also. The other reason I'm a Canon fan is when they decided to build auto focus cameras they started over. They increased the size of the opening where the lens mounts which therefore let more light in. Means you can make more expensive faster lenses that can operate in lower light levels. To some it does not matter but to a others it was a blessing. I love the rebel line it is very user friendly. Let em know if you need any help with this it is something I'm fairly familiar with. I have yet to get one of the digital slr's yet but will be doing so in the future. I still use film SLR's that I have had for many years.
 
One feature she wants is multiple shots of a fast moving target.
Mostly motorcycle jumping shots or high speed dune buggie run stuff.
It drives her crazy every time she wants to take multiple shots and the
camera is too slow to recover.
We will be heading to a Ritz in a couple of weeks and start looking...
 
Jump This said:
One feature she wants is multiple shots of a fast moving target.
Mostly motorcycle jumping shots or high speed dune buggie run stuff.
It drives her crazy every time she wants to take multiple shots and the
camera is too slow to recover.
We will be heading to a Ritz in a couple of weeks and start looking...
Click to expand...

Look at fps drives on the slr's. No point and shoot can compare to the Frames Per Second of an slr. All of mine are in the 4.5 - 5 FPS. I highly recomend Canon over Nikon if you are starting fresh with the slr lines. The cannon's have some better features and have faster lenses. Most of the newer slr's have "modes" for specific types of photography. IE: sports, portature, landscape, and auto are some common ones. Let me know if you have any other questions feel free to let me know.
 
No need for me to chime in, it's all been discussed lol. Nikon or Canon. Go to a store. Hold it. Play with the functions. Turn it on and off a bunch of times. See what feels best.
 
Ghost said:
Look at fps drives on the slr's. No point and shoot can compare to the Frames Per Second of an slr. All of mine are in the 4.5 - 5 FPS. I highly recomend Canon over Nikon if you are starting fresh with the slr lines. The cannon's have some better features and have faster lenses. Most of the newer slr's have "modes" for specific types of photography. IE: sports, portature, landscape, and auto are some common ones. Let me know if you have any other questions feel free to let me know.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Nikon and Canon have nearly equal glass and the technology of their bodies are similar as well, especially in the prosumer level.

A Nikkor 50 1.4 can be had for $200 used, or $250-$300 new. That's FAST glass.... The 50 1.8 can be had for $75 used and $100 new. That's still fast glass!

My old, outdated D70s does 3 FPS which is not bad. And, my old, outdated D2x does 5 FPS @ 12MP and 8 FPS @ 6.8 MP in HSC mode.

Here's a great website btw for comparisons.. side by side link is here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I prefer the 1.8 since the DOF isn't so small.
 
Nikon D90 if you have the coin... little over 1g but has "Live View" and a biggie is the new "HD Video" it also does... and it does it PRETTY well too.. so if there is a video moment you can capture it.. no charging 2 things, carrying 2 things, or shuffling around to put down the camera to get the camcorder ect...

Now if you want a good Bang for the buck DSLR... go look at the Nikon D80... FANTASTIC camera and even in "Auto" mode it takes amazing photos. 1 cool thing with Nikon is the "?" key... if your scrolling around and ever wonder what something does... Just push that button and it will give you a brief description... like carrying a manual with you all the time and its put in simple easy to read ENGLISH.

Goodluck.

JOe
 
GhostDakota said:
That's not true. Nikon and Canon have nearly equal glass and the technology of their bodies are similar as well, especially in the prosumer level.

A Nikkor 50 1.4 can be had for $200 used, or $250-$300 new. That's FAST glass.... The 50 1.8 can be had for $75 used and $100 new. That's still fast glass!

My old, outdated D70s does 3 FPS which is not bad. And, my old, outdated D2x does 5 FPS @ 12MP and 8 FPS @ 6.8 MP in HSC mode.

Here's a great website btw for comparisons.. side by side link is here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp
Click to expand...

No, I am not wrong. You either did not read what I said or do not know that glass is not the deciding factor of speed. The f-number or speed of the lens is determined but the size of the hole in the aperture vs the lens focal length. By have large lens they have larger holes and therefore faster lenses. Canon use to make a 50mm f1.0. There fast line also included an 85mm f1.2, a 135mm f2.0, and a 200mm f2.0. After looking at the site they now have a 24mm f1.4. All designed after the new larger lens mount and larger diameter glass was used in the eos system. All very expensive and made for sports type photography. Also the FPS is nto the only deciding factor with digital cameras. SOme may have 3, 4, or 5fps rates but stop to right the images after a few seconds. If it is fast images you wnat then you need to also check out which cameras have the fastes write times for the largest amount of bursts. I can shoot a 36exp roll of film in 8 seconds. Most digitals can only shoot bursts of 10 - 15 images before the stop and have to write the images to disk. Usually taking more time then the action you are photographing.
 
You're wrong by saying Canon lenses are better than Nikon. I shoot Nikon for my digital and Canon for my film. I had a Rebel XTi for a few months a couple years ago as a backup. I should know. The differences are so diminutive that to 99% of the people out there, it doesn't matter. FWIW: The buffer on my D2x, in Nikon's RAW (NEF) format is from 15-28 images. And higher than that in JPG.

Have you ever shot Nikon or you prefer Canon just because?
 
GhostDakota said:
You're wrong by saying Canon lenses are better than Nikon. I shoot Nikon for my digital and Canon for my film. I had a Rebel XTi for a few months a couple years ago as a backup. I should know. The differences are so diminutive that to 99% of the people out there, it doesn't matter. FWIW: The buffer on my D2x, in Nikon's RAW (NEF) format is from 15-28 images. And higher than that in JPG.

