Reply to topic  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Stupid questions 
Author Message
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 4932
Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
Reply with quote
Those with an SLR and glasses, does pressing your expensive glasses up against a viewfinder never get annoying or even sometimes damaging to your glasses?

Is full frame so much money to just be prohibitive for "average" people like me? Has anyone here got one and did you upgrade from APS? Is it vastly better?

Anybody jumped on Four Thirds yet? Thoughts....?

Is there a ballpark number (or range thereof) you could give to someone with zero experience of "proper" digital cameras to account for a body, enough lenses for low light, sports and landscapes (you tell me how many, what you think they would be) and a decent bag and anything else you deem essential?

Is there a cheap way around paying $500 for a screen calibration device?

Thanks guys.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:07 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
Those with an SLR and glasses, does pressing your expensive glasses up against a viewfinder never get annoying or even sometimes damaging to your glasses?


It's always annoying, but the cameras I've owned have soft rubberised surrounds to the viewfinder. The worst it gets is smudgy and annoying. Not noticed any permanent damage.

okenobi wrote:
Is full frame so much money to just be prohibitive for "average" people like me? Has anyone here got one and did you upgrade from APS? Is it vastly better?


I'm still small sensor. There are advantages to them, such as using lenses designed for full frame giving roughly a 1.6x enlargement factor. Can be handy. I understand there are affordable full frame cameras from Sony.

okenobi wrote:
Anybody jumped on Four Thirds yet? Thoughts....?


Is that even still a thing? The new species of interchangeable lens compacts, such as the new one from Canon, do seem to be popular. It depends on what you want from your gear, I guess.

okenobi wrote:
Is there a ballpark number (or range thereof) you could give to someone with zero experience of "proper" digital cameras to account for a body, enough lenses for low light, sports and landscapes (you tell me how many, what you think they would be) and a decent bag and anything else you deem essential?


Without checking prices, I'd say budget about £1000 to £1500 to get a good setup from the get-go. A decent APS-C body is about £500-700, depending on features. A nifty-fifty is about £100, and add maybe a longer range zoom to supplement the kit lens for about £300-400. You probably don't need everything all at once. I've acquired lenses as I found a need for them. You might consider renting lenses to try them out before you stump up a decent wodge of cash only to find you never actually use the thing. A half-decent tripod will set you back at least a ton. A good bag can be had for about £80-100, depending on size and so on.

okenobi wrote:
Is there a cheap way around paying $500 for a screen calibration device?


You can't beat the Mk 1 eyeball in many cases. Most computer systems have some rudimentary form of calibration included, but it does depend on the quality of the screen you're calibrating. I use a Pantone Huey Pro (http://www.pantone.co.uk/pages/products ... px?pid=562) which is quite adequate and comes in under £100.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:20 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
Those with an SLR and glasses, does pressing your expensive glasses up against a viewfinder never get annoying or even sometimes damaging to your glasses?


Never been an issue for me. Shooting with my (stronger) left eye is more hassle!

okenobi wrote:
Anybody jumped on Four Thirds yet? Thoughts....?


I've had a brief play with one of the students (steady) and a colleague's got one - I like it. I think it's a great little system. Give it the right light and there's not much between it and a 'proper' dslr.

okenobi wrote:
Is there a ballpark number (or range thereof) you could give to someone with zero experience of "proper" digital cameras to account for a body, enough lenses for low light, sports and landscapes (you tell me how many, what you think they would be) and a decent bag and anything else you deem essential?


Some figures plucked out of the air:
Canon 7D body, about £1000 - £1200
Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM - ~£650
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM - ~£280
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM - ~£900.

Or maybe combine some of those in the Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM ~£789

Plus a couple of good CF cards:
2x 16GB Sandisk Pro Extreme - ~£130

Bag:
Something like a Lowepro Pro Trekker 400 AW - ~£250 (a larger bag, but I don't know anybody who wishes they'd bought a smaller bag, and also handy as I guess you'll be wanting to go skiing with it.)
Also check out the Kata range of bags.

Ballpark figure for all of that: £3410.00


okenobi wrote:
Is there a cheap way around paying $500 for a screen calibration device?


