Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[Ookii]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean Stray. The picture of her in the black jacket is sundown and the pic of her in the green jacket is complete darkness. It's not so fun using a ringflash in darkness when it obscures the autofocusing light.

So far it's working out Bunk, I have a couple more models lined up, though I've already have one not show up.

And yes, a MUA and a hair stylist would be great. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

What is it you do? This a hobby or professional start-up?

Just for fun, I'm not idealistic enough to think someone could do this for a living.

[Mosesandstick]

Are you talking about photograph in general or studio photography ooki?

There's always money to be made as a wedding photographer (people should read ken rockwell's page on wedding photographers, pretty damn funny).

[apocrypha]

Not any more. Looks like the D700x rumor mill is strong again.

Heh, yeah, who the fuck knows any more?  Thinking about it, I still think a D700 would be a better bet for me than a D700X too. I'm far more interested in high ISO performance than MP and the X *will* be considerably more expensive than the vanilla 700. Ah well, whatever.

[stray]

Gimmicks....


You know, touchscreen cams are the shit. I bought one, curious, but thinking it'd be a nuisance... but it turned out even easier to operate than usual. I since turned it back.. I didn't realize it was a wide angle, so I need to find another.. Basically, you didn't have to go through many tree menus or dials. You'd touch an icon to adjust flash or whatnot, and if you switched shooting modes, there'd be a dock on the bottom that changed for every mode. This was just a midrange compact, but I think it'd be nice on an DSLR too.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean Stray. The picture of her in the black jacket is sundown and the pic of her in the green jacket is complete darkness. It's not so fun using a ringflash in darkness when it obscures the autofocusing light.

So far it's working out Bunk, I have a couple more models lined up, though I've already have one not show up.

And yes, a MUA and a hair stylist would be great. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

What is it you do? This a hobby or professional start-up?

Just for fun, I'm not idealistic enough to think someone could do this for a living.

Ah cool, well you seem to have a Nack for it, from the photographs to the logistics.

[Phire]

F13 I need your opinions!

I am looking to purchase my first DSLR and have narrowed  my choices down to the following two cameras for the following reasons:

1. Price point is under $600 CDN
2. Beginners DSLR


Canon Rebel XS
+Live View
+Will auto focus older lenses
+Dedicated ISO button

Nikon D3000
+Guide
+11 AF points
+3" screen
+ISO 3200
-Will not Auto Focus older non-AF-S lenses

Both can be had for around $490 so price is not the deciding factor. Based on features and ease of use which would you recommend?

Also have to mention that I did go in a store and handled each one and they were both comfortable to hold however they were not on for me to test

[NiX]

I'd just like to add that he'll be taking pictures of himself covered in baby oil, so the camera has to be able to handle serious amounts of glare.

[Ookii]

Flip a coin?

[Trippy]

Nikon D3000 Nikon's Worst DSLR — Ever.

This is the first hit I got when I Googled on "nikon d3000 live histogram"

I'm a Canon man myself so I'm biased but if you are new to "manual" photography (i.e. where you set the shutter speed and aperture), between those two cameras, I'd go with the Canon just for the live histogram feature (that's why I Googled on it, to check if the Nikon had it).

Edit: fixed link

[Ookii]

Ken Rockwell is an idiot, so I wouldn't take anything he says to heart.  That said Canon is more innovative nowadays, and if you're just getting in the game I'd probably go with them.  I also saw some comparison pictures and the picture out of the Canon is significantly better.

[schild]

I'm not sure what's wrong with him saying the D3000 is their worst DSLR ever. He's comparing it to the rest of the Nikon camera line. He's not saying it's the worst DSLR ever. His reasoning seems relatively sane.

[apocrypha]

Just seconding that Ken Rockwell is indeed a fucktard. Ignore him 

That said, the D3000 does sound like a bit of a lemon, especially the slow performance of it. Canon (in my opinion) are better than Nikon at the lower end of the DSLR price range but that difference disappears at the higher end. Is the D5000 out of your budget, because that looks like a much better camera than the 3000.

If you want to get into Strobist type flash photography then Nikon are a better bet than Canon, but only marginally.

I'd strongly recommend trying to find a shop that will let you actually try the cameras out for real, turned on and with a memory card in them. And shop that refuses to let you do that is a steaming pile of fucking shit and should be burned to the ground avoided.

