# Seeking Advice On Good Nikon Camera For Work and Pleasure



## Natty

I'm going through filming school and I would like a nice camera. Before I ask the real question, does anyone know if they can make slides from a digital camera photoshot? I was planning to ask the camera shop tomorrow about that, but if anyone knows and can answer beforehand, that would be cool.

Anyhow, real question:

I need a nice camera recommendation around the range of $300-1200. I want to get a Nikon. I want one that's great for macro shots, shooting very small things with great details...pictures that rain- the user has. Her photos are very inspiring. Anyhow, of course I would also like the camera to take normal shots, definately something with a lot nicer picture than my Canon Powershot point and shoot.

I've also done a search on this forum beforehand, DSLR (digital slr right?) came up, any recommendations on which to get? I'm not looking into getting a spanking elite super professional camera, I would just like a pretty good one that'll last me for a long time with no real need to upgrade.

I'm currently using my school's borrowed camera, Nikon FM 10. Any idea on the quality of that? I just hate borrowing it from the school because I have 3 days to use it before returning it and the only days I'm free is Thursday and I can't borrow it on Monday or Wednesday...........they won't let me.

So I'm abit tired of that.

Any great links on how to look for a good camera would be cool too, I'm going to google around for the next few days.

Thanks.

Usage:
-Shoot really small stuff in great details
-Can also be used for great normal shots...scenery shots etc.
-Shots of the tank, etc.

Oh yeah, question:
-So I'm guessing since it is DSLR, it uses SD memory cards? Any benefits to shooting film than putting it into a sd card instead? Like better quality etc? Total noob on this.


----------



## Natty

So far I'm interested in the Nikon D90 DX and the Nikon D60. The 60 is a lot cheaper, is that good enough for me or should I aim for the D90 more? 

I'm definately more into the D60 for the cost and it looks plenty good right?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=nikon+dslr+camera


----------



## Jeremy VanderKelen

From what I know, and most of what I know on cameras comes from my wife, the D80 and D90 models don't really add to many features that the average picture taker would use.

You would want to save a few dollars anyways to spend on a nicer lens as a good lens will be what help's you take the superb closeup shots you are probably looking for.


----------



## supaoopa

D60 is still a great camera and usually come with a 18mm-55mm lens with vibration reduction good for portrait shots. D90 is the D80's replacement and is also an excellent camera with a few more bells and whistles like the ability to use the LCD as a view finder and the ability to take video in 720p resolution. 

Either way you go expect to spend a few hundred extra for a macro lens to take better closeup shots as already mentioned.


----------



## AlexRaven

I bought the Nikon D60 2 months before and am very satisfyied. It is a user friendly camera and it does the job for the average photografer. 
And I have to agree that it is better to spend the money on buying good quality lens.


----------



## DarioDario

Ya the nikkor macro lens is pricey $850. You could look around for used one or go for the earlier models but I would try and get one with Vibration Reduction (VR). You also have the option of getting a 3rd party lens at the expense of some image quality(sigma, tamron). The price of the macro lens and just the overall higher cost of any nikon lens is the reason I went with Canon. my $.02

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424744-GREY/Nikon_2160_105mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html


----------



## youareafever

go canon, their 100mm macro is 600 dollars, and its a really nice lens. some people use it for portraits and landscapes as well. 

and as mentioned already, purchase a used camera body and spend the big buck on lenses. 

www.fredmiranda.com <--- to help you out


----------



## danakin

Norman Rockwell has a good Recommended Cameras page 

Rockwell is one of those guys who just lives and dies by cameras and gear, and is pretty highly regarded in the subject.


----------



## Jason Baliban

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

Cant really beat the D40 for somebody starting into the world of DSLR. The D60 and D80 are outdated already. The D40 is also outdated but for $300, you could throw it away in a year and have gotten your money out of it.

The D90 may be an over kill for somebody not really used to a DSLR. 

My advice is to get the D40 for $300 and a used lens on craigslist. In a year, if you are loving life with a DSLR, upgrade to the latest and greatest. Lenses dont go bad, but bodies do, so dont trouble yourself with bodies so much.

If you need suggestions for lenses, i have some.

Good Luck,

jB


----------



## fishdweeb

N90 is "the" camera for the film/graphic arts student. 
However after using both nikon and canon extensively I chose Canon for it's price, durability and lens quality. (granted Nikon and Canon are both top line)

In macro lens's you get what you pay for....I used the 100mm canon macro for several months and then sold it on ebay as I could not get the quality of image that I get from using my Pentax spotmatic, a 50mm lens and the 'macro extension bellows unit'.

digital to slides, slides to digital....you can go both directions with ease. Actually it is more consumer friendly to transfer slides to digital than it is to go digital to slides...but both can be done.

Film is not dead, but it is on life support. 

A bit more expensive, but the Canon 5d offers a full frame sensor. (which is not vital for macro, but certainly is for everything else.)


----------



## mistergreen

the canon rebel ain't bad either and is a little cheaper...
The money is in the lens, so save up. A telephoto would be sweet too.


----------



## DarioDario

youareafever said:


> go canon, their 100mm macro is 600 dollars, and its a really nice lens. some people use it for portraits and landscapes as well.


The canon 100mm f2.8 is a one of the sharpest lens to get you could also get the 60mm and get good results

I've come across great deals on the 100mm 2.8 on craigslist. 
The one I have right now I got lucky and bought it for $225 came with box and warranty.



Jason Baliban said:


> Cant really beat the D40 for somebody starting into the world of DSLR. The D60 and D80 are outdated already. The D40 is also outdated but for $300, you could throw it away in a year and have gotten your money out of it.
> 
> My advice is to get the D40 for $300 and a used lens on craigslist. In a year, if you are loving life with a DSLR, upgrade to the latest and greatest. Lenses dont go bad, but bodies do, so dont trouble yourself with bodies so much.
> 
> jB


D40 is a good entry level but I find it to be severely limited by the fact that it does not have an AF motor inside. So your are limited to buying lenses that have AF motor included. Which leads you to buying lenses that are 100% more pricey than your camera body. 

If your thinking about sticking with photography for a while then you might want to think about a camera body that is a notch higher than the D40.

I actually started off with a Nikon D40 (Got it for $200 of craigslist another deal) realized the 105 mm macro lens I wanted was gonna cost me ~$700 said no way.

Got a new Canon 40D for $800 and scored my macro lens and I couldn't be happier. Features on the Canon 40D trumps the Nikon D40, so overall the little extra investment was worth it.

So be patient if your on a budget something usually turns up, and be wary of certain websites with incredible deals (usually a scam). Best if you handle/test the product b4 u buy.

Understand the DSLR world can get expensive real quick (Lens, Body, Flash, Case, Tripod ect...) but if your committed I think its worth it.


Some reliable site for more info
http://www.cameralabs.com/ & http://www.dpreview.com/

BTW stay away from that Ken Rockwell, he is undoubtedly the biggest D-bag in the SLR world. "Don't use tripods, Jpeg better than RAW" he will lead you astray, you hear me!


----------



## Natty

Okay, I've narrowed it down to something either:

Canon 40D
or
Nikon D60..I'll research on the D40 in a bit.

Anyhow, any comparisons between the both and what are some price ranges I should look for that would be a good deal on them?

I haven't gone into your links yet, just woke up this morning, I have to go people stalking today to finish my assignment so when I come back I'll look at it more thoroughly. Be back in a bit.


----------



## Sounguru

If it helps I was a hardcore Nikon fan when I ran film, but when I went digital I flipped canon for a few reasons.

#1 they are a little ahaed of the curve when playing in the pro field
#2 They have more parts and pieces for their cameras than the vegas desert has bodies.
#3 At the time they had the lowest noise fastest camera in the price range I was looking at.

Since the switch I'm a very happy camper and would never look back. Nikon makes a good camera but only recently has started to catch up to Canon. I use a 40D and their cheap 50mm macro and you can see the results here


----------



## BiscuitSlayer

I have a D40X and I love it. Bought it with 18-55 mm and 55-200 mm lenses. The Macro lense is next, but it is going to be steep at about $900 or so. My buddy who helped me with the purchase has a full line of cannon equipment, and he likes my camera the most. He says the quality of the pictures is better than his and I don't have near as much specialized equipment as he does. He has the flashes, lenses, etc. 

My buddy's next camera is going to be a Nikon, according to him.


----------



## Natty

Wait, so when you guys say D40, you're referring to Nikon D40 ...or Canon 40D?

D40<-->40D
Nikon<-->Canon


----------



## BiscuitSlayer

Mine is a Nikon D40X.


----------



## mott

I have the D-40 and really like it but I have to get that macro lens, I need to save that thing is pricey HOLY S!


----------



## plakat

If you want to take macro shots and are just starting out go for one of the rebels instead of the 40D. I know the 40D is a bit better but the extra money can be spent on getting a macro and flash which will do more to help than buying cheap lenses and an expensive body.


----------



## Sounguru

I meant the Canon 40D not enough sugar in my blood stream yet and was typing half awake my bad. Corrected it.


----------



## DaveS

I can't argue with the fact that the Canon 40D is one very nice camera, but honestly it isn't a fair comparison to use the Nikon D40 as the alternative. The Canon 40D is in a completely different class of camera than the Nikon D40, despite the confusingly similar model names. The 40D is Canon's upper level prosumer camera while the D40 is Nikon's entry level model. 

If it were me, I would look into something a little more affordable, such as the Canon Digital Rebel (pick your flavor), or a 20D/30D. This is your first DSLR, try something reasonable first. As mentioned earlier, you can get some great deals on well cared for used bodies. I still use the original Digital Rebel which I got for almost nothing and it does a fantastic job. My dad has the 20D and it is a great, great body as well. I can't imagine needing more than the 20D, but I'm not anywhere close to a pro either. Then again, if I were a professional I wouldn't be shopping for a crop body camera in the first place. Take that money you saved and get a decent flash and a good lens. 

Dave


----------



## Natty

I can definately afford a Nikon D40, but so far my choices are a bit stuck between Nikon D40 and the canon 40D.

I'm looking around and I can get a Nikon D40 for about $300 new...and save up and use the rest of the money and buy some lens....or should I shoot for the stars and get the better Canon 40D that's around $800-1000....lens is going to be harder to get since it'll be over my budget and I'll have to take time to save more money then...

Probably the D40 for the time being?

Btw, anyone know about shutter life and how much it cost to replace the shutter?


----------



## DaveS

The shutter on my camera is rated for 40,000 cycles I believe. I like using my camera, but I bet something else dies on it before I come close to 40,000 pictures taken. I've had this body for a few years and I'm still under 10,000 pictures taken. I would not worry about it honestly.

Dave


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> I can definately afford a Nikon D40, but so far my choices are a bit stuck between Nikon D40 and the canon 40D.
> 
> I'm looking around and I can get a Nikon D40 for about $300 new...and save up and use the rest of the money and buy some lens....or should I shoot for the stars and get the better Canon 40D that's around $800-1000....lens is going to be harder to get since it'll be over my budget and I'll have to take time to save more money then...
> 
> Probably the D40 for the time being?
> 
> Btw, anyone know about shutter life and how much it cost to replace the shutter?


I've used a friend's D40 and I was less than impressed with the camera for a couple of reasons. It takes very good pictures, but it is missing some features that I use quite a bit on my Digital Rebel. First, there is no depth of field preview button that I am aware of. This is a very handy feature that I find myself using quite often. It also has only three auto focus points and that was a huge bummer compared to the seven on my DR.

I have also used the Nikon D60, and that is a very nice body. If you really want a Nikon, see if you can swing the extra for the D60. If I were buying today, I would probably still go Canon because I have access to Canon lenses, but the D60 would be a serious contender. 

Dave


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> I can definately afford a Nikon D40, but so far my choices are a bit stuck between Nikon D40 and the canon 40D.
> 
> I'm looking around and I can get a Nikon D40 for about $300 new...and save up and use the rest of the money and buy some lens....or should I shoot for the stars and get the better Canon 40D that's around $800-1000....lens is going to be harder to get since it'll be over my budget and I'll have to take time to save more money then...
> 
> Probably the D40 for the time being?
> 
> Btw, anyone know about shutter life and how much it cost to replace the shutter?


You should look at the Rebel series. They are still quality cameras and depending on the model not too far apart from the 40D in image quality. Depending on the model you might be able to pick one up for several hundred less then a 40D, maybe even half the price of a 40d depending on what one you pick. That would allow you to grab the 100mm macro right off the bat and still be within your budget.


----------



## Natty

Price aside, between the Nikon D40 and the rebel series, which would be a better choice? I can afford the D40 just fine, it is definately in my budget.

