hey all, I just remembered that my DSLR photography guide is up in the nether regions of the vast internet (former RE client of mine posted it on his blog about a year ago).
I'd rather not post the link here because it has my name/phone number/email address in th PDF file. But if you'd like the link, just PM me and I'll PM it back to you.
Search found 3 matches
- Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:15 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: DSLR Cameras?
- Replies: 64
- Views: 7214
- Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:53 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: DSLR Cameras?
- Replies: 64
- Views: 7214
Re: DSLR Cameras?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/45c32/45c32e140d7aaa7027e18d369aac23618b129db6" alt="I Agree :iagree:"
with everyone stated above by dalto, vviper, and G26ster, except:
1. Older DSLRs aren't "obsolete" - they still work perfectly well and take great photos. But like computers a "bigger better" version comes along every 18 months or so. I still shoot with a 7-year-old Nikon D2H and a 5-year-old D200 (and occassionally with an 8-year-old D100). But the overall point that you're better off spending your money on quality GLASS instead of expensive camera bodies is good advice. With those "old" camera bodies (ancient by DSLR standards, each at least two or three generations behind state of the art) I have some remarkable lenses that cost a pretty penny .... Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR, Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, Nikkor 12-24mm f4, Nikkor 18-200mm variable aperture, Nikkor fixed focal lenghts 85mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8, 20mm f2.8 - My lenses are still worth nearly what I paid for them and are far from "obsolete". The camera bodies are worth pennies on the dollar compared to the new retail prices I paid for each. But they all still work, and if I finally decide to upgrade to new bodies, all that expensive glass will work with the new bodies.
This is why it's important to know what kind of photography you want to try, so you spend money on quality lenses for that type of photography, then whatever money is leftover, buy whatever DSLR body you can afford. This is also why I still recommend Canon or Nikon (because of the HUGE amount of quality new and used equipment/accessories available). Olympus, Pentax, Sony all make good DSLR systems. But buying Canon or Nikon is like buying Glock or 1911 because everybody has one and you can swap parts, find quality used parts/accessories, etc.
Buying a camera is a lot like buying a good rifle and scope, only moreso. With a rifle the rule of thumb is to spend the same amount on the scope as you spent on the rifle. With a camera, spend two or three times more on lenses than on the camera body.
2. http://www.kenrockwell.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a good informative site. Be warned, however, that Mr. Rockwell is quite full of himself and is by trade a television videographer/movie cameraman, and NOT a professional photographer. So take all of his "this is the way it is" blather with a grain of salt. There are MUCH BETTER photographers in the world. That said, his site is fun to read, informative, and there is a lot there for beginner's to learn.
http://www.bythom.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is great for Nikon stuff
Also this guy REALLY knows lens glass ... http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And just to be sure this post has at least SOMETHING to do with firearms, the greatest gun-related photo ever taken ...
http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/index.php/tag/bullet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (interesting to note the "photographer" was actually an MIT scientist - by today's standards, he wouldn't even be allowed to bring a rifle onto campus in Boston)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1eee/c1eee5b4c57abe4953469f8a4a11330a62e8c881" alt="Image"
- Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:13 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: DSLR Cameras?
- Replies: 64
- Views: 7214
Re: DSLR Cameras?
pbwalker, PM me your email address and I'll send you a 30-page "guide to DSLR photography" I wrote a while back for some friends and others to use. Should give you a great starting point.
Nikon or Canon is the way to go. I'm a Nikon guy just because my first "real camera" was a 1967 Nikkormat handed down to me by my grandpa. But Canon's are great cameras as well. Definitely a Ford vs. Chevy or Glock vs. 1911 thing.
Just be sure you buy a DSLR that has enough manual control for you. A lot of the cheaper entry-level DSLRs these days are really dumbed down, with a lot of automatic modes and not as many manual settings. In some ways a good condition used DSLR might be a better starting point.