[Mosesandstick]

I'm going to second the d3000 being a bit of a lemon, though Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

My only advice would be to try both out (for an extended period of time) and see which you enjoy more. Without getting into the technical details try looking at some of the olympus cameras and if you see one you like.

I've never used canon's extensively, but I've always found nikons slightly more user friendly and fun to shoot with. You're at the point where you're just starting, start shooting, enjoy it, and once you get a bit more technical then you can make a more serious decision over which route you want to go down. At the entry level both cameras are technically so similar that finding the one you enjoy shooting with is much more important.

[Bunk]

I am a Canon guy as well, and had the Rebel one model before that one, and was very happy with it.

As to the Nikon's selling points - the 3" screen is nice, but remember that with a DSLR, you are not looking at the screen to take the picture. The Canon is 2.5".
3200 iso is a non-factor, simply because the picture quality at that iso will be so bad, you'll never use it.
And finally - 11 AF points sounds nice, but I find I use a single AF point 99% of the time, because I'd rather have full control over it.

Looking for a couple details that matter to me:
Canon:
3 fps JPEG/1.5 fps RAW
Li-ion Battery
450 grams
10.1 MP 1.6 ratio
iso 100 - 1600

Nikon
3 FPS (Raw not specified)
Li-ion Battery
485 grams
10.2 MP 1.5 ratio
iso 100 - 3200


Pretty comparable, honestly. Given a fairly even choice, I prefer Canon's lenses. Honestly though, if you can afford it, I'd consider spending the extra $200 on the XSi. Then again, once you commit to that extra money, then you start thinking about a few hundred more for say a 50D... Hey, it's only money :)

[stray]

Taking shots in 3200 is fun if you end going monochrome though. Err, at least on the Sigma DP it's cool. Nice grainy effect.

I think Rockwell was only knocking it in comparison to the D40. I guess to him that's still the better value for cheap DSLR. From what I can tell, it seems to be one of his favorite cameras, period. Doesn't seem like hate to me, as that's obviously Nikon too.

[Righ]

F13 I need your opinions!

I am looking to purchase my first DSLR and have narrowed  my choices down to the following two cameras for the following reasons:

1. Price point is under $600 CDN
2. Beginners DSLR

Don't discount the Nikon D40. One thing that Ken Rockwell is right about is that this camera was the greatest bargain in the D-SLR market. You can still find them around - and the prices on the kits with the VR lenses will be in your price range. Neither the latest generation of Canon or Nikon entry level cameras will help you take better pictures than the D40 and will leave you with less money for lenses - and just a little more spent on lenses will help you take better shots.

Heck, buy a Nikon refurbished camera from a reputable dealer and use the savings on lenses - I bought my first D50 refurbished and it was as good as new with a three month warranty. Several years on, it still works fine.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html
http://www.adorama.com/INKD40XR.html

Get a refurb camera and the 35mm DX IMO. Worry about zooms later - framing shots with a fairly fast single prime will better help train your eye anyhow.

[NowhereMan]

Hey, so I'm thinking of getting a new digital camera since my old one is 1) Kinda crappy 2) Semi-functional ever since a burglar dropped it and most importantly 3) Doesn't have any underwater housing available for it. As 3 might suggest the 'main' reason for having it is underwater photography, I'd love to say I plan on really getting into photograhpy but it's really going to be more for getting some neat pictures to show people. Basically I'd like to get a point and shoot that has underwater housing available for it and can shoot in RAW (since colour balance is a nightmare shooting underwater and being able to alter red light levels is pretty much a must). Ideally a decent white balance feature would be good too. I'm not fabulously wealthy and don't want to spend a fortune on it, ideally something under £200. Anyone have any suggestions or even a point to a good comparison site?

[stray]

You might find plenty of p&s that are rugged/underwater ready in that price range, but definitely not any that shoot in raw. Any of the p&s models that shoot raw are still in the $500(US) range at least. And none of them are rugged right out of the box. You'll have to pay more for an underwater casing.

[NowhereMan]

Yeah the casing is definite, I don't know if there even are dedicated underwater cameras. Hmmm... it's gonna suck if there really aren't any cheap raw capable cameras, I've got the choice between expensive or horrible quality then.