From now on I'm assuming that if you say 40D you're talking about Canon and D40 is about the Nikon, k?

And which rebel series do you guys advised in looking at?

Thanks for all the info, I just got home from delivering the film to get it processed and returning the rental camera. It is so ackward taking pictures of people in public.

After eating, I'm going to sit down and research this a lot more. I've gone through a few of your links already, thanks guys.


----------



## plakat

I have the Rebel xsi. I like it. The only complaints I have about it are the burst mode being a little slow and the buffer being smaller than the 40D The ISO noise kind of creeps up on you higher up you go but I would still be seeing this even with a 40D. I wish it was full frame but thats not going to happen unless you spend like 2k on a canon.

The Rebel XS is a little older and cheaper but still good.

I like looking at this place when researching canon stuff. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

I think the Rebel series is a bit better than the d40 but I haven't used a d40. Rebels are also a few hundred more than a d40.

For me the decision was based on the macro lense and what friends had. As dariodario was saying the macro lense costs quite a bit more for the nikon because of the AF motor. If you spend the same amount of money on macro and camera body for nikon and canon you end up getting a better camera body for the money you have spent since the lense is cheaper.

It also helps if you can borrow gear from friends so you don't have to buy stuff yourself.


----------



## mistergreen

i'd go for the rebel.. Canon makes better digital cameras and you can't beat a canon lens.. other lens can be a bit flimsy.


----------



## Natty

Okay, which one would u guys take:

Canon 40D ($800~) or Canon Rebel and which rebel do you propose? I'm reading everyone's post and checking up on it.

Oh yeah, if I buy used parts out, do I have to fear if they're selling fake lens etc? I heard that there's some fake lens going around like those made in China etc? Anything to watch out for like fake parts etc?

How do you check if a used camera is in great working condition, procedure-wise?


----------



## Jason Baliban

mistergreen said:


> i'd go for the rebel.. Canon makes better digital cameras and you can't beat a canon lens.. other lens can be a bit flimsy.


HAHAH

This is absolute nonsense!!

If you really are stuck between Nikon and Canon, go to a store and pick them both up in your hands. This can not be said enough, both companies make fantastic cameras, but they both have different approaches to style and feel. Pick them both up and go with the one the feels best in your hands. If the Nikon feels best in your hands, then that is your answer and you will never regret it. If the Canon feels best to you, then you can safely choose that one and never be disappointed.

The Nikon vs Canon discussion is played out and nonsensical. 

Good luck!!

jB


----------



## mistergreen

$800 is a bit much for a camera body only..
Just get the latest rebel. It comes with a 18-55mm lens and totals $600. And it's the same megapixel as the c40D.

buying used dslr is tricky. You have to look at the digital photo on a computer to find any dead pixels and sharpness. you can't trust the view finder.


----------



## amano101

sorry for thread jacking but congrats on aquascaper of the month Jason. i posted a question under the article, but do you have the link for using point and shoot cameras?


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> $800 is a bit much for a camera body only..
> Just get the latest rebel. It comes with a 18-55mm lens and totals $600. And it's the same megapixel as the c40D.
> 
> buying used dslr is tricky. You have to look at the digital photo on a computer to find any dead pixels and sharpness. you can't trust the view finder.


So isn't it a bit risky buying a used one then? Should I just aim for a brand new one?


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> So isn't it a bit risky buying a used one then? Should I just aim for a brand new one?


Yeah it can be. You also can't generally tell how much use the shutter has had. Most don't come with warranties so you have to be careful about that too.

The other thing is that camera bodies and lenses (good ones at least) usually don't lose much value with time. You might spend 800 on a used 40D if you can find it but a new one is only 900. Those are both going to not include lenses so you can't even take pictures yet.

IMO unless I am getting a really good deal I rather spend a bit more and have it be brand new with a warranty.


----------



## mistergreen

if the store/person you're buying the used camera will let you test the photo or have a return policy then by all means buy the used. If not, I'd buy brand new.

If you have any left over money, you can get a maro or telephoto.. I'm debating if I should buy a new computer & software or lenses over here.


----------



## DarioDario

I only mentioned the 40D because of the prices I could get them at 

Canon 40D ($800) 100mm ($225) = $1025
Nikon D40 ($300) 105mm VR ($800) = $1100

So if your thinking Nikon then expect to pay at least a grand for body and quality glass.

If you go Canon you can pick up a Rebel and Macro Lens for under $1000 easily


----------



## Natty

Here's a few ebay links, are these any good?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=140296794880

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=290290997323

That's for the Canon 40D

What rebel series would be good I wonder, gonna go back and read the older posts, I think I'm getting ahead of myself or asking the same questions lol...


----------



## DarioDario

mistergreen said:


> i'd go for the rebel.. Canon makes better digital cameras and you can't beat a canon lens.. other lens can be a bit flimsy.



If your referring to 3rd part lenses like the sigma and tamron there are cases where the lenses are not built to the same quality as the Nikon/Canon but for the most part people are happy with what they get.

I will say this tho the kit lens that comes with a Nikon D40 (18-55mm) so vastly better than that POS that comes attached as a kit lens on a Canon (18-55mm) image quality and build quality. But don't let that determine your canon vs nikon choice tho, i'm just saying


----------



## DarioDario

To be honest if I were you for your 1st camera I would go with everyone and pick up a Canon Rebel and maybe later you get the 40D.

Remember you have to be really careful about picking up cameras off the internet. 

1. Camera's deemed "Grey Market" are shipped from over see manufacturers i.e. made in Japan/Tawaiin/ect. These cameras do not come with a U.S.A. warranty so your out of luck if it breaks. So thats why you will find them to be cheaper than those made in the USA.

2. There are plenty of this bait and switch operations going in the camera world. For instance the second ebay link you have. They will take your order and have you call them. Then they try and sell you a battery for $200 that should already be included, they won't ship all those nice lenses they have pictured in the auction as well.
That pyxis camera seller has been noted as being one of the worst.
Only gives a refund to costumers if they leave good feedback so he's rating his high, despite the fact that he manipulates buyers.

Check them out at resellerating.com

Just do some research, I picked up my camera body off of ebay and was delighted. Be Careful




Natty said:


> Here's a few ebay links, are these any good?
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=140296794880
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=290290997323
> 
> That's for the Canon 40D


----------



## Natty

Looks like the rebel is similar price, what rebel series are you guys referring to the most?

I'll be free tomorrow, more researching!!

Thanks for the heads up Dario, I didn't know that nor would I have actually checked it....didn't think they were a website...did you just type in their username or something or what?

I'll definately have to reread everyone's post again.


----------



## Natty

There's a lot of mix reviews on the guy, but yeah...thanks for telling me, I wouldn't want that....


----------



## DaveS

DarioDario said:


> If your referring to 3rd part lenses like the sigma and tamron there are cases where the lenses are not built to the same quality as the Nikon/Canon but for the most part people are happy with what they get.
> 
> I will say this tho the kit lens that comes with a Nikon D40 (18-55mm) so vastly better than that POS that comes attached as a kit lens on a Canon (18-55mm) image quality and build quality. But don't let that determine your canon vs nikon choice tho, i'm just saying


The 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the Canon may be lacking a little in build quality, but you can get excellent pictures with it. The newer 18-55mm that Canon includes as the kit lens has built in image stabilization as well, so it is a great deal. There are literally thousands of example pictures taken with the 18-55mm Canon kits lens to view online, many of them spectacular, so labeling it as a "POS" is a bit strong. If you can't get good pictures with the kits lens, chances are it is the photographer and not the lens. Regardless, I agree that the kits lens shouldn't be the deciding factor in a purchase. In either case, you might be better served getting the body only and matching it with a quality lens.

Natty,

You can find great deals on older generation (but still new in box) Digital Rebels if you keep an eye out for them. I see one or two generation older bodies selling for $300-$400 regularly and any of those are a good choice IMO.

Dave


----------



## plakat

You really have to be careful if you get cameras off ebay. There are quite a few of the bait and swap places on there that all do the returns only if you leave good reviews.

2 of the 5 "lenses" in the second ebay link are converters not actual lenses. 

If you want to buy new http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ is very good.


----------



## DarioDario

DaveS said:


> The 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the Canon may be lacking a little in build quality, but you can get excellent pictures with it. The newer 18-55mm that Canon includes as the kit lens has built in image stabilization as well, so it is a great deal. There are literally thousands of example pictures taken with the 18-55mm Canon kits lens to view online, many of them spectacular, so labeling it as a "POS" is a bit strong. If you can't get good pictures with the kits lens, chances are it is the photographer and not the lens. Regardless, I agree that the kits lens shouldn't be the deciding factor in a purchase. In either case, you might be better served getting the body only and matching it with a quality lens.



"Little in build quality" is putting it quite lightly. If you pick up a Nikon AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX Nikkor Lens manual focusing feels smooth and doesn't feel flimsy in your hands. Parts actually made of metal. vs the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM which is mostly made of plastic, the the parts just move around more than they should, prone to getting dust and grit between all the moving parts. So my original point still stands in comparison between 8-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX Nikkor Lens and Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, the canon just doesn't compare.

The lenses in question
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=260550


Well now if you want to argue the 18--55 IS is quality than thats a whole other issue. What would be your definition of good? Within the canon line up there quality lenses that beat the 18-55 in those ranges. You get what you pay for and per usual the more $$$ the better sharpness, quality glass, IQ ect.. Also allows you much more flexibility when lighting becomes an issue. If you want quality then this is clearly not it and your better off saving up and getting the best you can afford. (One exception is the 50mm *F1.8* at $80 superb for photos)



DaveS said:


> If you can't get good pictures with the kits lens, chances are it is the photographer and not the lens.


If that were true why spend over 100$ on a lens :icon_roll


----------



## DaveS

DarioDario said:


> "
> 
> If that were true why spend over 100$ on a lens :icon_roll


Don't put words in my mouth. I was speaking directly to the kit lens, not all lenses known to mankind. I agree the Nikon kits lens is better quality, but you can still get great pictures from the Canon 18-55.

The 50mm in question is the 50mm f/1.8 not the 1.4. I sure wish the f/1.4 was only $80!

Dave


----------



## Natty

K, I've read back to everyone's post, so I'll respond from the latest post. I'll still need to read up on 2 links on the first page.

Anyhow, so far I'm planning to get either the Canon 40D or the much advised Canon Rebel series.

I did a quick search on amazon (just to look up the product atm), here are a few rebel series. Which one would be okay? The XSI 12MP is about 200-300 less then a 40D. Is amazon trustworthy?
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=canon+rebel



Also, what lens should I also look into getting and does anyone know some good reputable online camera sellers that have good price? Even good ones on ebay (hard to find).

I got this seller (they send me giant catalogs every once in awhile LOL) from someone's post as well:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...rch=yes&O=jsp/RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t


I'm also planning to look up craigslist, if I do go over to check the camera out, how do I check it for quality and stuff? Can someone tell me the procedure?

Such as...weight..build...etc?


----------



## kid creole

I do all of my shopping (when possible) is on Amazon. They are very trustworthy, but you want to be sure that the actual vendor is Amazon. Amazon is a seller, but they also allow other sellers to operate though their site.

I just bought a Canon XS off Amazon. I'm thrilled with it, but I don't know anything about cameras, so I have no opinion.

I do know that over the years I have never been disappointed by a cannon, and I have used 5, counting the DSLR.


----------



## Natty

Post #36 continuation:

Thanks for the reply btw kid_kerole.

Well, I got a guy that's selling the XTI (not sure if it is 12MP or 10MP but megapixel shouldn't determine much anymore right?) for about $500. I gotta meet him.

You think that's a good deal or should I try to get the used one for $350 instead? I wonder if it has a warranty....

EDIT

OHHHHH, I didn't notice it. Canon XTI = 10 MP while XSI=12MP.

Is an XTI as good as an XSI? Should I get the XTI?

I can get both of them new for.... XTI=$500 and XSI=$625. EDIT! He just lowered it down to $480 so XTI for $480 brand new? All price are shipped price.

both shipped price, the XSI from amazon.


----------



## mistergreen

dude, any physical camera shops around you?
Hold one in your hands. Play with the controls. Get the feel of it.. It's a physical thang.

Places like 'best buy' sell cameras too.. Do some price comparison too.


----------



## kid creole

I have no business giving advice here, because I am a photography rookie. But here is how I picked, if you care or it helps you decide.

Keep it simple. You are choosing between the two absolute best in class. 

Pick the amount of money you have to spend.

Head is Nikon, tails is Canon, flip a coin.

Now that you've picked a brand, go buy what fits your budget. 

