Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[apocrypha]

Very nice. Those are BIG shoes 

[01101010]

I take it she doesn't wear sweaters anymore? At least not the large cord type. 

[Ookii]

It's only temporary, I assume she doesn't have them anymore by this point.

I shot a lot of people over xmas break:



It would be better if I had more than one light!

[apocrypha]

It would be better if I had more than one light!

Get another for $129! 

[NowhereMan]

Forget the light how much does the model cost?

[schild]

Given the back thigh, a ham sandwich.

[schild]

OH SNAP

[stray]

She's only borderline chubs.

I still think that MILF-with-contacts is the hottest of the bunch though. Haha

[Ookii]

She's only borderline chubs.

I still think that MILF-with-contacts is the hottest of the bunch though. Haha

That is true, but there is a liberal amount of photoshop being done on that picture.

Oh, and I have like a million pictures of your MILF, we're buddies now.

[Ookii]

Apoc and Bunk are slacking, where are all of your new pics.

[Bunk]

Ooh, I like that one.

Yea I know, I haven't shot anything in months. My brain's a little tied up with (procrastinating about) trying to sell my condo.

Also, I don't have Arizona winter to shoot outside in.

[apocrypha]

Yeah that's very nice Ookii, liking your stuff a lot.

I've also not shot for ages, for various reasons. Had a lot of shitty weather here and not been able to book the studio plus had 2 shoots cancelled due to illness. Got a studio shoot booked for next week though, fingers crossed it actually happens this time!

[Samwise]

So, I know people have already asked this question in this thread, but I'm sure the camera geeks never get tired of answering it, and the answer probably changes anyway as new models come out.

I feel like I should get a better camera, but I've never spent more than $200 on one and I don't feel like I necessarily know enough about cameras to gamble any more money than that.  In particular I'd like to be able to take better pictures in low-light outdoor settings, and maybe to be able to get recognizable photos of birds in flight.  I almost never take portrait-type pictures, and my current camera does well enough on those anyway as far as I'm concerned.

Portability and some level of durability is key; if a camera is awkward to lug around or if I'm scared I'll break it by bumping it against a rock I'm clambering up it'll just stay in my closet gathering dust.  And, obviously, cheaper is better.

What's the camera for me?  

[apocrypha]

I'm really not much use with advice in that kind of price range any more I'm afraid, I just don't know anything about compact cameras these days :(

Low light photography is difficult at the cheap end, mostly because with digital your low light performance is largely determined by the size of the photosites on the sensor - which means a large sensor is better. Most compacts and $200 range cameras have tiny sensors and correspondingly appalling low light performance.

Similarly, photographing birds in flight is hard. Birds are small and move damn fast. That means long telephoto lenses with wide apertures and good high-ISO performance, all of which adds up to a lot more than $200.

I spent about 3 hours trying to photograph small birds on a bird table about 2m away over Christmas, using a D700, 70-200mm f2.8 lens and 2 SB800 strobes, and only managed to get 3 "OK" shots:







I'd say your best bet might be to get a 2nd hand SLR and lens maybe. Even then you're going to struggle to get anything that'll do what you want for $200 I'm afraid :(

[Samwise]

I didn't say I was limited to $200, I just said that to give you an idea of my current level of camera.  I did say I was looking to move up -- just not without someone steering me a little so I don't get scammed.    It seems like the next tier of camera is somewhere around $500-$600?

Re: birds in flight, I'm not thinking fast-moving stuff like songbirds -- more like when I'm out on a walk and I see a hawk lazily gliding overhead with the sun hitting him just so, I always go "wow, cool" and wish I could get a photo that didn't look like a black speck.

[Righ]

You do want an SLR. Unless you have well over $2000 to spend, low light and telephoto zoom are best left to different lenses. The good news is that for your needs, you can probably get an SLR body, an f/1.8 35mm prime for natural light photography and an f/4-5.6 55-200mm telezoom for well under a grand, and you can probably get bargain older gear in refurbished condition for much less.

