5punk

.

The resolution of 2.3 mega pixels is 1920x1200. 8 mega pixel is far more than needed for a clean A4 picture. The constraint there is on the quality of the printing equipment rather than the camera.

For that kind of money you're looking at a reasonably good point and shoot compact thing. If you could find a good new dslr body and lenses for £100-150 then point it out please!

Filters - generally the camera can do most of the trickery to itself. You can get uv/polarizing/graduated etc. Generally to help with types of shot. But a good camera can reduce uv or warm/cool a picture with its white balance.

Shakes - most of them possess anti-shake techniques that cancel out spazzy hands.

Shutter speed, how low/high do you want it? A few minutes or 8000th of a second? To get extreme speeds you need lenses and lighting that work but the constraints on what you can photograph are rather slim. Case in point - cameras showing stills of bullets going through cans of beer/melons/water balloons etc.

I generally look at jessops for make/model look at which or similar for reviews then search for what I want across a variety of sites.

I've just had an idea!

I use a D50, got it two years ago for £500. The standard boxed model came with a 18-50mm Lens. I paid a little bit extra and got the far superior 18-70mm Lens, which should do you for all your landscapes and portraits for quite some time. The D50 is a little outdated now, but still takes good pictures.

amblin wrote:But I need some advice - ten minutes on the internet shows the cheapest new d-SLRs are about £250 for 8 megapixels, is that good enough for A4 print sizes without pixellation at decent dpi?

I don't really print my stuff out that often, but when I sent my snaps off to Jessops they seemed to come out okay, and the D50 is an 8MP camera. The only loss in quality you might find is colour-noise, but that's more down to the photographer than the camera.

amblin wrote:Is it reasonably quick and simple to upload images to your PC and is there any decent thumbnail management software?

Yes, USB 2.0 works at 48 Megabytes per second, so moving 3-5MB pictures onto a PC is fairly painless, unless you take thousands.

amblin wrote:Can I get away with spending £100 - £150 on a camera and lens?

You can probably spend that much on a simple lens, but camera bodies can cost the earth. Depends what features you want.

amblin wrote:Are traditional lenses compatible with digital bodies?

Technically, yes. But the autofocus works a LOT slower, so if you keep having to refocus on stuff expect a lot of noisy whirring, and a little waiting. A brand new lens designed for the camera you're using is always the best thing.

amblin wrote:What about filters? Is a red felcher for increased B&W contrast going to work on dSLR?

I use a UV felcher (cheap) to felcher out glare and protect the lens. It's a LOT cheaper to replace a UV felcher than it is to replace your lens, after all. Always have it on, only remove it in emergencies. I also got a Polarising lens for christmas, this saturates light colours (such as the sky, making it a richer blue) and removes bright sunlight reflections (from windows, the ocean etc).

As for colour filters, you can pick up a mount for your lens, and a ton of old filters to slot into it. They're usually pretty cheap, but maintaining a big collection soon mounts up in cost.

amblin wrote:What's the shutter speed like? I get the shakes, so anything less than 100 is going to be blurred, 250 and above I'll get a decent image.

My shutter speed ranges from 20 Seconds to 1,600th of a second. Some go up to 32,000. From memory..
20s, 10s, 5s, 2s, 1s, 1/10s, 1/32s, 1/64s, 1/100s, 1/125s (most people can hold this steadily) 1/200s, 1/300s, 1/500, 1/1000s, 1/1600.

amblin wrote:Have you done any interesting digital or standard photographic projects recently?

I use my SLR for everything. Arty stuff and casual stuff, when I can be bothered to carry it around.
See <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/grimmie">w ... grimmie</a>.

HereComesPete wrote:Filters - generally the camera can do most of the trickery to itself. You can get uv/polarizing/graduated etc. Generally to help with types of shot. But a good camera can reduce uv or warm/cool a picture with its white balance.

See also: Photoshop

I'm a bit poo at the old 'shop. So I try and get it right as I can on any picture I take then fiddle as little as possible afterwards. It is very helpful for some things that are down right dastardly on a camera however.


I too need a new camera, my old lumpy point and shoot 5 mega pixel thing hasn't been used in about forever. I think clear a little bit of debt then get summat like a 450d and an extra lens.

Jessops have deals on - Linky!

I shall sidle into this thread by saying I'm also looking at replacing my camera.

I certainly need something that cancels out spazzy hands, other than that my cheapo Samsung does all I need of it, even rudimentary HDR, with three-exposure level pictures all taken at once - I think it's called AES on mine.

I suppose something with more mega pixels (than 5) the aforementioned shaky-hands cancellation, AES/equivalent and perhaps RAW output. I'm not sure I'll be convinced I need an SLR model.