They are the best. Together they own 80 or 90% of the SLR market, and they pretty much split that evenly. You are talking about the best of the best. You're trying to pick which super model you like more. 

The only difference this noob saw what that the D90 gets you HD video. But I figured I would rather have a separate HD camcorder.


----------



## DarioDario

DaveS said:


> I agree the Nikon kits lens is better quality, but you can still get great pictures from the Canon 18-55.
> 
> Dave



I will admit you can get decent photos with the 18-55 (granted composition isn't determined by lens amongst other things) but the truly the cleanest sharpest photos you can take are by quality lenses that cost more. 

If you can the camera just the body and use the money you saved and get a higher quality lens.


----------



## DaveS

DarioDario said:


> I will admit you can get decent photos with the 18-55 (granted composition isn't determined by lens amongst other things) but the truly the cleanest sharpest photos you can take are by quality lenses that cost more.
> 
> If you can the camera just the body and use the money you saved and get a higher quality lens.


lol .. you don't have to convince me of that! I made the mistake of borrowing a 17-40L lens a few weeks ago, and now I have a hard time going back to my mid-grade glass. I agree getting a body without any kits lens is probably a good option, assuming you can save a decent amount of cash.

Dave


----------



## nikonD70s

like someone said, hold the camera in your hand and see witch one feels better to you. i dont think you can go wrong any with SLR camera. i chosed nikon cuz it feels better to me and the build quality is a lot better than canon.


----------



## fishbguy1

I have a Nikon D40X.

I love it. I'm still a beginer, and I have a tripod, flash, and an 18-55 and a 55-100mm lense. I"m currently saving for either macro filters or a macro lense. 

I didn't pay for it, as it was a gift. All of it.

I have used cannons before, and I really didn't like them in comparision to my nikon. My aunt who's really into photography has a cannon, and we switched cameras throughout the christmas season, and I really missed my nikon.


----------



## Natty

question from above post said:


> I'm also planning to look up craigslist, if I do go over to check the camera out, how do I check it for quality, etc? Can someone tell me the procedure? For camera and lens.
> 
> Such as...weight..build...etc?


Can anyone experience help me with this question?


----------



## Jason Baliban

Its really a feel thing. You can be sure that both Nikon and Canon are excellent cameras. You have to pick them up and feel them in your hands. You will see that they feel different in your hands. Some will be too heavy or too light. Some will feel too small and other too large. They will probly be set up to take one shot at a time, so you can see how they focus and how the shutter sounds.

I can promise that both Canon and Nikon or safe bets. They both have advantages. They are in constant competition and that keeps them on top of their game.

I used the "crappy" 18-55mm kit lens for all my shots in the gallery on my site...

http://www.projectaquarium.com/gallery.aspx

...It is a cheap plastic lens that is sharp and has little distortion.

Seriously, go pick up all the cameras in your budget range and pick the one that feels best in your hands. View the LCD after you take a shot and see which one shows you a clearer picture of the image you just shot. Whichever one you pick will have countless quality lenses and options for you to choose from.

Canon and Nikon are both great, neither is best. Anyone who tells you that is too busy reading specs and not shooting. 

Go with feel, that is your best bet. I promise

jB


----------



## Natty

K, but what about picking up a used one? How do I check it for flaws, camera body and lens?

Can you tell me the procedure you would go through if you were to go to someone's house to check on a camera if you're interested in buying it?

I've done quite a bit of research yesturday. I just don't want to go and buy one and find out later there's some big issues with the camera, that's why. Thanks for all the great help, awesome pictures too.


----------



## Jason Baliban

With a lens, you can check for the obvious. Make sure there are no scratches on the elements. You can also check for focusing issues by taking a picture and focusing on a certain point. When you review it with the LCD, you can then zoom in on that point and make sure that is indeed th area in focus, not a little behind or in front.

With bodies it might be a little more difficult. You can check for the obvious external stuff, but some of the inner workings might be hard to pick up on with a quick test. This is always the risk with used stuff.

I really recommend a refurb if you are worried. This way you know you have the support of a retailer if something is wrong.

Hopefully that helps you a little. Im sure others will have some advice on this point as well.

Thanks,

jB


----------



## mistergreen

Natty said:


> K, but what about picking up a used one? How do I check it for flaws, camera body and lens?


It's pretty easy, attach the lens onto the camera. Look through the view finder. Test the zooming, focusing. Switch the auto-focus on the lens to test that.

Then take actual photo in various modes, aperture, and shutter speed on the camera. Shoot in a low light situation to see if the flash pops up.

Then finally, download the photos to a computer. Open up the photo.. Look for the sharpness of the most focused part. If it's blurry, then the lens is bad. Look for dead pixels (black spots), then the camera is bad.

I think that's it.


----------



## Natty

Yeah, maybe since I'm so new, maybe I should just go new or refurb. I definately need some warranty lol.

As for the lens, how much of a scratch would you declare the lens unusuable or bad? Or do you just have to test it out, even if it is scratched, and put it on the pc and test it out.

I'm guessing that both the Canon Rebel and the Canon 40D can both transfer pictures from camera to computer right? I got a bit of a mixed review on that on dpreview.com .


----------



## mistergreen

any scratch on the lens is bad. ALways have a protective filter on a lens.

yes, you can go straight from the camera to a computer. I do it all the time. You'll need a special USB cord.. I think it was $10-20.


----------



## Natty

Lol thanks for the info!

I can't wait to show you guys the type of pictures I take! I hope they'll be great, stalking people here I come!

Hey, btw, how do you keep your camera safe from theft? I would think walking around with thousand dollar equipment isn't a very safe thing to do, what precautions should I take?

"Look camera thief! A 7-11!" *then runs for it* :tongue:


----------



## mistergreen

heh,
Taking good pictures are harder than you think. Usually 90% of what you take is crap.. the other 10% is good to great. So take lots of pictures to play the probability.

I'm an ok documentary photographer, not so good with the set up photography. No patience I guess.

And there's no way around protecting your camera. Just don't leave it in your car. Have it with you in public. And if you need to take pictures in a bad neighborhood, use a disposable camera instead or draw really fast.


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> Yeah, maybe since I'm so new, maybe I should just go new or refurb. I definately need some warranty lol.
> 
> As for the lens, how much of a scratch would you declare the lens unusuable or bad? Or do you just have to test it out, even if it is scratched, and put it on the pc and test it out.
> 
> I'm guessing that both the Canon Rebel and the Canon 40D can both transfer pictures from camera to computer right? I got a bit of a mixed review on that on dpreview.com .


You can go from camera to PC with a USB cable as mentioned earlier. However, be aware that some of the older models used a USB1.1 connection rather than USB2.0. My Digital Rebel has the slow connection, so I just use a card reader instead. Regardless, there is always a way to get the pictures onto your PC. Most digital cameras are set up with post processing in mind as well, so once you get comfortable with the camera, you will most likely want to learn about processing the pictures which is at least as much and art as taking the pictures is.

Dave


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> heh,
> Taking good pictures are harder than you think. Usually 90% of what you take is crap.. the other 10% is good to great. So take lots of pictures to play the probability.


Yeah, I know its really hard to get good pictures. A lot of photographers go through many pictures just to pull out 1-2 good ones. As for me, I've taken 3x 36 rolls of film so far and I've pulled out a couple...and even though I did, I only felt satisfied with about less than a dozen of them and when I say satisfied, I mean cool with them but not totally at awe.

I just have all these ideas and inspiration in my head, I know its hard, but that's what makes a good picture that much better roud:

I'm just going to bring a taser or something...but if they have a gun, I'm screwed :hihi:

@DaveS
Yeah, I was just double checking since this got me a big confused:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page29.asp



> No mass storage USB support (although pretty fast WIA throughput)


Thanks for the help!






Questions:

If I get a camera, what set of lens should I get for macro shots....and normal photos. I wanna shoot stuff like rain, thunder, people, traffic, wildlife, stuff like that. Something good for the time being.


----------



## mistergreen

a telephoto lens (75-200+mm) is a must for wildlife & environmental shots. A decent one is $500.
I'm debating getting this. Maybe with my next pay check.


----------



## michael_TD

> Questions:
> If I get a camera, what set of lens should I get for macro shots....and normal photos. I wanna shoot stuff like rain, thunder, people, traffic, wildlife, stuff like that. Something good for the time being.


This is when it gets expensive  I believe it's why (from what I gather from the replies) that more people encourage you to get an older body, not necessarily used, and spend your money on glass.

Glass doesn't drop in value like bodies do from what I know. If you decide you don't like sell glass at less loss.

I have a 350D, I use the kit lens (18-55mm) for landscapes. Lightning, flower fields, long exposure traffic, waterfalls and such. Many people downtalk the kit lens but I say get it, especially if your a beginner.









For low light I use the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It's great because it's only ~80.00 bucks but makes pretty good pictures. I try to make do with it as a macro lens because it's all I got for that  I desperately want a macro lens now that I have the tank set up again. My 50mm just doesn't do it for me on fish shots.









Wildlife is where you get to spend the $$ You'll get something occasionally with a 200mm though I think it would be frustrating. 300mm would be better, you'd have a higher keeper count. But 500mm will get you a lot! I went with the third part brand Sigma and got their 50mm-500mm zoom. Some people spit after saying the word, but ya do what ya can with available funds, I've had a blast with it, many times now I wish I had spent the money on the Canon 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4 times teleconverter, people get great shots with that combo, but, oh well.









You probably won't know exactly what you want till you start shooting with something and getting some practice and lens knowledge. This is why I recommend at least getting the kit lens with whatever your choice is.

I liken photography to planted tanks, you can spend as much as you have  I also think their both hobbies that require patience and lots of it. Lots of reading as well. I think the kind of person that enjoys one would probably enjoy the other... like that guy we're all so interested in  

Hope no one minds me inserting a few non-aq photos, I'll remove if need be

Michael


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> I'm just going to bring a taser or something...but if they have a gun, I'm screwed :hihi:
> 
> Questions:
> 
> If I get a camera, what set of lens should I get for macro shots....and normal photos. I wanna shoot stuff like rain, thunder, people, traffic, wildlife, stuff like that. Something good for the time being.


I have a knife but thats because I use it in class a lot. I think its best to get an unassuming camera bag that doesn't scream I have thousands of dollars in camera gear in it. Its also good to get one that people can't slip their hands into.

As for the other question this table should help decide on what lenses to get. Its midway down the page. Its roughly what they are used for I know a fair number of lenses that don't quite fit to the norm this table would say.

If you want to do macro and are getting a canon I would highly suggest the 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. Very versatile for more than just macro and great image quality.


----------



## thirston

Used Nikon body with a kit lens and a used Sigma 105mm MACRO should get you through your first year. Then you can sell it all for about what you paid and upgrade when the time comes.

You'll want to save some money for the SB-600, tripod, bag, cleaners, the wireless remote shutter release, etc...


----------



## mistergreen

if you want to shoot aquariums, a detachable/remote flash is pretty handy.

You can get away without a remote shutter release by using the timer feature with some shots.


----------



## Natty

I think I'm going to buy the lens for the cameras first and then buy the camera later. What you guys think about that idea?

Oh yeah, what kind of type lens do Canon Rebel XSI and Canon 40D use? I saw it on dpreview.com the last time I was reading it but I forgot...I'll go over there and look.


How do I tell which lens are usable for my camera and which aren't and....are there any fears that the lens I buy might work for some cameras but not others?

I'm going to read everyone's post on this page again.

EDIT

I just read the DPreview again and it says that both cameras take EF and EF-S lens. What about other brand lens? Some of them don't have EF or EF-S next to them? Gonna look into it more.

Lens list:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/#manuf


----------



## mistergreen

Natty said:


> I think I'm going to buy the lens for the cameras first and then buy the camera later. What you guys think about that idea?


that's like buying a video game before buying the computer.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> that's like buying a video game before buying the computer.


Yeah, my thoughts were like this:

Since the lens don't lose value, why not collect the lens that I need and then when I have enough money, I just go buy the camera and by then while I'm collecting the lens, maybe a good deal will come out for the camera that I want?

At least that's my thought.

Open Question From Above Post:


> How do I tell which lens are usable for my camera and which aren't and....are there any fears that the lens I buy might work for some cameras but not others?
> 
> I'm going to read everyone's post on this page again.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> I just read the DPreview again and it says that both cameras take EF and EF-S lens. What about other brand lens? Some of them don't have EF or EF-S next to them? Gonna look into it more.


----------



## mistergreen

It's like buying fish without buying the aquarium 



My point is what's the fun in buying the lens if you can't use it. I'd buy it all at once or buy the camera and play with the kit lens.. It really doesn't matter what type of lens you have. A good lens doesn't make you a good photographer.