Have you ever shot Nikon or you prefer Canon just because?
Click to expand...

I did not say they were better. Do you not read? I said they had some that were faster and they redesigned there entire line new instead of relying on old technology. Which is why I stayed with Canon. I have shot with Nikon, Hassablad, Canon, Leica, Toyo, Zone VI, Olympus, Pentax, Graphic, and several other off the wall brands of cameras in several different formats. I never said one was better then the other. The nuber of pixles will determine the difference in quality way before a lens will.
 
Ghost said:
I did not say they were better. Do you not read? I said they had some that were faster and they redesigned there entire line new instead of relying on old technology. Which is why I stayed with Canon. I have shot with Nikon, Hassablad, Canon, Leica, Toyo, Zone VI, Olympus, Pentax, Graphic, and several other off the wall brands of cameras in several different formats. I never said one was better then the other. The nuber of pixles will determine the difference in quality way before a lens will.
Click to expand...

When you say one brand has better features over the other, that usually means you're saying it's better:

Ghost said:
I highly recomend Canon over Nikon if you are starting fresh with the slr lines. The cannon's have some better features and have faster lenses.
Click to expand...

But if that's not what you meant, so be it, lol. That's how I took it.

And unrelated.. did you see the digital versus film test? It was on some British show and I forget where it is. Trying to find the link now...
 
GhostDakota said:
And unrelated.. did you see the digital versus film test? It was on some British show and I forget where it is. Trying to find the link now...
Click to expand...

Missed that one. I dont have any cable atm. I did read an artile recently that compared the resolution of film vs digital and what mp is needed to duplicate resolution of film and that to duplicate the color saturation the mp is higher. Did that make any sence? I sometimes have trouble communicating my thoughts on here. Can tell? It was a very intresting read.
 
Rick, disregard all of the "fast lens" talk. Only a well trained photographer can extract what an f1.2 lens has to offer. Shooting at f1.2 will give you a depth
of focus measured in quarters of an inch. Most jeeping photos will look better with the larger DOF that you are stuck with by using cheaper lenses.
Understand that some of the most breathtakingly dramatic photos are made because of the ability to make almost everything in the frame blurry,
but usually these are not jeeping photos.


Here is an example of shooting without regard to the short DOF at smaller apretures. Sorry that this photo is so big, it is straight out of the camera at the smallest size it offers:
orig.jpg


You can probably pick out the one bun that it focused on, everything else is blurred due to the short DOF from shooting it at f3.4. I was trying to get a
photo of the people, not the buns, this may hint at the potential problems of shooting with much faster pro level lenses at wider apertures.
BTW, a Canon 85mm f1.2 lens is $1800!

Does Bonnie want to shoot a DSLR (where you compose through an optical viewfinder), or does she like holding the camera at an arm's length and
composing with an LCD? Some DSLR's have easier to use "live view" modes where you use the LCD as a viewfinder. Olympus has a DSLR with a
flip out & turn LCD like you see on some compact digital cameras. It is supposed to be a smaller camera than most consumer DSLRs, but it also has a smaller sensor.
Take a look at any of Jared (xjblue's) pictures, that sensor in his hands takes fine photos!
 
I just ordered my 50mm 1.8 :-D I was going to do the 1.4 but I didn't want that shallow DOF. The 1.8 should be here by Saturday!!!


Ghost said:
Missed that one. I dont have any cable atm. I did read an artile recently that compared the resolution of film vs digital and what mp is needed to duplicate resolution of film and that to duplicate the color saturation the mp is higher. Did that make any sence? I sometimes have trouble communicating my thoughts on here. Can tell? It was a very intresting read.
Click to expand...

Here's the video:
http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

I didn't see it on TV, I am not sure what BBC or similar channel it normally airs on. What you said does make sense. I understand at least lol.
 
Handlebars said:
Rick, disregard all of the "fast lens" talk. Only a well trained photographer can extract what an f1.2 lens has to offer. Shooting at f1.2 will give you a depth
of focus measured in quarters of an inch.
Click to expand...

No not exactly. It all depends on the distance the camera is form the subject. A lens focused at one foot will have a very shallow DOF but the same lens focused at 20ft will have a wider DOF. I think I membered that correct from my studies many years ago. Fast lenses are generally used for indoor sports or places where light is low. Yes as a beginner you can disregard most of it but if you want to know why things are happening the way they are you might want to know a little bit of it.
 
FWIW, I shoot at 2.8 max usually with my 50/1.8. Anything below that and my DOF starts to suffer. Most of my subjects aren't flat, so 2.8 does just about right. Good focal length and knowing how to use depth of field help. First one was with an SB800 bounced off the ceiling...and the second one was with an open window on the right (which also gave a brilliant eye catch!).

f4
307238986_oHpSu-M-5.jpg


f4.5
352123126_vQWZu-M-1.jpg
 
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/canon_sd1100.html

This Cannon is totally awesome for a nonpro user. My wife has been using one for about 6 months now. It is fast and has great focus. If you are looking for a versitile small package without a lot of lense options defenitely look at his camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
No start, no crank, no power, rough idle, new battery, new starter, new IAC.....
Replies
4
Views
208
Unclewolverine
U
bradleyheathhays
No start on the old 96er, with clues
Replies
4
Views
648
Tim_MN
Tim_MN
J
‘85 XJ Cherokee Laredo 84K mi for sale
Replies
2
Views
204
Jen galveston
J
W
Cranks, has spark, fuel pressure, voltage to injectors..
Replies
8
Views
391
Anak
Anak
J
Down to a few electrical issues.
Replies
3
Views
326
Jay Ratliff
J
Back
Top