And don't pay any attention to megapixels - it's a marketing gimmick. Any new camera sold today has more megapixels than you'll ever need or use. I'll put the 4-megapixel images I've captured with my 7-year-old Nikon D2H up against a 12-megapixel image from any entry-level DSLR. A QUALITY 10-12 megapixel DSLR's images will look better than my 4mp images, but I'm talking about DSLRs in the $3,000 price range. When comparing apples to apples in terms of all the important capabilities of a camera, the only benefit to more megapixels is the ability to print larger images that look better up close to the naked human eye. But I've printed 2-foot by 3-foot photos from 4-megapixel images that I sold professionally for hundreds of dollars. So "bigger" is a relative term. At 2' x 3' I was maxing out the printability of my camera (and the wall space of the average home owner to hang a photo). If you want to take photos to hang on billboards on the side of the freeway, then maybe you need 16 megapixels. But for "normal" 8-inch by 10-inch print sizes (and larger) you don't need that many.
The basic "kit" lens that comes with the camera should be fine to start. From there, what you add next depends upon what type of photography you want to focus on (pun intended). If it's macro, then plan to spend $200-$300 on an average aftermarket macro lens like a Sigma brand. Or $500-$1,500 on a Nikon-brand "Nikkor" macro lens. Also you'll need a quality, rock-solid tripod - plan to spend at least $100 but likely $200-$300 for a good one.
Sports/action and long-distance wildlife photography are the most expensive, requiring lenses that start around $3,000 and go up to above $10,000 for a single lens.
Weddings, portraits, "people" photos can be done relatively cheaply with quality zoom lenses and good flash system.
Landscape photography is still best left to fully professional "large format" camera systems, but a good DSLR can record some great amateur/semi-professional landscape shots and vacation photos of course. A tripod is essential, a remote shutter activator, and a wide range of lenses in various focal lengths.
And don't forget to scour eBay for good photo equipment deals. Just be sure the lens you get will fit the camera you have.
Nikon or Canon is the way to go. I'm a Nikon guy just because my first "real camera" was a 1967 Nikkormat handed down to me by my grandpa. But Canon's are great cameras as well. Definitely a Ford vs. Chevy or Glock vs. 1911 thing.
Just be sure you buy a DSLR that has enough manual control for you. A lot of the cheaper entry-level DSLRs these days are really dumbed down, with a lot of automatic modes and not as many manual settings. In some ways a good condition used DSLR might be a better starting point.
And don't pay any attention to megapixels - it's a marketing gimmick. Any new camera sold today has more megapixels than you'll ever need or use. I'll put the 4-megapixel images I've captured with my 7-year-old Nikon D2H up against a 12-megapixel image from any entry-level DSLR. A QUALITY 10-12 megapixel DSLR's images will look better than my 4mp images, but I'm talking about DSLRs in the $3,000 price range. When comparing apples to apples in terms of all the important capabilities of a camera, the only benefit to more megapixels is the ability to print larger images that look better up close to the naked human eye. But I've printed 2-foot by 3-foot photos from 4-megapixel images that I sold professionally for hundreds of dollars. So "bigger" is a relative term. At 2' x 3' I was maxing out the printability of my camera (and the wall space of the average home owner to hang a photo). If you want to take photos to hang on billboards on the side of the freeway, then maybe you need 16 megapixels. But for "normal" 8-inch by 10-inch print sizes (and larger) you don't need that many.
The basic "kit" lens that comes with the camera should be fine to start. From there, what you add next depends upon what type of photography you want to focus on (pun intended). If it's macro, then plan to spend $200-$300 on an average aftermarket macro lens like a Sigma brand. Or $500-$1,500 on a Nikon-brand "Nikkor" macro lens. Also you'll need a quality, rock-solid tripod - plan to spend at least $100 but likely $200-$300 for a good one.
Sports/action and long-distance wildlife photography are the most expensive, requiring lenses that start around $3,000 and go up to above $10,000 for a single lens.
Weddings, portraits, "people" photos can be done relatively cheaply with quality zoom lenses and good flash system.
Landscape photography is still best left to fully professional "large format" camera systems, but a good DSLR can record some great amateur/semi-professional landscape shots and vacation photos of course. A tripod is essential, a remote shutter activator, and a wide range of lenses in various focal lengths.
And don't forget to scour eBay for good photo equipment deals. Just be sure the lens you get will fit the camera you have.