General Chat Thread, Any amateur photographers here? in General; Agreed on the Velbon, and spend a good few quid on it, I think mine cost about £45 and its ...
14th July 2009, 10:35 PM #61
Agreed on the Velbon, and spend a good few quid on it, I think mine cost about £45 and its very nice and smooth
14th July 2009, 11:30 PM #62
I've been into Photography for a while and only been using Digital SLR for the last couple of years. I use a Nikon D40x and looking to upgrade to a D90 when I have some spare money.
For anyone starting out, I recommend either Nikon or Canon. You don't have to have a pro model to get great photos. It's about having a good eye, composition and learning how to use manual settings, depth of field etc.
As well, experiment with different kinds of photography, it's a great way to learn how your camera works.
I use this site quite a bit. It has weekly assignments and guides on all kinds of photography.
Digital Photography School - Digital Photography Tips for You
14th July 2009, 11:47 PM #63
As an ex-pro photographer, it's got to be Nikon every time for me. I've used Canon, Olympus, Hasselblad, and Mamiya film cameras over the years, but always found Nikon to give me the edge in performance. The same is true now for DSLR and I'm very happy with my Nikons. Their VR lenses are amazing.
Don't cut corners by buying the cheaper lenses or filters, and buy the most expensive tripod you can afford.
And get it all insured!
15th July 2009, 12:06 AM #64
One thing that bugs the hell out of me is people who insist on comparing their £250 point and shoot camera with my £2500 kit and saying that the pictures are kind of the same.
These are the same people who just don't notice iso noise.
Who just don't understand the relationship between f-stops, focal length & depth of field. Nor the way a lens will distort perspective at different focal lengths.
They rarely even notice the type of light they are shooting.
They really have no Idea why I wasted £200 on a dedicated flash and £20 on a defuser.
I can go on. But I feel better now.
15th July 2009, 07:41 AM #65
All very true.
Originally Posted by ICT_GUY
Most people who use point and shooters, though, are more than happy with the results and therefore won't understand why we hulk around massive SLRs.
And if they're printing pictures taken in good light at 10 x 15cm from a good compact there simply won't be much noticeable difference.
The SLRs advantage is in it's flexibility, low-light performance and ability to produce massive prints from reletively low pixel counts.
15th July 2009, 08:43 AM #66
@ ICT_GUY - err no I promise not to compare my £100 Sony point and shoot to your light collecting cannon
Thanks to cookie_monster from:
15th July 2009, 08:43 AM #67
And the creative options, the control over how the shot is taken, ability to take instant photos, the ability to take 6fps @ 15MP, the fine tuning, the ability to shoot in raw, the ability of tuning the image in adobe image raw before it even gets near photoshop. And loads more
Originally Posted by westleya
15th July 2009, 08:58 AM #68
Yes, that too
Originally Posted by ICT_GUY
By Little-Miss in forum Other Stuff
Last Post: 24th November 2008, 11:00 AM
By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 29th October 2008, 02:10 PM
By DaveP in forum Other Stuff
Last Post: 29th October 2008, 11:37 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)