FJ- my dad has one of these and it's very good as a point and shoot thing. It's options for different environments are a bit silly in number and automatic mode offers very nice shots in a variety of situations. He doesn't let me near his d50 though. Very possessive of his toys he is.

.

amblin wrote:Awesome replies chaps, ta.

. I like to play with depth of field (I like it very small, or very large far away, middle ground is boring).

FIX'D!

When I get home I shall post an action shot of a F1 car in full flight (if I can find it)

amblin wrote:I'm a still life / landscape photographer, never really had the knack for action shots or humans

The 18-70mm is good for landscapes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grimmie/25 ... 630847603/

amblin wrote:Integrated flash would be nice, hulking around a massive flash cannon is daft.

You generally only really need those for indoor stuff and portraits. If you want to take landscapes then using a flash is pointless, as they only have a reach of about 2-3 metres. The best lighting for landscapes is daylight.

amblin wrote:I'd quite like to get a macro lens at some point to play with close ups.

My 18-70mm camera takes decent macro.

I also have a 70-300mm zoom lens that has a macro setting built into the lens.

For close ups
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grimmie/25 ... 630847603/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grimmie/27 ... 630847603/

And for distance detail shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grimmie/27 ... 630847603/

amblin wrote:This on looks pretty shiny. But F3.5-5.6?

My D50 does F3.5 - F22, for reference.

I have, and use a Canon 400D that i bought a few years ago. I think something like a 350D on ebay or secondhand shouldn't cost too much, which is the route I'd recommend to go down.
Can't really fault the digital rebel series from canon for entry-level dslrs.


Filters are quite fun, I recently bought a set of 5 different colours for £13 on ebay. They're best used with B+W photography, strangely enough... Produce very 'deep' looking pictures, especially with a blue or red felcher in B+W.

I have a Canon Rebel XT, basically just a Canadian 350D. The only lenses I have for it atm are the basic stock lens and my 90/300 pedo lensfor long range shit.

I'm far from being the best photographer in the world but it's nice just to go out to things like the local rally with a decent snapper and get some nice pictures once in a while. Not into the artsy side of picture taking I just like having a nice point and click snapper.

EDITZ: http://www.5punk.co.uk/discuss/29072/

Took those this time last year with my cheap SLR chap.

Sol wrote:Filters are quite fun, I recently bought a set of 5 different colours for £13 on ebay. They're best used with B+W photography, strangely enough... Produce very 'deep' looking pictures, especially with a blue or red felcher in B+W.

Interesting - can they do much that Photoshop can't, or did I just say a bad thing and that's obviously totally cheating whereas filters aren't?

Obviously a polarising lens does stuff Photoshop cannot replicate, but the colour ones? I guess the spectrum of light captured by any sort of camera isn't infinite, so these tweak the edges of the range. I wonder if there's a school analagous to the HDR-haters who view it all as impure herecy.

Yeah they act quite differently, you wouldn't get the same style (or it would be increasingly hard to replicate) by using photoshop, as the filters block out certain parts of the light, rather than just change their colour... If that makes sense? I bought mine here.

FatherJack wrote:Interesting - can they do much that Photoshop can't, or did I just say a bad thing and that's obviously totally cheating whereas filters aren't?

Image>Adjust>Black and White works pretty well for playing around with colour intensities on the different RGB channels.
Image>Adjust>Photo Filters are pretty good for while balancing, too.

I'm looking at treating myself to a digital SLR for my birthday this year, had been thinking about the Canon 450D (Shush Grimmie ) but prices have gone up quite a lot in the past month, apparently due to the decline of the Yen.

You could get a bargain with the Canon oulet store on ebay, the 400D is a solid camera and going pretty cheap

amblin wrote:Awesome replies chaps, ta.
edit: This one looks pretty shiny. But F3.5-5.6?

You can get that with other kit lenses. Remember that Sony = Minolta. You can use ALL the old Minolta lenses. So you could save £££s if you can find some decent second hand lenses.

I'm waiting for their next model. I'm hoping they will release something between the A700 and A900.

mrbobbins wrote:I'm looking at treating myself to a digital SLR for my birthday this year, had been thinking about the Canon 450D (Shush Grimmie ) but prices have gone up quite a lot in the past month, apparently due to the decline of the Yen.

You could get a bargain with the Canon oulet store on ebay, the 400D is a solid camera and going pretty cheap

It's worth mentioning that jessops will price match Internet prices.

Sol wrote:It's worth mentioning that jessops will price match Internet prices.

Depending on their mood, and if it's a UK based shop (least, that used to be the case)

Yeah, I bought mine from the lovely people in Stevenage Jessops, but then again, this was 3 years ago...