The lens docs & online resources will tell you what lens work with what camera..


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> How do I tell which lens are usable for my camera and which aren't and....are there any fears that the lens I buy might work for some cameras but not others?


With Canon, you are looking for lenses that fit either the EF or EF-S mount. Canon made lenses start with the mount in the model number. For example, my macro lens is a EF-S 60mm Macro. My 50mm lens is a EF 50mm. I know those lenses fit my camera because they fit my camera mount (EF-S). If you are looking at third party (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) lenses, you need to make sure you get the lens sold for the Canon mount. Those companies make the same lenses for multiple cameras. You can look up any lens and it will state what mount it is for. 

I agree with mistergreen however. You would be much better off getting a camera and the kit lens as opposed to collecting lenses you think you want and getting the camera later. A good lens will not make you a good photographer. I guarantee that you will get better photos from an experienced photographer with a kit lens than you will from a beginner with expensive L-class lenses. A decent body and the kits lens are all you need to start. You will develop a feel for what you really want after some time and you will round out your lens collection accordingly. 

Dave


Dave


----------



## Natty

Okay, I get what you guys are saying, thanks for reasoning it out with me. I'll get the canon and the kit lens. I'm definately aiming new since I want a warranty as well and because I'm inexperienced in checking for flaws.

The only kit lens that come with the Canon 40D is the 28-135mm IS kit lens. The Canon XSI comes with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

Give me 5 mins, I'm going to edit this post (My pc has a habit of turning off on its own....so I'm a bit paranoid so post first edit after)



K, this is what I gathered, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm looking at plakats link on the other page and it shows this:

Exactly Middle of page where they list lens focal length, terminology, and typical photography
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm


So...if I get the 28-135mm lens, it'll be good for wide angle through medium telephoto and it'll be good for landscape through portraiture shots right? Based on the numbers and stuff.

Is that how it works or what?

If that's so how come people buy the shorter lens like 18-55mm? Isn't the 28-135 more multi purpose or is it because the 18-55mm is more for those first three catagories listed up there? Guess I haven't read enough :tongue: back to reading.


----------



## mistergreen

18-55mm is cheaper that's all.

I'm sure you'll take a photo class. You can do all the reading but nothing beats experience.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> 18-55mm is cheaper that's all.
> 
> I'm sure you'll take a photo class. You can do all the reading but nothing beats experience.


 
Yeah but did I get it right? The last few paragraphs (well..group of sentences :tongue



> Exactly Middle of page where they list lens focal length, terminology, and typical photography
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...era-lenses.htm
> 
> 
> So...if I get the 28-135mm lens, it'll be good for wide angle through medium telephoto and it'll be good for landscape through portraiture shots right? Based on the numbers and stuff.


----------



## mistergreen

yeah, you'll get more versatility with a 28-135mm.

You'll have to learn about aperture & shutter speed too since they affect depth of field which is really important in what you're trying to communicate with your photo.


----------



## Natty

Are there any benefits to buying a shorter range focal length lens then a long one? Hope I'm asking the question in the right term. Like.... for example a 18-55 over something for the sake of the example like.... 18-200?

So far the 18-200mm seems a lot more versatile but are there any benefits to getting the 18-55 instead?


----------



## DaveS

I have to say that I don't like the 28-135mm lens on a crop body camera. The crop factor on the Canon cameras is 1.6, which makes the 28-135mm lens actually 45-216mm. I don't consider 45mm to be wide at all, and you are going to feel the loss at the wide end. If you get an EF-S lens, you can ignore the crop factor, so getting the 40D with the EF-S 18-55 is a better starting lens in my opinion. The crop factor is pretty much the reason Canon released the 17-85mm EF-S lens, which is the one that spends 95% of the time on my camera. I find myself using the 17mm end of the lens quite often and I know I would miss the wide angle. All that being said, the 28-135mm lens ends up being a decent mid range telephoto lens for a good price if you get it included with the camera body. You can still get a lot of use from it, but indoor shots are going to be more challenging and you will need room to back up to frame your shots.


As far as the 18-200mm lens and similar others, you are going to sacrifice some quality for convenience in most cases but you also end up with one lens that can do darned near anything. Sigma offers a 18-200 optically stabilized lens that has tested pretty well. It's hard to beat a stabilized lens with that wide of a range for a single lens to start out with.


Dave


----------



## mistergreen

and generally, the longer the focal length, the bigger the depth of field. So, a lot of things are in are in focus and flat.
The shorter, the depth of field is smaller so you can focus on your subject and the background stuff can be out of focus.. 

You can control this with aperture as mentioned.


----------



## mistergreen

oH, I was just thinking how much danger I put my camera through. I've climbed and fell down a ravine with it.. And I've been chest deep in a river with it. I should have at least put it in a zip-lock bag. Be a little smarter than me.

But I'll probably going into the river with it again.


----------



## Natty

Okay, here's my thoughts so far.

I'm going to get the Canon 40D with the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.

I think I'm going to buy it at BHphoto
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...rch=yes&O=jsp/RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

Hmm...I notice that their kit lens isn't IS, I guess I should get the amazon deal since it is the IS lens? I'm gonna give bhphoto tomorrow and ask, I hear they give discounts to students. Here's the amazon one.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-40D-Dig...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235436276&sr=8-2






I guess I wanna spend the extra to get it brand new with warranty and from a place that will kindly take it back if anything should happen.

What you guys think?

I'm going to hold back on the macro for a little while. Should I do this or should I just prowl craigslist. I'm pretty sure I can save money by waiting but is it worth it buying from someone else that probably won't take it back? I mean, if I buy it brand new from the person, will it come with warranty and will I still be safe or what?


So either I get it for $1000 at BHphoto which I feel very safe buying there (or if anyone got mix transaction issues with these guys?) or craigslist or amazon where I can hopefully buy it from a private seller that probably won't answer my questions much and probably won't take it back and if anything goes wrong hopefully I'll have the warranty and canon will take care of me....for $850?


----------



## plakat

I like B&H. They always responded fast to emails resolved things quick. They might be a little more expensive than amazon or craigs list but you have the security that they will help you if need be that you might not get elsewhere.

You might get warranties off of craigs list it just depends on the seller and if they opened the box and filled out the warranty cards. I doubt anyone on craigs list will help you if the camera breaks after you buy it from them.

If this is the link then the lens is IS. I didn't think they had a non IS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518570-REG/Canon_1901B017_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html#includes


----------



## Natty

Yeah, I'm probably going to spend the extra hundred bucks for my security unless maybe if I can get the same deal off craiglist for a brand new unit with lens.....

I think B&H photo is probably worth the extra hundred dollars more. The worse thing that could happen is if I saved a hundred or a hundred and fifity by getting it from some place on craigslist or something and it breaks down and I have nothing but a useless broken camera on my hands. That would be devastating....

Unless anyone objects, I might get this from them as early as tomorrow. I hope they give a good student discount, any good discount would be well appreciated.

Hey, if you buy a used unit that has no warranty, does canon offer warranties and how much it costs? Time to do more research :tongue:


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Unless anyone objects, I might get this from them as early as tomorrow. I hope they give a good student discount, any good discount would be well appreciated.


Unless you have actually gone to a camera store and held the ones you were looking into buying I would wait.


----------



## mistergreen

either way the 40D is sweet; living the high life.

when you get it, play with HDR. I think you'll like it. You can set your camera to shoot multiple exposures with different aperture... And then take those photos into photoshop HDR import.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> either way the 40D is sweet; living the high life.
> 
> when you get it, play with HDR. I think you'll like it. You can set your camera to shoot multiple exposures with different aperture... And then take those photos into photoshop HDR import.


I found a really awesome tutorial for it too! Check this place out...if you want to that is. You gotta register but once you do the full tutorial lessons are free!

http://www.tajdslrcourse.com/Lessons/tabid/927/Default.aspx

No strings attached....at least not that I'm aware of.





mistergreen said:


> living the high


In all honesty, my gut feeling is telling me to get the cheaper rebel xsi. I have this bad habit of being a bit greedy and hard to satisfy. I do acknowledge this. 

Also, my thought is that the lens on the canon 40d is about $150-$200 more than the lens kit that comes with the XSI.

So if you move the lens kit on the 40d over to the XSI...the XSI's value would go from about $640(amazon pricing) to about $800...almost $900 if u buy from BHphoto like I'm planning to do with the 40D.

So it'll only save me about $100-200 so I figured why not jump over to the 40D and keep me satisfied longer.

Living the high life is great, but I'm sorta broke so I'm really just fooling myself. Hopefully I'll make up for it by taking some damn good pictures. Lots to learn.


----------



## mistergreen

Oh, I know how it works 

here's one.. making optimus not look like he's made out of plastic & rubber









and here's one of cincy









I try not to abuse HDR too much.


----------



## nikonD70s

prepare to spend more money on your camera after you get it haha. i sunk in a lil over 2k on my camera/lenses and i feel like im just getting started. natty, i say you get the cheapest slr camera cuz your still learning and you dont need a really good one yet and chances are in the future you will want to upgrade to a better camera. if you choose canon your gonna be pretty much stuck on only canon gears forever unless you wanna lose a bit of money and hassle say if you ever decide to switch to nikon or other brands so pick the brand wisely. but enjoy your slr camera witch ever one you get and once you go slr you wont go back to P&S haha


----------



## Natty

Are DSLR and Point and Shoot cameras THAT much of a difference from each other? I see some differences, I just wonder how much. I guess I'll see first hand.

I'm not too crazy with my point and shoot canon powershot because I can't get action scenes too much and especially night pictures. That's why I wanna upgrade to DSLR, I just wanna shoot all those action and night scenes.

I wonder what's the Canon 40d's video taking capabilities. Guess I'll look more thoroughly into that tomorrow. I'm going to use this camera for my stop motion class as well as my film class.


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> Are DSLR and Point and Shoot cameras THAT much of a difference from each other? I see some differences, I just wonder how much. I guess I'll see first hand.
> 
> I'm not too crazy with my point and shoot canon powershot because I can't get action scenes too much and especially night pictures. That's why I wanna upgrade to DSLR, I just wanna shoot all those action and night scenes.
> 
> I wonder what's the Canon 40d's video taking capabilities. Guess I'll look more thoroughly into that tomorrow. I'm going to use this camera for my stop motion class as well as my film class.


A DSLR is much more versatile than a point and shoot, and the CCD is generally much better. That being said, there are some very good P&S cameras out there that will do the job you want 95% of the time. The Canon S5 IS (and similar) is a great P&S camera that has full manual controls and a great feature set. I know two photgraphy nuts that actually carry those cameras for personal use more than their SLR setups. P&S cameras are easier to use for macro shots as well due to the proximity of the CCD to the lens. There is no disputing that you will get a better quality picture from a DSLR with a nice macro lens, but actually getting the shot is just easier with a P&S camera due to the optics involved.

If you want action shots and night shots, you might be a little disappointed in the 28-135 lens. I have a very similar lens in the Canon 17-85IS (it was made to cover essentially the same range but takes the crop factor into account). Neither lens is even close to fast. If you want indoor action shots you will need a good flash for sure. Lower light is possible with an image stabilized lens, but actual night shot will require a flash or tripod as well. I love my 17-85 as a general purpose lens, but I use my 35mm prime lens inside whenever I can, especially if I don't want to be using my flash.

Dave


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> I wonder what's the Canon 40d's video taking capabilities. Guess I'll look more thoroughly into that tomorrow. I'm going to use this camera for my stop motion class as well as my film class.


If I remember correctly only the 5D MII can shoot video but that is several thousand. The nikon D90 can shoot video but its still a little more than the 40D.


----------



## Sounguru

The 40d does not shoot video.


----------



## mistergreen

go for the rebel and fancy lens. You can always buy the 40D years later and it will fit with your lens


----------



## Natty

DaveS said:


> If you want action shots and night shots, you might be a little disappointed in the 28-135 lens. I have a very similar lens in the Canon 17-85IS (it was made to cover essentially the same range but takes the crop factor into account). Neither lens is even close to fast


You think maybe I should sell the kit lens for about $250-300 (the kit lens) and aim for a better lens? Not sure which one. Or should I just stick with those lens for the time being?

Thanks for the answers everyone, I had the impression that it did take some video.



fancy lens said:


> go for the rebel and fancy lens. You can always buy the 40D years later and it will fit with your lens


Which fancy lens would you recommend?


----------



## Hover408

shoot too bad u wernt looking for one around black friday. you might want to try and look on searchalldeals.com to find the best deals on whatever. sometimes they have cameras sometimes they dont. just make sure you have a fast shutter speed!