[stray]

Keep in mind too that so far, the raw capable point and shoots (which is somewhat like the holy grail to me..) aren't the easiest to operate. They all need a little fidgeting or particular lighting conditions to get the most out of them. They will be a bitch within casing, I think. Besides that, I don't think you'll be happy with them for underwater action simply because of speed.. they're not close to being as fast as a full fledged dslr - or even a smaller point and shoot.

That said, some of those small point and shoots don't produce bad pictures. I've messed with some models for regular shooting - or models that are close to them but aren't rugged - and the pics are alright. Just don't expect National Geographic quality.

edit: You might want to research older dslr models that underwater photographers have depended on, and just find a used one. That's still going to be more than 200 euros, but you'll probably find something both cheap "enough" and fun to work with.

[Trippy]

Keep in mind too that so far, the raw capable point and shoots (which is somewhat like the holy grail to me..) aren't the easiest to operate. They all need a little fidgeting or particular lighting conditions to get the most out of them. They will be a bitch within casing, I think. Besides that, I don't think you'll be happy with them for underwater action simply because of speed.. they're not close to being as fast as a full fledged dslr - or even a smaller point and shoot.

I have no idea what you are talking about. RAW-capable P&S cameras typically have more manual controls than the non-RAW capable versions but you can still use them as fully-automatic cameras and I'm not sure why you would even think they don't operate as fast as non-RAW P&S cameras as they tend to be at the high-end of P&S line so they are stuffed with the latest tech at the time they were released. E.g. Canon's newest RAW-capable P&S cameras use their latest DIGIC 4 processor.

As an aside I'm actually thinking of getting an Canon S90 to replace my S70. The S70 is still too bulky to carry around regularly even though it's smaller than the Canon G series and DSLRs.

[stray]

I'm more referring to the ones with dslr type of sensors. I don't know exactly why, but they are definitely not "action oriented" cams. Seems like the other parts are sacrificed for the sake of a quality sensor. The Sigma models in particular have the biggest sensor of the bunch, but they are slow as fuck. The new Olympus isn't a speedy performer either. Besides that, that Sigma in particular has a tough time focusing because of the wonky "contrast" system it employs. I think that alone will cause problems being underwater, in a case, with lack of light, and fish with colors that sort of blend into the environment.

I don't know what Canons you're talking about exactly. The G10 is close to as fast as most point and shoots, I guess, but then, for all of their manual controls and raw mode, their photo quality isn't that much better than other Canon p&s models that run a $100 or more less. I have a smaller non-RAW Canon with the digic4 that came out around the same time as the G10, and the pics both produce are almost identical (haha.. in fact, I think Ken Rockwell has an article on that.. but I'll spare you.. no one seems to like him).

[Trippy]

The G11 and the S90 are the newest Canon P&S cameras that can save as RAW.

[stray]

Yeah, I had a brainfart when you mentioned the S90 before. Rockwell puts them head to head too (like he does with the 880/90 series against the G10) and prefers the S90 to the G11.


That all that said, when Nowhereman said he wanted raw + p&s + photos to impress, I assumed he meant a P&S dslr.. In which case, he's better getting a DSLR because the p&s dlsrs aren't up to par in speed for that sort of thing.

As an aside, the S90 seems interesting.. I want to play with one now. Doesn't have the big sensor of m4/3 or the DP2, but maybe it's a good middle ground? Why it's priced like them though, I can't figure out. Apparently the sensor is Sony made.. So I wonder if Sony has their own model (and cheaper). It's also wide angle. Bleh.

[apocrypha]

You may be able to pick up one of the older Canon G series for less - the G6 and G9 have been the pick of the crop so far afaik.

[Ookii]

Which picture is better?

[Samwise]

1.

[Viin]

I think 1 would be a great picture if it was trimmed a bit at the bottom.

[Nerf]

1.
Also, ITT Ooki's photo site is offering a $4.99 introductory offer for HOT UNCENSORED ACTION! ACT NOW!

[NowhereMan]

Just a note saying thanks for the suggestions. I think I'll look into the older Canons.

[schild]

I think 1 would be a great picture if it was trimmed a bit at the bottom.

i lolled

[apocrypha]

I also like 1. That's a horrible, horrible bra she has on though.

[stray]

1 is better... 2 would work with a more innocent/loli model (looks like you're trapping her 

[Bunk]

Though the angle on two flatters her shape more I think, one is the better picture.

[apocrypha]

The lighting in 1 looks almost like a ring light, have you got the brolly right in close on-axis? Looks nice :)