You can get a Nikon D3000 kit with both an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens for under $600. A 35mm f/1.8 will set you back around $200. Shop around (try Adorama and B&H)  and you could get a refurbished D3000 (or D40x or D60) body for around $350 and the Nikon f/4-5.6 55-200mm lens in excellent used condition for around $125. You probably won't find the f/1.8 35mm used or at much discount because they're still flying off the shelves. If you want to autofocus the inexpensive Nikon f/1.8 50mm lens (which is an incredible natural light portrait lens for around $100) you'll need a camera with a motor in the body. It isn't too hard to find an inexpensive one of those - D70 & D80 refurbs are your best bet, but even the old 6MP D50 is an option (cheapest Nikon to have a focus motor).

[apocrypha]

Ah ok, if you're not limited to $200 then yeah, a DSLR is where you wanna be for sure.

As ever Righ is spot on with his suggestions. I'd also recommend a flash that you can use off-camera if your budget can stretch to one. The D50/70/80 all have a built-in flash that can be used to trigger an off camera flash (eg. SB600 or the super-cheap LP120). Learning to use even a single off-camera strobe will open up awesome possibilities.

On the Canon side I dunno, 20D, 40D? I'd guess they'd be in about the same price range as the D50/200?

A tripod would be a very good investment too - just check out some of Mosesandstick's shots in the "take a picture once a day" thread.

[Samwise]

Let me know if I'm interpreting this right... I'm looking at the specs for a Nikon D3000, and it says:

Focus Lens servo:

Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); continuous-servo AF (AF-C); auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A);predictive focus tracking activated automatically according to subject status Manual focus (MF): Electronic rangefinder can be used

Does this mean it's got the motor gizmo to support autofocus?  Or does that word not mean what I think it means?

Also, I get nervous when I see the word "kit" -- to what extent would I need to know what I was doing before I could start taking pictures?

[Trippy]

The D3000 does not have autofocus motor built into the camera body so the autofocus features of the camera itself only work with lenses that have an auto-focus motor built into them and are compatible with the Nikon system. Basically if it's an AF-S lens you are good to go (there are also AF-I lens that have built-in AF motors but those aren't made anymore). If it's an AF lens you have to read the specs.

Or you could just go with a Canon DSLR and not worry about such crap

Most of the entry level DSLRs have a "kit lens" which is (relatively) cheap and works okay and you might as well get if you are just starting out unless you know you are getting another lens (or lenses) that will do everything the kit lens does. E.g. the Canon entry DSLRs kit lens is a $200, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Image Stabilizer) lens with an effective focal length of ~32-100mm (because of the relative sensor size you get a "zoom" effect of 1.8x when used on the entry-level DSLRs).

Some of the photography-focused retailers also carry their own "kits" where they bundle extra stuff with the camera (flash memory card, extra battery, bag, tripod, lens filters, so on and so forth). You'll have to do some research to decide if any of those are worth it. If you get serious about photography you will need most or all of that stuff though you might not want the particular items in the kit itself.

If you do get a DSLR you'll want to learn the basics of setting the shutter speed and aperture manually and how those settings affect the picture (depth of field, "freezing" or blurring a moving subject, etc.). If your current P&S is advanced enough it might have a full manual mode you can practice with right now.

[Ookii]

Get an EVIL! Panasonic's Lumix DMC-G1, it's not cheap but it's portable.

Also a Powershot G11 would work, it just doesn't seem like you're the kind of guy who wants to lug around a DSLR.

[nurtsi]

I've noticed myself drooling for a full-frame Canon. This would be the 5D Mk II since that is still small enough to carry around.

The problem is, I love my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS which wouldn't fit the EF mount on the full-frame bodies. Anyone know if there is something similar for the EF mount? It can be L-series, but  I probably can't justify the upgrade then. I mostly shoot people in natural light, so the lens needs to be fast (pref. with IS).

[Trippy]

The problem is, I love my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS which wouldn't fit the EF mount on the full-frame bodies. Anyone know if there is something similar for the EF mount? It can be L-series, but  I probably can't justify the upgrade then. I mostly shoot people in natural light, so the lens needs to be fast (pref. with IS).

These:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=11924

Neither will be as compact as your lens though.