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> You think maybe I should sell the kit lens for about $250-300 (the kit lens) and aim for a better lens? Not sure which one. Or should I just stick with those lens for the time being?
> 
> Thanks for the answers everyone, I had the impression that it did take some video.
> 
> 
> 
> Which fancy lens would you recommend?


I think the kit lens will serve you quite well as long as you learn the limitations of it, which pretty much goes for any lens. As you use it you will get a feel for what it can and more importantly cannot do. If you find yourself wishing for better indoor shots, you might look for a good fast prime lens, like a 20mm or 35mm lens. You might find that the focal length is OK but it is a little slow. In that case you might go for a decent flash instead. I started with the 18-55 (non-IS) lens and worked my way from there. I really had no idea what lenses I wanted until I used that one kit lens for a few months. 

I still can't understand why the 18-55IS isn't offered as the kit lens on the 40D ....

Dave


----------



## Natty

Is the 18-55 kit lens better then the 28-135kit lens on the 40d?

How do you tell if your lens is fast enough?

Thanks for the info guys. Hopefully this thread will be a good reference to someone that has similar questions in the future.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Is the 18-55 kit lens better then the 28-135kit lens on the 40d?
> 
> How do you tell if your lens is fast enough?
> 
> Thanks for the info guys. Hopefully this thread will be a good reference to someone that has similar questions in the future.


The 28-135mm is better than the 18-55mm kit lens. I have both. The crop factor makes the 18-55 work better for wide angle but its cheaper and made of plastic. I also notice more faults with the actual glass than the 28-135mm. Fringing, distortion and what not. 

You either need a light meter or experience to tell if your lens is fast enough with out taking test shots. Generally wider/faster is better because you always have more options. The problem is you pay for it, more so with zoom lenses. It can get expensive to have them be fast.


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> Is the 18-55 kit lens better then the 28-135kit lens on the 40d?
> 
> How do you tell if your lens is fast enough?
> 
> Thanks for the info guys. Hopefully this thread will be a good reference to someone that has similar questions in the future.


It isn't better, but I think the focal length is a little nicer to start with. Either one will be a good starter, but for indoor shots the 28-135 is a little long for my taste. I have used the 28-135 and I think it is a fine lens. I have not used the 18-55IS, so perhaps others can give an opinion on it.

When people say fast. they generally are referring to the f rating of the lens. The lower the number (say f/1.4 for example) the more light the lens will capture which equates to speed in photography. The f numbers go as such: f/1.0, f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, etc. For every f stop you drop down the lens allows in twice as much light. So, going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 you are getting a lens that is twice as fast. My 17-85 lens has a rating of f/4.0-5.6 so it is fairly slow and needs a flash indoors to get action shots. My 50mm lens has a rating of f/1.8, so it does a much better job in lower light conditions.

There is also auto-focus speed, and various lens manufacturers have different motors. I know with Canon the ultrasonic motors are the fast ones. I wouldn't worry too much about that though, because you can always manually focus if need be. Getting the lowest f-stop rating is generally giving a better and more expensive lens. For example, my 50mm f/1.8 costs about $80. Dropping down one f stop to a 50mm f/1.4 would cost me at least $300!

Dave


----------



## Natty

So if I want to capture a fast moving object and I have a slow camera (higher f stop rating #) then I have to find a way to let more light in by either using flash which takes out the natural-ness of the scene or taking it in brighter conditions right?

So f stop controls how much light is being let in into the aperture, the more light, the better the camera is able to capture the picture. The higher the f stop, the less light comes through and vice versa.

Am I getting this right?



What if you have a camera that only has 1 f stop setting like 1.8 that can't be changed? What are the side/negative effects to it over a lens that has a range of f stops to choose from? Or is it just better period?

Like a 50 mm that is f1.8 only over a 50mm that is f3.5-5.6


----------



## mistergreen

if you want to capture fast moving objects, you *first* control the shutter speed like 1/1000 and open the aperture (f-stop) all the way. If that's still not enough light, that's where flash and additional lights come in. I sunny day is perfect for this.


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> So if I want to capture a fast moving object and I have a slow camera (higher f stop rating #) then I have to find a way to let more light in by either using flash which takes out the natural-ness of the scene or taking it in brighter conditions right?
> 
> So f stop controls how much light is being let in into the aperture, the more light, the better the camera is able to capture the picture. The higher the f stop, the less light comes through and vice versa.
> 
> Am I getting this right?
> 
> 
> 
> What if you have a camera that only has 1 f stop setting like 1.8 that can't be changed? What are the side/negative effects to it over a lens that has a range of f stops to choose from? Or is it just better period?
> 
> Like a 50 mm that is f1.8 only over a 50mm that is f3.5-5.6


A camera doesn't have an f-stop rating, the lens does. Otherwise, as you stated the lower the number (which is translated as a high f-stop funny enough) the more light the lens can allow in. If you see a lens with a range, it is because it is a zoom lens. My 17-85 is rated at f/4.0-5.6 which means it has a maximum f-stop of 4.0 at 17mm and a maximum f-stop of 5.6 at 85mm.

Dave


----------



## Natty

DaveS said:


> A camera doesn't have an f-stop rating, the lens does. Otherwise, as you stated the lower the number (which is translated as a high f-stop funny enough) the more light the lens can allow in. If you see a lens with a range, it is because it is a zoom lens. My 17-85 is rated at f/4.0-5.6 which means it has a maximum f-stop of 4.0 at 17mm and a maximum f-stop of 5.6 at 85mm.
> 
> Dave


Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry, got messed up with all the camera talk. 

Okay. I understand what you're both saying.

What about this:



> What if you have a camera that only has 1 f stop setting like 1.8 that can't be changed? What are the side/negative effects to it over a lens that has a range of f stops to choose from? Or is it just better period?
> 
> Like a 50 mm that is f1.8 only over a 50mm that is f3.5-5.6


I sorta don't completely understand why some of them have a fixed f stop number while others have a range. I know you just said it is because they have a zoom lens, but I guess I'm just confused on the whole concept why some do while others don't. I'll have to go back to research a bit.


----------



## plakat

DaveS said:


> It isn't better, but I think the focal length is a little nicer to start with. Either one will be a good starter, but for indoor shots the 28-135 is a little long for my taste. I have used the 28-135 and I think it is a fine lens. I have not used the 18-55IS, so perhaps others can give an opinion on it.


Agreed either lens will work. The 28-135mm is a bit long for indoor use when you consider the crop factor. However I think the 28-135 is built better and has better glass. For shooting people or things indoors I find I use my 100mm macro mostly. 

Natty,

F stops are fractions so closer you get to 1/1 the wider the opening. The fixed F stops are generally used on primes (non zoom) but also higher quality zooms. They allow you to still have the wider opening when zoomed all the way in. Things get more complicated when zooming and keeping the f stop very wide so you have to pay for it.


----------



## mistergreen

the longer the focal length, the more light it takes to expose a photo compared to a shorter focal length.

So when you zoom out, the focal length is shortened, and the minimum f-stop is smaller( aperture, bigger )..

zoom in, longer focal length, minimum f-stop is bigger.


----------



## DaveS

Natty said:


> Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry, got messed up with all the camera talk.
> 
> Okay. I understand what you're both saying.
> 
> What about this:
> 
> 
> 
> I sorta don't completely understand why some of them have a fixed f stop number while others have a range. I know you just said it is because they have a zoom lens, but I guess I'm just confused on the whole concept why some do while others don't. I'll have to go back to research a bit.


When I said zoom lens, I meant a lens that doesn't have a fixed focal length. There are prime lenses and zoom lenses. A prime lens has one focal length, for example 50mm. A zoom lens has a variable focal length, for example the 28-135 lens we have been discussing. A prime lens is listed by its maximum aperture. In my example, my 50mm lens has an f-stop rating of f/1.8 which gives the maximum aperture. The camera (or you) can still stop the lens down to any smaller aperture as needed (say f/8 for example).

As mistergreen said, with a variable length lens the f-stop changes as the focal length grows on many lenses. So with my 17-85 lens, at 17mm the maximum aperture is is f/4.0. As I zoom the lens that maximum aperture gets smaller and finally ends up at f/5.6 at somewhere before 85mm. There are fixed aperture zooms as well, although they tend to be more expensive.

Hope this helps!

**edit: or what plakat said! I missed that post ***

Dave


----------



## Natty

K, I just went to best buy and they had both the 40d and the Rebel XSI.

I tried both, the 40d for the second time and I think I'll get the Rebel XSI. The 40D is bulky as heck and I sorta want one that I can move around with. The Rebel XSI felt smaller and it fit into my hands more comfortably and it looks...neater. The 40D just looks a bit ridiculous when I hold it, it's like this huge SOB :hihi: . 

I feel more comfortable with the smaller XSI, but no doubt the 40d has better stuff. I'm a bit mixed on that.

I want something good that'll last me a long time with better functions and stuff...that'll be the 40D, but it is rather bulky. 

So you guys really think the XSI should be good for be at least for a few years right? Any additions or objections? My attention is now turned to the Canon Rebel XSI. 

I haven't read all of the recent posts yet so I'll go back and read it more thoroughly. Thanks for the help and patience!


----------



## kid creole

Natty said:


> K, I just went to best buy and they had both the 40d and the Rebel XSI.
> 
> I tried both, the 40d for the second time and I think I'll get the Rebel XSI. The 40D is bulky as heck and I sorta want one that I can move around with. The Rebel XSI felt smaller and it fit into my hands more comfortably and it looks...neater. The 40D just looks a bit ridiculous when I hold it, it's like this huge SOB :hihi: .
> 
> I feel more comfortable with the smaller XSI, but no doubt the 40d has better stuff. I'm a bit mixed on that.
> 
> I want something good that'll last me a long time with better functions and stuff...that'll be the 40D, but it is rather bulky.
> 
> So you guys really think the XSI should be good for be at least for a few years right? Any additions or objections? My attention is now turned to the Canon Rebel XSI.
> 
> I haven't read all of the recent posts yet so I'll go back and read it more thoroughly. Thanks for the help and patience!


Oh, for Pete's sake, just buy something. You're shopping the best cameras in the world. Is there something they can't do? Yes. Is there something you won't like about one? Yes. 

Go take some pictures already.


----------



## Natty

kid creole said:


> Oh, for Pete's sake, just buy something. You're shopping the best cameras in the world. Is there something they can't do? Yes. Is there something you won't like about one? Yes.
> 
> Go take some pictures already.


Such harsh words!

I will you meanie :hihi:

I guess it is because it cost a lot and I'm just plain greedy for a real good one. I'm going to buy it Amazon then, they have it for $630 brand new shipped with lens kit.

Can anyone advise me on good lens, including macro lens that I should look into? Time to read the above posts, just got back from dinner.

I'm mainly just getting the XSI over the 40D because it fits more comfortably in my hands and I look cooler with it lol! Of course it is also a very good camera and a lot of you guys have recommended it and I agree with your recommendations. The 40D makes me look like I'm walking around with a camcorder or something. It's so bulky its like my camcorder.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> K, I just went to best buy and they had both the 40d and the Rebel XSI.
> 
> I tried both, the 40d for the second time and I think I'll get the Rebel XSI. The 40D is bulky as heck and I sorta want one that I can move around with. The Rebel XSI felt smaller and it fit into my hands more comfortably and it looks...neater. The 40D just looks a bit ridiculous when I hold it, it's like this huge SOB :hihi: .
> 
> I feel more comfortable with the smaller XSI, but no doubt the 40d has better stuff. I'm a bit mixed on that.
> 
> I want something good that'll last me a long time with better functions and stuff...that'll be the 40D, but it is rather bulky.
> 
> So you guys really think the XSI should be good for be at least for a few years right? Any additions or objections? My attention is now turned to the Canon Rebel XSI.
> 
> I haven't read all of the recent posts yet so I'll go back and read it more thoroughly. Thanks for the help and patience!



XSI is coming up on a year old. 40D is approaching 2. XTI will be 3 along with the D40. Just for comparison. These cameras will all last a long time.

Can you name the better functions and stuff or is this a gut feeling based off price?


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> XSI is coming up on a year old. 40D is approaching 2. XTI will be 3 along with the D40. Just for comparison. These cameras will all last a long time.
> 
> Can you name the better functions and stuff or is this a gut feeling based off price?


 
Functions/Specs that make the 40D better than the XSI?

If that's what you're asking, well, there's quite a bit. I'm new to cameras but I'll try my best to put it in words. The 40D comes with a better lens, faster frame rate (6.5 over the XSI's 3.5 fps). I'm really interested in taking most moving stuff like birds flying, rain drops falling down, stuff like that.