Yeah, don't use one. ;)

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:31 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
Is full frame so much money to just be prohibitive for "average" people like me? Has anyone here got one and did you upgrade from APS? Is it vastly better?
I upgraded from a Nikon Coolpix 5700 to my Nikon D3.
Yes. The D3 is vastly better than the 5700 was.
Noise reduction, image resolution, ISO, shutter speeds, manual control …
There's simply no comparison between the two formats from my personal experience.
okenobi wrote:
Is there a ballpark number (or range thereof) you could give to someone with zero experience of "proper" digital cameras to account for a body, enough lenses for low light, sports and landscapes (you tell me how many, what you think they would be) and a decent bag and anything else you deem essential?
You might try looking at camera+lens bundles, as a first step, just have in mind what your expected results are.
You can get a mid-range body (price wise) but for really good glass you'll not get that cheap.
okenobi wrote:
Is there a cheap way around paying $500 for a screen calibration device?
I've never once used an external screen calibration device.
It might have something to do with the level of accurate colour reproduction from the camera, but I've never had any problem with reproducing colour accuracy in my images.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:35 pm
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 4932
Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
Reply with quote
Thanks guys.

More questions:
Why is EVF important?
Are kit lenses crap when compared with the rest of the available stuff (I mean in terms of optical quality, one assumes they fill a useful gap in range between W and T, or maybe they don't?)?

Heather, your calibration device looks interesting - thanks. Have you ever tried full frame? Do you regret staying small, or do you find cheaper lenses (and/or anything else) a boon? What's a nifty fifty and is it the same as the thing Al says is £280? What are the common applications for such a lense?

Al, are you saying that a four thirds sensor would be a problem in low light? Would you consider it for a "job", or do you see it as more for people like me who want better image quality than compacts, but aren't pros? Yes, I would be wanting to ski with it (amongst other activities in the future). Need to think about maybe just a smaller bag as well, that could be placed inside my usual 45l skipack. Interesting that you're number is over twice Heather's!

Mark, if I'm not mistaken the 5700 wasn't APS, but a small sensor - no? So it's obviously gonna be night and day. I was hoping that having a full frame body wasn't essential, and that APS was a possibility (or maybe even four thirds as a minimum). Have you used a more entry/mid level body at any point? With regard to your point about bundles, would you consider it better to skip the kit lense and get something different? And if so, why?


If I was happy to get a second hand body (which I probably am), could I get one lense to start with that would cope with a variety of situations (with the mountain in mind) and keep the price to under £1000? Or is that just a kit lense?


Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:45 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
Heather, your calibration device looks interesting - thanks. Have you ever tried full frame? Do you regret staying small, or do you find cheaper lenses (and/or anything else) a boon? What's a nifty fifty and is it the same as the thing Al says is £280? What are the common applications for such a lense?


I don't regret staying small. The EOS 7D is an amazing camera, built like a tank. The "zoom" factor is useful, too. I have a 70-200mm lens now, which gives me an effective 112-320mm ƒ/2.8. My original plan when buying my first DSLR was to move to full frame when it became affordable - at the time Canon was the only big manufacturer that had full frame digital SLRs in its range. It's still just out of reach - but I don't think I'll be changing from the 7D any time soon.

A nifty fifty is a cheap 50mm prime lens. Film SLRs used to ship with one in the box. Canon's cheapest one is under £100 (I paid £70 for mine!) and it's basically plastic with some glass in it. It's an ƒ/1.8 which makes it nice and bright for fairly low light indoor use, and gives some nice shallow depth of field effects for outdoor use.

I reckon most current kit lenses are actually quite good. They're still built down to a price, but they're not as bad as the one I got with my 400D. They usually come in a 17-50mm range, which gives a good wide angle for landscape and reasonable zoom for framing. You could perhaps budget for a slightly longer focal length zoom to complement it, although I'd say hang fire until you have a better idea what you might need. As I said before, you don't want to spend out on lenses you never use. All the lenses in my bag are there after careful consideration as to whether they fulfil a need.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:50 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
I was hoping that having a full frame body wasn't essential, and that APS was a possibility (or maybe even four thirds as a minimum). Have you used a more entry/mid level body at any point? With regard to your point about bundles, would you consider it better to skip the kit lense and get something different? And if so, why?
You were hoping that a full frame body wasn't essential for what, exactly?
You don't need a full frame to take good photos.
I've seen some wonderful pictures that were taken on mobile phones.
Don't get hung-up by the technology and just get the best that you can afford now. I worked hard and saved a lot of money for my gear, but I knew exactly what it was that I wanted it for.
At first I made do with a lens (just to be picky, there's no e on the end, sorry) for a smaller sensor for the first couple of months, which enabled me to get used to the camera functions/controls then when I got the first 'proper' lens for it I knew what and how the camera was capable of.

If you know what photos you are going to be taking and in what situations you'll want to use it then that's half the job.