[Righ]

Or you could just go with a Canon DSLR and not worry about such crap

You could, but if autofocus is very important to you, that happens to be one of the areas in which Nikon has outperformed Canon for several years. Despite Canon having a much better range of high-end lenses for sports and concert photography you see a lot of people using Nikons primarily for the speed and accuracy of the autofocus. AF-S lenses are very impressive performers - I rented a lovely one for some concert photography and was blown away by what it could do. For a lot of shots that I would normally have had to shoot manual focus (and get lucky) the f/2.8 70-200 AF-S had no trouble instantly focusing. It's nice to have a body that has a motor to drive older (often cheaper) lenses but being limited to AF-S isn't a hardship - it isn't as if the motor-free Canon lenses save you a lot of money over Nikon AF-S lenses.

The simple truth of the matter though is that unless you're a professional photographer with very demanding requirements, the Canon & Nikon ranges offer very similar value across the board, and other things (such as what lenses you have from film days, what other people you know use - so that you can borrow their lenses  or what is best value at the time of your first purchase) are better discriminators. The people for whom one system is significantly more effective than another are either earning enough from their photography that they should own both systems anyway or are specialising so much that they're entirely aware of the gear that they need to buy.

BTW, the cheapest model in the Nikon range today that has a focus motor in the body is the D90, which is the body that I'm using now. It's a simply fantastic camera, and I'd recommend it to anybody who can drop a grand on an SLR, but really more for features other than the AF motor alone. If you're on a tight budget and want to use inexpensive AF lenses the old D70 & D80 are both solid cameras with most of the same killer mid-range features such as more focus points than the entry-level models, flash commander ability, etc.

Samwise - the word 'kit' in SLR speak simply means that it is a complete and functional camera, including a starter lens, and sometimes a measly little - and probably slow - memory card. The camera bodies are also sold on their own so that people who owned earlier cameras and who have enough entry-level lenses can save a couple of hundred dollars. The official 'kits' usually represent a decent and worthwhile saving if you need a lens of the type offered. Just watch out for dealer bundles that base their 'kit' savings on crap that you don't need (flimsy tripods) or that's usually heavily discounted anyway (cleaning products, memory). The first D-SLR that I bought was a refurbished D50 body (still works fine as my backup camera) cheap from a camera shop and I bought the f/1.8 50mm AF via Amazon. That helped me save up for an 18-200mm superzoom - what people often call a 'travel lens' because it covers a lot of range in one lens. I think over time that's worked out cheaper and more convenient than several kit lenses, but you have to make your purchasing decisions based on what you can afford and what you most want to take photos of at the time. :)

[apocrypha]

My model shoots are jinxed atm. Had one booked tomorrow via Model Mayhem so a week ago I dropped the 2 models a line just to confirm details. No reply. Sent another message this morning and both their profiles have been deleted   Never mind, in the process of trying to set more up.

Also, just possibly accepted a wedding shoot commission! It's a work colleague of my girlfriends who is trying to get married for as little money as possible. I've done my best to convince her to hire an experienced pro but I suspect they may still decide to ask me to do it. This scares me a lot! If I pull it off it'll be great experience and very good for my earning potential, but if I fuck it up.....  

[Righ]

Based on what I've seen of your photos, I don't think you need to worry too much. I've never done wedding photography, but I have a few friends who have done it semi-pro (as in they make a living as IT dudes but do photography as a side gig) and their work is often as good as and always more original than most professional wedding photographers. Probably the best advice I can give based on what I've seen them do would be to get a second pair of hands who can run around with another camera taking candids while you work composition and light for the staged shots. Even if it's an untrained pair of hands shooting full auto, it'll add a lot of charm that even the pros often miss.

[Ookii]

Also, just possibly accepted a wedding shoot commission! It's a work colleague of my girlfriends who is trying to get married for as little money as possible. I've done my best to convince her to hire an experienced pro but I suspect they may still decide to ask me to do it. This scares me a lot! If I pull it off it'll be great experience and very good for my earning potential, but if I fuck it up.....  

That's scary as shit! You have to find those wedding photographer checklists of what and who to shoot, they'll be invaluable the day of.

I'd go and help but you're a bit far away.

[Samwise]

Samwise - the word 'kit' in SLR speak simply means that it is a complete and functional camera, including a starter lens

What if it's explicitly called "camera body kit"?  That's what the Adorama listing I was looking at said, and I couldn't figure out if it came with a lens or not.

If I could actually get a fully functional camera that outperforms my P&S for under $400 and then gradually buy fancier lenses later for it to do more specialized stuff, that's much more appealing than dropping $600-$800 all in one shot.