I also heard the picture quality is a bit better and they have more focus points on the camera (forgot what it is called).

I think those are my main reasons, I'm still rereading their reviews over and over. 
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...e&cameras=canon_eos40d,canon_eos450d&show=all




Oh yeah, what type of SD card is good for the camera I'm getting? Is a typical SD card class 4 found on ebay okay or should I am for the extreme SD cards?


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Functions/Specs that make the 40D better than the XSI?
> 
> If that's what you're asking, well, there's quite a bit. I'm new to cameras but I'll try my best to put it in words. The 40D comes with a better lens, faster frame rate (6.5 over the XSI's 3.5 fps). I'm really interested in taking most moving stuff like birds flying, rain drops falling down, stuff like that.
> 
> I also heard the picture quality is a bit better and they have more focus points on the camera (forgot what it is called).
> 
> I think those are my main reasons, I'm still rereading their reviews over and over.
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...e&cameras=canon_eos40d,canon_eos450d&show=all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, what type of SD card is good for the camera I'm getting? Is a typical SD card class 4 found on ebay okay or should I am for the extreme SD cards?


Yeah. I was just trying to make sure you actually had a good reason for wanting the more expensive one.

I wouldn't say a better lens is a reason to get the camera. You could make your own kit with the same lens.

The frames/sec is true.

I believe they both have 9 auto focus points but the 40d are crosses where as I see rectangles with dots in them in my xsi.

Image quality is arguably better. There are so many factors that can influence it and so far with non L lenses me and my friends haven't seen any real difference. I don't mean to insult your skill if I do by saying this but I don't know if you would see any differences in quality due just from sensors with the lens quality and experience you have. I am kind of in the same situation. 

For macro lenses I think there are 3 main ones from canon that are not super expensive

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371176-USA/Canon_0284B002_EF_S_60mm_f_2_8_USM.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

As for SD cards I prefer the Ultra IIs with 15mb/s transfer rate or higher. I shoot in raw mode so my pictures are anywhere from 11-22mb. If I had a slower one with 5mb/s transfer rate it would take 2-4 seconds to transfer each picture to my card from the camera's buffer. Not to mention getting 4 gigs of photos onto my computer at 5mb/s. JPEGs usually clock in closer to 5mb for comparison both with the 12.2 megapixels. 

I wouldn't mind a larger Ultra III which is 30mb/s but I can't justify the price with the current performance and usage of mine.


----------



## Natty

*@plakat*



> I wouldn't say a better lens is a reason to get the camera. You could make your own kit with the same lens.


How do you go about doing that? You mean combining different lens together or something? Sorry, not experienced in this but I'll definately learn and spread the wisdom.



> I believe they both have 9 auto focus points but the 40d are crosses where as I see rectangles with dots in them in my xsi.


I remember now! The person that I talk to at Best Buy, a woman that seems decently knowledgable in DSLR and cameras in general, said that the XSI is more sensitive to horizontal movements most while the 40D is sensitive to both horizontal and verticle movements. It is at the tip of my memory so I'm probably not repeating it back completely correct.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html


> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...act_Macro.html
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...f_2_8_USM.html
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...USM_Macro.htmlhttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html

I see there's some differences in focal length on each, are there any benefits in getting a 50mm over a 100mm macro and vice versa? Does it mean that the 100mm is the same macro lens but it takes macro images of stuff further away than the 50mm?



> Image quality is arguably better. There are so many factors that can influence it and so far with non L lenses me and my friends haven't seen any real difference. I don't mean to insult your skill if I do by saying this but I don't know if you would see any differences in quality due just from sensors with the lens quality and experience you have. I am kind of in the same situation.


I have no current skill in this so no insult taken at all lol, you're just being truthful and I'm thankful for giving me your good honest opinion on the matter. I definately agree on this, it is like an instrument. It is only as good as the person using it and the person can only see the limitations to their instrument once they've become better than the instrument they're using. Until I reach that, I probably won't see the limitations to the XSI over the 40D and that's another reason why I'm probably getting the XSI.



> As for SD cards I prefer the Ultra IIs with 15mb/s transfer rate or higher. I shoot in raw mode so my pictures are anywhere from 11-22mb


So I'll need an SD or SDHC card that has 15mbs transfer rate.

What would happen if I did shoot but the transfer rate wasn't fast enough for the camera?

Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated.


----------



## plakat

Just buy the body and the lens separately or buy the xsi kit and add the other lens I think it would still be cheaper than 40D kit.

I have heard that the auto focus points were better on the 40d but I wasn't sure why of if you would use them that much.

I can't honestly say all the differences between the macros because I have only have and have used the 100mm. I do know that the 60 and 100mm are 1:1 while the 50 might be 1:1.2 so slightly less magnification. The longer focal length acts more like a telephoto lens or a zoomed one so it would work better on smaller things ie shrimp. The shorter focal lengths would be used for larger fish. You also might get more shake on the 100mm because of its focal length. I have seen amazing photos with all three of the ones I linked along with 3rd party ones. 

I don't regret getting my 100mm and it gets the most use out of any of lenses I have even for non macro things. 

This place has a lot of good info an informed people when it comes to using macro lenses and fish pictures.
http://www.aquatic-photography.com/

I am sure other people here have different macros and can offer some more info on the subject.

I think all the larger faster cards are SDHC now. If you shoot faster than the transfer rate can keep up with photos build up in the cameras memory buffer and eventually it stops letting you take photos until it catches up. I'm blanking on the size of the buffer for each camera but I think its about 20 JPEG files for the XSI and more for the 40D.

No problem. I was doing the same thing a few months back.


----------



## mistergreen

a good (longer) macro has bigger depth of field too so you don't have to focus all the time especially on moving targets.

I think you can get away with using a telephoto lens like a macro but obviously not as good.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> I wouldn't mind a larger Ultra III which is 30mb/s but I can't justify the price with the current performance and usage of mine.


Just bought it!!!

Canon Rebel XSI NEW with kit lens for $637 and 1x 4gb sandisk extreme 3 (20mb/s) for $15 shipped.

Both from amazon

Can't wait till I get it! Hope it is everything I hope it'll be, hope everything goes right!!


----------



## kid creole

Natty said:


> Just bought it!!!
> 
> Canon Rebel XSI NEW with kit lens for $637 and 1x 4gb sandisk extreme 3 (20mb/s) for $15 shipped.
> 
> Both from amazon
> 
> Can't wait till I get it! Hope it is everything I hope it'll be, hope everything goes right!!



Sweet.


----------



## Natty

kid creole said:


> Sweet.


Okay great..........

They said it can arrive as early as tomorrow, but tomorrow no one is home but me and I have to go to school to do an assignment.

Crap. I mean I'm thankful I'm getting it that early but my sd card [STRIKE]isn't[/STRIKE] won't be coming for at least a little while after. I guess I'll use my normal SD card. I need to be at school too.

Whats the big difference in shooting your shots with RAW file over JPEG?


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Okay great..........
> 
> They said it can arrive as early as tomorrow, but tomorrow no one is home but me and I have to go to school to do an assignment.
> 
> Crap. I mean I'm thankful I'm getting it that early but my sd card [strike]isn't[/strike] won't be coming for at least a little while after. I guess I'll use my normal SD card. I need to be at school too.
> 
> Whats the big difference in shooting your shots with RAW file over JPEG?


RAW is similar to file negatives while JPEG would be similar to the finished photos. RAW is larger unprocessed, uncompressed files. 

For someone who is proficient and enjoys using photoshop RAW gives considerably more options when editing. A couple of the drawbacks are that the images are considerably larger and basically each camera has its own RAW format. You should get software with you camera that can edit and convert them to JPEG. There is also a program from adobe to convert most RAW formats to a common one usable in photoshop. You can also shoot in RAW+ so you get the raw data and a JPEG of the same image.

This site gives a good explination of RAW images. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm


----------



## Natty

So Raw is like full quality uncompressed so while working with them, they're easier because they are uncompressed and once you are finished and convert them to a compressed image file format, you retain more quality then if you started originally from a compressed file format....right?

Something like that?

So if I wanna fool around with it after shooting it, then I shoot RAW, otherwise I tell the camera to shoot JPEGs instead right?

Oh yeah, when you wanna get films processed, how do you go about doing this? I mean you go to the store, how do you tell them which image you want etc etc? Never done it with an SD card.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> So Raw is like full quality uncompressed so while working with them, they're easier because they are uncompressed and once you are finished and convert them to a compressed image file format, you retain more quality then if you started originally from a compressed file format....right?
> 
> Something like that?
> 
> So if I wanna fool around with it after shooting it, then I shoot RAW, otherwise I tell the camera to shoot JPEGs instead right?


Kind of. RAW has more data so manipulating it is easier and allows more options. They are also not processed by anything so it lets you have full control. You can still use JPEGs but the camera will do preset things like white balance, sharpen, and compress and noise reduction which is very hard if not impossible to undo once done.

Using RAW lets your computer's processor do the white balance, sharpen, compress and noise reduction. I don't know what kind of computer you use by my computer's processor can outdo my camera's by a mile.

If you are doing really large photo shoots or taking massive amounts of photos that need processing you are going to be doubling up on the work using RAW though.

Hope that makes sense.

Here is an example of something you can do with RAW and not JPEGs. http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41114


----------



## mistergreen

you don't need to work with raw unless you work with high resolution media like print. For posting your photos on this forum, jpg is hunky-dory.

If you know what you're doing in photoshop, adjusting jpgs isn't a problem.
That said, working with raw is fun too.


----------



## DaveS

I have found that working with RAW images has made a huge difference in the quality of my photos. Once you learn how to process the images, you won't go back to images compressed on camera.

Dave


----------



## Natty

You guys got any advice on how you guys fix your pictures or a good read up somewhere on the internet that talks more about it?

I would definately like to read up on it. I guess I've never done much if any editing after pulling it from the camera. Noob me :tongue: . I'd definately like to learn and find out. I got photoshop CS3. Btw, bookmarked a lot of the websites you guys gave me roud: some of them are very useful, like the one plakat just posted. 

I know pros do it a lot, but I didn't know it was also done so commonly with everyone else.

I got a 4gb memory card, maybe I shoulda bought a bigger card? Eh, the 8gb one was just twice the price so I didn't see the plus in it, I can just get another 4gb later if I need.

What types of pictures do you guys see needing the most photoshop editing and which one don't?


----------



## plakat

DaveS said:


> I have found that working with RAW images has made a huge difference in the quality of my photos. Once you learn how to process the images, you won't go back to images compressed on camera.
> 
> Dave


Yeah. I started doing RAW+JPEG but find I like the converted processed RAW I do much more.

Natty,

4 gig card is what I have too. It will hold 750 high quality JPEGs or about 250 RAW. Thats a fair day of shooting. See if you keep filling it up before you get another one. Prices for memory are just going to drop as you wait.

The photo school site I linked I really like. Lots of people with experience. I am sure if you ask around there you can get more sites that help with processing.

I find I always need more processing on night shots but it might be a combo of me sucking and having more ideas of things to do with them. Portraits always need work because you want to please the person you took the shot of. If its a girl good luck getting them to like close shots...


----------



## DarioDario

ahh plakat come on if your mom just gave you cash we would have gone and picked up that 40D off craigslist. Nevertheless I will remember this when you harrass me about getting the 5D Mark 2, it engineered to literally take souls. muah muah muah:icon_evil

BTW I found a website showing comparisons of many cameras with side by side images of the same subject

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

BTW Natty good choice in getting a XSI if your on a budget your better of saving $ for that 100mm canon F2.8 or even consider that 60 mm. 

Arguably all photos you take can be improved by shooting in RAW with post processing. Things like noise, color saturation, dust elimination, spot cloning, lighting levels ect... It really depends on what you wish to do with the photo your about to shoot and how much time your willing to invest into it.



plakat said:


> Yeah. I was just trying to make sure you actually had a good reason for wanting the more expensive one.
> 
> I wouldn't say a better lens is a reason to get the camera. You could make your own kit with the same lens.
> 
> The frames/sec is true.
> 
> I believe they both have 9 auto focus points but the 40d are crosses where as I see rectangles with dots in them in my xsi.
> 
> Image quality is arguably better. There are so many factors that can influence it and so far with non L lenses me and my friends haven't seen any real difference. I don't mean to insult your skill if I do by saying this but I don't know if you would see any differences in quality due just from sensors with the lens quality and experience you have. I am kind of in the same situation.


----------



## Natty

I JUST GOT MY CANON REBEL XSI!!!!

Btw I got a few questions below.

Anyhow, it looks great and I'm so happy. I'm sorta looking at the bunch of manuals they sent me, trying to see how long I should recharge and how long it takes. I should get it soon though.

