TexasCHLforum.com

steve817

MatthewKrauss wrote:DSLR (digital SLR) camera usesd to belong to a category of professional photographers. But now, because of the high-quality images they afford, demand is growing in the mass market. Entry-level DSLR cameras are now designed to take professional pictures and put it in a device that is simple and easy to use, even for those who are only familiar with compact cameras.

You always could in goof proof "auto" mode. I think the biggest factor in their popularity is the fact that the prices have come way down. There was a time when you couldn't touch any DSLR for less than $2000.00. I paid $1300.00 for my first one. That is more than a lot of people are willing to spend for a camera. Sure there were a lot of hard core amateurs who would and that supported the market early on. Now there are models that can be had for under $500.00 and that puts them within reach of a larger chunk of the public.

I still get a chuckle because I know so many people who now have DSLR's and do nothing more with them but set them on auto and fire away. Sure they will capture a good photo, but the camera is capable of so much more. If that is all one intends to do with them why not stick with a compact point and shoot?

ETA: By the way KD5NRH, I'm digging the cave shot.

steve817

I'm with you on the color correction thing. MPix has served me well in that regard and the best part is, I don't have to mess with it. I used EZprints years ago. It was the first one I used as a matter of fact. It had been so long since I used them, I forgot the name of the company until you brought it up. I went to MPix because I wanted to check out the metallic surface prints they offer and ended up liking all of their services.

Even though I have some nice photography toys, I am by no means a professional so what they offer works for me. Others mileage may vary.

steve817

I got a little off track. My point was that the end product is the same.

steve817

The issues with print longevity can be overcome by using a good print service like Mpix. They use lamda printers which fire the digital info onto actual photographic paper which is then processed pretty much the same way a print from a negative is. I can do the "Pepsi challenge" with a print done from film and one done from digital and I guarantee few if any would be able to tell the difference.

A former acquaintance of mine who was a photographer turned me on to the process. He would do weddings but didn't really like to. On his website he discussed the process and said that even though he shot digital, his prints would outlast most marriages...even the good ones.

They are more expensive of course. A 4x5 runs about 29 cents compared to the 19 cents you will pay at CVS but it is worth it. Costco uses the same process and they don't charge as much but the results are hit and miss. The one here in Arlington does a pretty good job.

steve817

WildBill wrote:G26ster - Very good explanation.
I have heard the same questions about what kind of camera, lens, exposure, film, etc. A good shooting/hunting analogy would be when a person shoots a trophy buck and is asked what kind of gun, scope, what grain bullet, etc.

I am reluctant to post this, but I think that the NYIP (New York Institute of Photography) course is a good way for a beginning photographer to learn the basics. Buy any photography magazine and there will be full page advertisments from the school. When I took the course, many years ago, I found it to be very good. The course covers, in detail, all of the subjects that G26ster talks about in his posts. IMO, if you complete all of the course material and exercises, it would be equivalent to getting an AA degree in photography. Obviously, you don't get college credit, but I believe that the knowledge and experience would be comparable. You don't get the face-to-face feedback as you would from other classes, but when I took the class the instructors would evaluate your assignments and send a cassette tape with their comments.

I have a couple of reservations about this course. It was very expensive for my budget, but you can complete it at your own pace. The course material was a bit outdated. Since I took it, I have heard that have revised the course to include digital photography and video. The few pieces of equipment that they supplied was low quality. I don't know the current price, but it may be worth checking them out.

I came close to taking that course when I got into it. I would have came closer if I had only shot film. The beauty of digital is that you can pull it up almost instantly on a PC and see what works and what doesn't. That in combination with the fact that there is so much free information floating around on the net put me over in the "Don't do it" camp.

I believe it was mentioned earlier, don't skimp on lenses. I have a couple of Canon L lenses. My wife thought I was insane when I purchased them. Once she saw what I could do with them, she quickly changed her tune. After four years they have held about 80% of their value. Wish I could say the same for the camera body.

steve817

Spluloacle wrote:So I did get the Canon T1i for Christmas and a 50mm f/1.8 II lens. My DH consulted a pro friend of mine which makes me stoked. I need a speedlight though. I take a lot of indoor shots and I know how to get consistently good shots with that. I will also eventually get a good zoom lens. Then I will be done for a few years.

Spend the extra and get the 580EX II speedlight if you can. Accessing the flash menu on the camera can be a bit of a pain. On the 580 you can make the adjustments on the back of the flash unit.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: DSLR Cameras?

Re: DSLR Cameras?

Re: DSLR Cameras?

Re: DSLR Cameras?

Re: DSLR Cameras?

Re: DSLR Cameras?