[Bunk]

I've done it, and it is scary as shit. Having a second shooter is a huge advantage, especially when it comes to getting angles of the ceremony. If you decide to do it, make sure you get a look at the venue in advance to figure out your lighting - it's amazing how badly lit churches are. It took me three days of post process work with a third party noise reduction filter in CS3 to get the shots of the ceremony to look "acceptable". Also, pre-plan the portraits. Ideally, talk the couple in to getting dressed up and doing the portraits of them in advance, then just worry about some family group shots at the actual wedding.

Lastly, if you decide to do it, read the Wedding forums at Fred Miranda for about three straight days first. :)

[Bunk]

Samwise - the word 'kit' in SLR speak simply means that it is a complete and functional camera, including a starter lens

What if it's explicitly called "camera body kit"?  That's what the Adorama listing I was looking at said, and I couldn't figure out if it came with a lens or not.

If I could actually get a fully functional camera that outperforms my P&S for under $400 and then gradually buy fancier lenses later for it to do more specialized stuff, that's much more appealing than dropping $600-$800 all in one shot.

Camera Body kit probably just refers to body only.

Being a Canon guy, i'd look at options like:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=542180&Q=&is=REG&A=details

[Mosesandstick]

Take a look at getting a compact with a larger sensor like a Canon S90 (or G11 like Ooki already mentioned). Carrying a DSLR is a huge hassle for some people. If you don't want the DSLR, you can get an EVIL camera but they're pretty expensive right now.

[Trippy]

If I could actually get a fully functional camera that outperforms my P&S for under $400 and then gradually buy fancier lenses later for it to do more specialized stuff, that's much more appealing than dropping $600-$800 all in one shot.

You won't get a new DSLR with lens for $400, unless it's coming out of the back of a truck or something. If you don't want to spend so much right now there are better P&S/non-DSLR cameras you can get that you can use to learn more about photography before deciding if you want to jump to a DSLR.

The Canon S90, for example, is a P&S form-factor camera that has enough advanced controls to learn more about photography. It's similar to the G11 mentioned above except in a smaller body. The Panasonic LX3 is another camera with advanced controls in a P&S body. Both the S90 and LX3 are specifically designed to do better than the norm in low lighting shooting conditions (the LX3 was the benchmark Canon used when the designed the S90). Note though that they both still use sensors smaller than what are used in DSLR cameras so low light performance still won't be as good as a DSLR.

[Ookii]

Craigslist is your friend, here you go:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pho/1567556502.html

Then you can buy a telephoto lens later. Make sure you inquire how many actuations it has, like cars a camera could be relatively new but have high mileage. 

[Righ]

I wouldn't buy from Craigslist, cameras are complex little things and existing faults aren't always obvious. If you buy used from a retailer with a credit card you've got easy options if it turns out to be partially buggered.

Here are complete used SLR cameras on under $400 on Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20370881.html
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20371809.html
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20370967.html

But for under $400 you can have factory refurbished rather than used:

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

The cheapest D3000 with a lens on Adorama is nearly $500:

http://www.adorama.com/INKD3000K.html

If you wanted to do some low light shooting on a budget, I'd pick up a used Nikon D50 body (the more pro-oriented D100 is heavier and gets you little besides additional older lens compatibility because it was designed a couple of years before the budget D50) and a $99 factory refurbished 50mm f/1.8 AF lens:

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20370878.html
http://www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDR.html

[apocrypha]

Thanks for the wedding shoot ideas & comments guys :)  I'm definitely planning to do a pre-wedding shoot with the couple, just some nice portrait type stuff, get us all used to working together and help them relax a bit infront of the camera.

Also totally going to check out the venue first, possibly quite soon, do some practice shots and get a feel for the place.

An assistant is a given, a 2nd shooter might be more difficult to arrange, although there's a couple of students on my course who aren't completely terrible, one of them could always tote my D80 around, good idea :)

[Mosesandstick]

If you can't find an assistant I'll go  . Being a 2nd photog is about the only way you can get real experience whilst getting none of the blame.

Refurbed stuff is often quite good. As far as I know they're usually individually looked at by engineers and as a result are in tip-top shape and well calibrated.