I'll show you guys in a little, its so cool lol. I'm jumping around like a kid at the candy store.

Anyhow, I was wondering a few questions, I think most dealing with the actuation:

1. The actuation is how many shots has been taken with your camera right? How do you tell how many actuations have been done with your camera?

2. The Rebel has about 40-50,000 actuations for their shutter life, I was wondering what happens when I hit that 50,000 mark? How do I fix it and how much it'll cost?



So far I'm trying to take pictures of my shrimps but as expected, I can't. Too bad, I was a little hopeful.

I probably can't afford any more lens for the time being :icon_sad:. Sorta wondering if I should stick to my lens or sell it and buy one that can shoot stuff further away. I would like shooting stuff like birds from afar.


----------



## plakat

DarioDario said:


> ahh plakat come on if your mom just gave you cash we would have gone and picked up that 40D off craigslist. Nevertheless I will remember this when you harrass me about getting the 5D Mark 2, it engineered to literally take souls. muah muah muah:icon_evil


Of course at the time I probably would have but looking back now I would save the money for better glass/flash which will still work when I upgrade my camera eventually.

I still think you need to sell all your camera gear and other electronics so you can buy a 5D MII body. I might let you borrow a lens if you do.

Natty,

You will be given an option when you format your card or in the menu to have pictures labeled with numbers. Thats probably the easiest way to keep track.

Your camera doesn't just stop working when you hit the mark. Its like pretty much anything that has a rating for usage. They make sure it will last at least that long but might go more. 

Some stores let you rent gear. Might be worth looking into before you buy a lens


----------



## mistergreen

you can get diopters for your lens
77mm
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Conce..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1WZAFK1Q65XGRG3WA350

58mm
http://www.amazon.com/Sakar-Close-U...r_1_80?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1235704189&sr=1-80

they're basically magnifying lens and it's only $13-$26.
Obviously no substitute for a macro. the depth of field is super small but it works.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Natty,
> 
> You will be given an option when you format your card or in the menu to have pictures labeled with numbers. Thats probably the easiest way to keep track.
> 
> Your camera doesn't just stop working when you hit the mark. Its like pretty much anything that has a rating for usage. They make sure it will last at least that long but might go more.
> 
> Some stores let you rent gear. Might be worth looking into before you buy a lens


 
What if my SD card already has pictures in it, will it still ask for me to format it? I don't wanna lose the pictures already in there.

How about receiving a used camera from someone else, how do you tell how many actuations or do you just know when you take a picture and look at the number?

So basically the number is like the ODO on a car, many people still drive cars that have surprised their engine number set for their car, like a million miles or something.

Okay, that's good then. I guess for my canon powershot, I've only used 3,500 actuations so far. Does it ever reset or can you reset the number?


*@mistergreen*


Yeah but based ont he site, it says it only screws into 77mm lens though?
Or am I missing something?




> The Digital Concepts 77mm Macro Filter Kit includes four close-up diopters at +1, +2, +4 and +10 magnification, and a durable carrying case. These filters simply screw onto the front of any 77mm lens


----------



## mistergreen

oh, not sure what lens you have... it was only an example.. find one that fits you lens. you can combine all the lens together to make a super lens too.

And I usually set my iphoto to delete photos off my sd card when I download them to my computer. My flash card is only temporary storage for my computer.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> oh, not sure what lens you have... it was only an example.. find one that fits you lens. you can combine all the lens together to make a super lens too.
> 
> And I usually set my iphoto to delete photos off my sd card when I download them to my computer. My flash card is only temporary storage for my computer.


How do you know how many mm is your lens or is that the focal length? Sorry, total newb and I've been completely swamp with work and I haven't done anymore research since a few days ago :icon_sad:. Hopefully the camera wont make me delete my current pictures in there...


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> What if my SD card already has pictures in it, will it still ask for me to format it? I don't wanna lose the pictures already in there.
> 
> How about receiving a used camera from someone else, how do you tell how many actuations or do you just know when you take a picture and look at the number?
> 
> Okay, that's good then. I guess for my canon powershot, I've only used 3,500 actuations so far. Does it ever reset or can you reset the number?


Put the photos on your computer if you are worried about losing them. I don't think I have ever had something just start formatting with out asking. 

There is an option for manual reset and auto reset on the camera for numbering I think. 

I don't think you can really tell how many pictures a used camera has taken. Thats part of the risk you take with buying used. Isn't that really a mute point now though?


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Thats part of the risk you take with buying used. Isn't that really a mute point now though?


Yeah, I was just asking out of curiousity.

I saw Rain-'s site recently, some of her macro photos are awesome. I've read your post again, plakat. I'm trying to decide which to get.

So more focal length, better magnification. Are there any benefits to getting a 50mm over a 100mm macro? With the 100, i can still concentrate on things that are really close to the camera?

I need to gather all those links you guys have given me and read them over. Brb then.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Yeah, I was just asking out of curiousity.
> 
> I saw Rain-'s site recently, some of her macro photos are awesome. I've read your post again, plakat. I'm trying to decide which to get.
> 
> So more focal length, better magnification. Are there any benefits to getting a 50mm over a 100mm macro? With the 100, i can still concentrate on things that are really close to the camera?
> 
> I need to gather all those links you guys have given me and read them over. Brb then.


No not really better magnification when talking about macros. The canon 65mm has I think 5:1 ability so it has 5x more magnification than my 100mm and the 60mm. Its more field of view you are looking at with focal length but I haven't used any except the 100mm so I am not 100% sure. This would be why they the 100mm is more suited for smaller shrimp size things while the 50 and 60 are better for fish.

All these cameras have a minimum focal length so "really close" to the camera is kind of limited. The 100mm is listed as 1' min while the 60 and 50 are listed at 7.9'' and 9.6'' respectively.

Word of caution though. You will most likely need a flash and either a sync cord or wireless trigger to get really good aquatic macro photos. The aquatic photography site I linked earlier has quite a few threads on it. 
I though T5s would be enough but they are not. My flash should be here Monday though.


----------



## Natty

K, thanks for the info.

Lmao, I was playing with my camera and I started freaking out a bit because I was looking through the view finder and it was all blurry. I was like, omg I'm going blind I can't use the camera now. There's this little dial next to the view finder that helps clear all the blurriness in the numbers inside. Didn't know that. I'll take a few pics and we'll see how it goes.


----------



## DaveS

plakat said:


> I don't think you can really tell how many pictures a used camera has taken. Thats part of the risk you take with buying used. Isn't that really a mute point now though?


I can't speak to the newer Canon bodies, but my Digital Rebel has an actuation counter on it that tracks how many pictures it has taken. There might be a way to reset it (firmware restore, etc.) but I haven't found it yet.

Dave


----------



## Curator

ah, youve already purchased your camera, and here I was gonna give you the ultimate link to help with choosing a camera,lol... I can still giev it though, 
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/?tag=TOCleftColumn.0
cnet is a GREAT place to go to check up on pretty much all electronics, they havnt steered me wrong yet... they also have a few guides that can be helpful... but I guess its probably a little late for that now, oh well, all that matters is your happy with your camera.


----------



## thirston

Curator said:


> ah, youve already purchased your camera, and here I was gonna give you the ultimate link to help with choosing a camera,lol... I can still giev it though,
> http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/?tag=TOCleftColumn.0
> cnet is a GREAT place to go to check up on pretty much all electronics, they havnt steered me wrong yet... they also have a few guides that can be helpful... but I guess its probably a little late for that now, oh well, all that matters is your happy with your camera.


Just keep in mind the fact that cnets reviews, though often reliable, are a tad biased. They get paid $ from sponsors. I have a buddy who works for one of the large computer manufacturers and he said they cut cnet a check every now and then.


----------



## Curator

thats perfectly possible, but ive not been able to find a single other source on the net as accurate as them when it comes to their reviews... but theres also the fact that users get to put in their own reviews, so I usually figure that the reality of the review is somewhere between the two, although its been my experience that the average person doesnt know much about the electronics they buy...especially compared to other products, so their reviews are usually much more biased in one way or another... but even with that, I still find it to be the most accurate source out there... and a good resource, but I dont treat it like its my electronics bible,lol...I look up stuff in other places as well...


----------



## Natty

Here's some pics I recently took, a few at my friends house. I don't really know how to use the camera yet, like the settings, this is also direct to jpeg so no editing with raw yet either.


----------



## mistergreen

as you can see, good lighting is everything.


----------



## Curator

those are some nice pics!!! way better than my camera can take,LOL...


----------



## Natty

Hey, I'm currently looking macro lens. I'm definately thinking of getting the 100mm f2.8 one but I saw this one amazon.com

It is a lot cheaper and it is also a macro lens. You have to stand about 4ft from the subject I heard. Any comments on it? Also, what do I need to get in order for that to fit onto my Rebel XSI? Would it be a good macro for shrimps, small creatures and plants in the tank if I stand a little back? I would like to use it to capture bugs and other stuff too thats why, bugs that are on trees that are relatively far.

Why is it so cheap anyhow?

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300m...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235809608&sr=8-6


----------



## mistergreen

it's good for the price...
check out the photos by the buyer link on the page...
compare it to say a 
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-100m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235828868&sr=8-1


----------



## DaveS

The above referenced Sigma isn't really a macro lens, it is a zoom lens with macro functionality. It does 1:2 magnification as opposed to 1:1 like a true macro lens will do (some do better than that). I have played with that lens, and it is pretty good for the price, but I wouldn't want it for serious macro work. You will need well lit subjects as well as the lens is pretty slow, especially for macro work. If you are looking for a long zoom that will allow you to play with some macro pictures then it is a pretty good lens. If you are looking for a "serious" macro lens, you will want to look elsewhere. Sigma also makes a pretty decent macro lens as well in their 105mm macro. My father has that lens and it does a pretty good job for the money. My only beef with it is that it isn't an internal focus lens which can make close-up work a bit challenging. Personally, I have the Canon 60mm macro, and it is a fantastic lens for macro and general photos. The 100mm Canon is probably even better.

Dave


----------



## Natty

Should I get the canon macro lens or the sigma?

Sigma might be cheaper, but is it just as good or should I spend more money for a canon?



And if I get the sigma one that I liked, do I have to get anything else for it to fit onto my Rebel XSI?


----------



## Anupam

Natty said:


> Should I get the canon macro lens or the sigma?
> 
> Sigma might be cheaper, but is it just as good or should I spend more money for a canon?


The zoom lenses that are advertised as "macro" aren't really macro. They are crap compared to most of the prime macros on the market. The Canon macro will be good, but you can also look at the Sigma or Tamron macro primes. They are very good, especially the Tamron. Avoid cheap zooms.

-A


----------



## Natty

Just got my macro lens! Well, I ordered it. Cost me $405 refurbished 90 day warranty.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

Is that cool? I didn't buy the wrong lens right?

Now I'm really broke. I mean hecka broke, it's almost making me a bit weak in the knee just thinking what I did.


----------



## Curator

Im weak in the knees just over how much youve spent for that camera,lol... oh well, its a nice camera,lol... Trade you a car for it? lol j/k


----------



## Natty

Yeah.... $1100~

$640 for camera and sd card
$405 for lens

$1045

Ouchies!

I got the last refurbished one too yay!!!! I think I saved at least $40-90, usually ebay is cheap but they're overpricing it over there....


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Just got my macro lens! Well, I ordered it. Cost me $405 refurbished 90 day warranty.
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html
> 
> Is that cool? I didn't buy the wrong lens right?
> 
> Now I'm really broke. I mean hecka broke, it's almost making me a bit weak in the knee just thinking what I did.


Same one I have. Its a very nice lens.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Same one I have. Its a very nice lens.


 
I'm not too fond of using or carrying a big o' tripod around, is it true that if you wanna take close ups of small things, it's almost mandatory or can you still get pretty clear shots even without?

Can't imagine myself carrying a tripod around all day, including that giant macro lens...4 pounds of lens, geez.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> I'm not too fond of using or carrying a big o' tripod around, is it true that if you wanna take close ups of small things, it's almost mandatory or can you still get pretty clear shots even without?
> 
> Can't imagine myself carrying a tripod around all day, including that giant macro lens...4 pounds of lens, geez.


No its not mandatory you just need a lot of light to negate a tripod. It also depends on what exactly you are looking for in the shot.