Kit lenses are usually a bit on the cheap side, and with cheap lenses the image quality can sometimes suffer. Sadly with lenses, you get what you pay for.
Just to be clear, my camera came body only, so I've never actually used a kit lens.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:00 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
Thanks guys.

More questions:
Why is EVF important?


Fold out EVFs are handy when you want to grab a shot up high or down low.

okenobi wrote:
Are kit lenses crap when compared with the rest of the available stuff (I mean in terms of optical quality, one assumes they fill a useful gap in range between W and T, or maybe they don't?)?


Kit lenses are generally ok. They tend to lose it a bit at the each end, you'll notice more distortion at the wide end generally, and more chromatic aberration than a decent zoom or prime, imho.
There's still occasions where I'll stick it on when I'm shooting burlesque, and I'll want to go from a wide to something a bit closer. Ideally I want the 24-105mm f4, but there we are.

okenobi wrote:
Al, are you saying that a four thirds sensor would be a problem in low light? Would you consider it for a "job", or do you see it as more for people like me who want better image quality than compacts, but aren't pros?


I don't what the low light, high ISO noise is like on them. Depending on the job, I wouldn't see a problem with using one - the image quality is fine. In fact, I know of at least one photographer who does use his for paying jobs, when he can.

Some interesting blog reads by the same chap in fact:
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/could-there-be-better-time-to-buy-used.html
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/first-portrait-with-nikon-d3200-camera.html - with reference to your question about kit lenses.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/oh-dear-god-i-need-latest-camera.html

okenobi wrote:
Yes, I would be wanting to ski with it (amongst other activities in the future). Need to think about maybe just a smaller bag as well, that could be placed inside my usual 45l skipack. Interesting that you're number is over twice Heather's!


:) Yeah, but ideally my bag would be the only one you'd need to pack. Should be lots of room in it for your camera, lenses, rain covers, water, food, a waterproof...

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:09 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
HeatherKay wrote:
okenobi wrote:
Those with an SLR and glasses, does pressing your expensive glasses up against a viewfinder never get annoying or even sometimes damaging to your glasses?


It's always annoying, but the cameras I've owned have soft rubberised surrounds to the viewfinder. The worst it gets is smudgy and annoying. Not noticed any permanent damage.


ProfessorF wrote:
okenobi wrote:
Those with an SLR and glasses, does pressing your expensive glasses up against a viewfinder never get annoying or even sometimes damaging to your glasses?


Never been an issue for me. Shooting with my (stronger) left eye is more hassle!


Anyone tried using the dioptre adjustment, or is your prescription beyond the range?

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:20 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
It's really just a question of my left eye being the stronger of the two. It feels totally wrong for me to shoot with my right eye. Like writing with the wrong hand - I can do it, but the results aren't anything I'd want to show off.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:22 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
I guess left handers have the same concerns.

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:25 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
HeatherKay wrote:
okenobi wrote:
Is full frame so much money to just be prohibitive for "average" people like me? Has anyone here got one and did you upgrade from APS? Is it vastly better?


I'm still small sensor. There are advantages to them, such as using lenses designed for full frame giving roughly a 1.6x enlargement factor. Can be handy. I understand there are affordable full frame cameras from Sony.


I think the 1.6x enlargement factor term only works when everything is copmpared like for like except the sensor. So if you have two different size sensors, both of 10MP, then a subject captured using the same lens would cover more pixels on the smaller sensor, and effectively give you an enlargement or magnicication over the larger sensor.

Change that example to a 10MP small sensor and 36MP large sensor, and although the subject would occupy more of the small sensors pixels, you would be able to get much better magnifcation or enlargement from the large sensor.

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:02 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
Change that example to a 10MP small sensor and 36MP large sensor, and although the subject would occupy more of the small sensors pixels, you would be able to get much better magnifcation or enlargement from the large sensor.
Again, it all comes down to what you want to do with your images.
If they are only going to get printed small or just for web/screen exhibition, full frame would be a waste of money, in my opinion.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:08 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
FWIW, I've fairly regularly gone to A1 and A2 at 300 dpi with files from a cropped sensor and they're fine.
A 36MP sensor is more or less getting into digital medium format territory, again IMHO.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:17 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
okenobi wrote:
Those with an SLR and glasses, does pressing your expensive glasses up against a viewfinder never get annoying or even sometimes damaging to your glasses?

I use the dioptric adjustment on the viewfinder and I can take photos without needing my glasses on. I guess it will depend on what exactly you need.

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:26 am
Profile ICQ
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 206 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.