----------



## Natty

I'm planning to get a lens hood for the thing but should I get the real deal Canon Hood for like $35-40 
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-ET67-Le...tBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R204X2WM7ULHUX

Or should I just get it from ebay for $9 shipped or something like that? I mean, it is just plastic right?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ET-67-ET67-Lens...ryZ78999QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> I'm planning to get a lens hood for the thing but should I get the real deal Canon Hood for like $35-40
> http://www.amazon.com/Canon-ET67-Le...tBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R204X2WM7ULHUX
> 
> Or should I just get it from ebay for $9 shipped or something like that? I mean, it is just plastic right?
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ET-67-ET67-Lens...ryZ78999QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


I bought an ebay one because after all it is just plastic and you aren't looking through it. Cheapness won't degrade the quality of your photos like a cheap filter would.
I have to say though I got a canon hood for another lens (it was like $14 and I was already getting something else) and the canon hood attaches much smoother and is actually lined with fabric.


----------



## Curator

Wow, 1100? Im selling my car for less than that,LOL...your camera, cost more than my car,lol...>.<


----------



## Natty

Curator said:


> Wow, 1100? Im selling my car for less than that,LOL...your camera, cost more than my car,lol...>.<


Lol, what kinda car is it?



I guess I'll get the ebay one then.


----------



## Anupam

While shooting live critters like insects in the field, a hood eats into precious working distance. I'm just careful with positioning the lens and shielding direct light. Yes, for ambient light macro of a high quality, a tripod is necessary. Everything in the macro gallery on my website was shot that way (with a Nikon F3 camera and mostly Fuji Velvia film). The other option is to use flash, but that makes for a very different "look" that I am less fond of.

-A


----------



## Curator

Its a 1967 Volvo 122s, its actually worth allot more than im selling it for, but I need money, Ive got to move soon, and the money for that move is only gonna come from selling most of what I own,lol


----------



## Natty

Curator said:


> Its a 1967 Volvo 122s, its actually worth allot more than im selling it for, but I need money, Ive got to move soon, and the money for that move is only gonna come from selling most of what I own,lol


This?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...&sigi=11g0ujn3a&sigb=134t6n10r&sigh=1176epet6


----------



## Natty

Anupam said:


> While shooting live critters like insects in the field, a hood eats into precious working distance. I'm just careful with positioning the lens and shielding direct light. Yes, for ambient light macro of a high quality, a tripod is necessary. Everything in the macro gallery on my website was shot that way (with a Nikon F3 camera and mostly Fuji Velvia film). The other option is to use flash, but that makes for a very different "look" that I am less fond of.
> 
> -A


 
So is there a special extremely light tripod that photographers carry? My niece left me a very neat foldable tripod that can go from about 2' to like 4-5' high.

So what do you think about the ebay one, good enough? I'm prob going to get the ebay, don't see the big reason to pay $40 for a piece of plastic, that's just ridiculous. I know it isn't anything compare to the lens, but I just can't....lmao.

What if you just wanna take a macro shot of a plant that's near the shaded area? I just want a natural look. Do I need to add hecka light and wont that defeat the purpose of the natural look?


----------



## Curator

yup, only not that pretty,lol, needs to be painted, a few dents, and a small amount of pinhole rust under the front left headlight, I usually see 122's in much much much worse condition than mine going for over $2,000... while mine just needs all these little things... gets annoying, but none of its major, although personally I would replace the breaks in front with more modern ones, the entire break system, the cylinders, pads, steel braid break line, and master cylinder can be replaced for about $300...which was what I was planning on doing next for it,lol... i also bought everything I needed to get it painted too, including a gallon of Firemist Purple paint...


----------



## Anupam

Natty said:


> So is there a special extremely light tripod that photographers carry? My niece left me a very neat foldable tripod that can go from about 2' to like 4-5' high.
> 
> So what do you think about the ebay one, good enough? I'm prob going to get the ebay, don't see the big reason to pay $40 for a piece of plastic, that's just ridiculous. I know it isn't anything compare to the lens, but I just can't....lmao.


Believe it or not, a tripod is one of the most important piece of equipment in terms of improving sharpness. A good tripod will contribute much more than a better lens, for example. I use a Feisol carbon fiber tripod that was about $250. It's listed along with the rest of my gear on my website.





> What if you just wanna take a macro shot of a plant that's near the shaded area? I just want a natural look. Do I need to add hecka light and wont that defeat the purpose of the natural look?


Use a tripod and increase exposure time.


----------



## mistergreen

a cheap tripod is fine.. No need for a pricey one. Walmart has a cheap one. 

I find a tripod is helpful in close up shots.


----------



## Anupam

mistergreen said:


> a cheap tripod is fine.. No need for a pricey one. Walmart has a cheap one.
> 
> I find a tripod is helpful in close up shots.


I disagree. I'd avoid Walmart tripods like the plague. On a budget, the minimum tripod I'd get is the Bogen/Manfrotto 190 range or similar for around a hundred bucks.

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm


----------



## Natty

Anupam said:


> I disagree. I'd avoid Walmart tripods like the plague. On a budget, the minimum tripod I'd get is the Bogen/Manfrotto 190 range or similar for around a hundred bucks.
> 
> http://www.bythom.com/support.htm


 
Whats the difference in an expensive tripod over a not so expensive tripod? I mean, its just there for you to hook your camera to right?

Reading your link right now.


----------



## DarioDario

Well the Expensive ones are more durable and they do have more weight with them, because a shaky tripod defeats the purpose. But just go with whatever suits you, you can always go get a cheap one and upgrade later if you wish.


Important to note if you are going to shoot without a tripod the slowest shutter speed you can use 1/focal length of the lens. So for instance if for you 100mm the slowest hand held shot would be at a shutter speed of 1/100. So I advise if you can you should absolutely use a tripod during macro shots, take advantage of Live View and Manual Focus.


----------



## Anupam

Natty said:


> Whats the difference in an expensive tripod over a not so expensive tripod? I mean, its just there for you to hook your camera to right?


Well, a cheap tripod usually flexes quite easily. It might look stable enough, but tap the leg while it is extended and you will feel a slight vibration extend through the body. The vibration might look very slight, but it significantly affects picture quality. As an experiment, mount a camera on a tripod and on the lens barrel tie one of those laser pointers with some kind of strapping. Point it to a wall a few feet away and tap the leg of the tripod. Notice how much the laser mark on the wall shakes? That's how much it is magnifying your camera shake. So a cheap tripod will only serve to gather vibrations from the slightest wind and nullify any advantage your great camera and lens might give you. 

Think of it this way - you spent $400 on a great lens, right. Now, if you think about it, just about any modern lens used with good technique is capable of decent results. That is, the difference between a $100 crappy lens and your $400 great leans isn't that much optically. Yet you go the extra mile for the little bit of added quality. 

Now, the difference between a $40 walmart tripod and a decent tripod and head combination is much much more in terms of the effect it has on image quality. You can get perfectly fine tripod/head sets within $150. So, in trying to save a hundred bucks you are actually throwing away the $300 extra you paid for that good lens. A bad lens shot with good technique beats a great lens shot with bad technique any day. So my advice would be to start with a decent Manfrotto type tripod. You can get good results without spending $700 for a gitzo.

Enjoy your new hobby.
-Anupam


----------



## mistergreen

all you need is a stable tripod... you'd be surprised with the walmart one. I don't use tripods that much though.


----------



## mistergreen

hey,
I found this. It talks about how to shoot fish.

http://forums.loaches.com/viewtopic.php?p=158990#158990


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> hey,
> I found this. It talks about how to shoot fish.
> 
> http://forums.loaches.com/viewtopic.php?p=158990#158990


 


> One method for blown up pictures is a Macro 105mm 2,8 AF mounted on the PB-6. a SB23 as Flashlight on a TTL cord attached to the flashshoe on top of the cam
> 
> 
> here you see the same system with a 50mm/1.4 Manual retro mounted (lens is 180° turned) on a *PB-6 with IR-Flashsystem* you se the flashlight laying on top of a milky acrylic glass on top of the little fototank.
> 
> *What's a canon equivalent of this build and I couldn't find much about the IR-Flashsystem he mentioned. I definately can't afford anything more atm but just curious for future ideas.*


In bold


----------



## mistergreen

the speedlite series
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-430EX-Speedlite-Flash-Cameras/dp/B000AO3L84/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in

it's wireless.


----------



## plakat

That setup seems really excessive and complicated for the quality of the pictures.


----------



## Anupam

plakat said:


> That setup seems really excessive and complicated for the quality of the pictures.


The complicated looking setup consists of a reversed 50mm lens on extension. This is meant for very high magnifications. His sample shots can be made with the simpler setup he posted of just a macro lens and off camera flash. 

BTW, the 50/1.4 lens he uses is not that great for macro because it doesn't have a flat field of focus. Use a slightly slower 50mm or a reversed enlarging lens. 



> *What's a canon equivalent of this build and I couldn't find much about the IR-Flashsystem he mentioned. I definately can't afford anything more atm but just curious for future ideas.*


If you don't want to spend a fortune on flashes, here's a tip. You can use any flash manually to get the same results. That means the camera will not do the thinking for you and control flash output. You have to learn and experiment a bit with flash intensities, f-stops etc, but after that a $50 second hand flash on manual will give you great results. Most people don't know what they are doing and are paying to have the camera take automated decisions for them.


----------



## mistergreen

if you want to see some truly amazing photos, check out this guy
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/photography/32113-some-killies-shots.html

he uses a macro & off camera flash often.


----------



## mistergreen

oh, and here's his lighting set up









and this is write up
http://www.aquariumlife.com.au/showthread.php?t=535


----------



## Natty

Hey, I got a newbie question, how do you achieve greater depth of field where everything is in focus?

I looked it up and I got a few mix messages. I keep taking pictures with my canon but everything sorta remains in focus even when I change focal length, fstops...etc.

The greater depth of field question applies more to another camera, not the canon, which has the issue of having everything in focus sorta.


----------



## DarioDario

Depth of field is increased when you close down aperture


----------



## Natty

DarioDario said:


> Depth of field is increased when you close down aperture


You mean the measurements on the fstops? I tried that but it requires me to add more light or the picture becomes underexposed. How do I increase fstop without needing more light?


----------



## mistergreen

depends on the f-stop and focal length
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzedefUXARE


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> You mean the measurements on the fstops? I tried that but it requires me to add more light or the picture becomes underexposed. How do I increase fstop without needing more light?


Either up the ISO or turn down the shutter speed. You can also do some of both.


----------



## mistergreen

oh yeah, or add more light, via flash or a sunny day.
That's why a tripod & flash is handy. In certain conditions, a long exposure or extra light is necessary.


----------



## Natty

GOT MY 100MM USM IS MACRO LENS!!!

I got a question though. I tried it but it doesn't let me manually focus by moving the tip like on my 18-55mm kit lens. How come? It does pretty much all of the focus manually or if I want to do it manually, what I have to do is adjust the distance and move myself back and forth instead. Is this how it is?

I tried doing super super close ups where the object almost fills the whole frame but so far I can't.

Here's some picture of it btw compare with the lens kit.

Kit Lens









Macro Lens









Comparison. Quite a bit bigger but I was expecting it. Feels very solid and durable.


----------



## plakat

Ok. First thing its a prime so moving in and out is how you frame stuff unlike the zoom where you move the ring.

Second the lack of zoom leaves the large ring in the center as the focus ring. Not the tip.

Lastly it does have a minimum focus distance so you have to keep that in mind. There is however a distance switch on it next to the manual focus/auto focus switch. Its labeled .31m-infinity and .48m-infinity. Use the .31m-infinity for close work otherwise it has problems focusing.

Hope that helps.


----------



## mistergreen

looks fun.. make sure to switch the AF to MF on the lens.
I have so much stuff I want to buy.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Ok. First thing its a prime so moving in and out is how you frame stuff unlike the zoom where you move the ring.
> 
> Second the lack of zoom leaves the large ring in the center as the focus ring. Not the tip.
> 
> Lastly it does have a minimum focus distance so you have to keep that in mind. There is however a distance switch on it next to the manual focus/auto focus switch. Its labeled .31m-infinity and .48m-infinity. Use the .31m-infinity for close work otherwise it has problems focusing.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Hmm, yeah I figured a few stuff but so far I've only fiddled with it a few mins before I ran out of batteries. So there's just so much I can zoom into an object huh? I was trying to zoom into a bird on a branch so that it fitted most of the frame but I couldn't. Is it possible? The bird was only about 7 ft away. After the batteries recharge, I'm going to give it a try.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> looks fun.. make sure to switch the AF to MF on the lens.
> I have so much stuff I want to buy.


Lol, don't we all. I went to the fleamarket and this guy had a killer deal. I thought it wasn't that great, it is used lens though.

100mm macro usm is lens
70-300mm is lens
17-85mm IS lens

All canon EF EFS lenses for $800-850. Unfortunately, I definately dont have the money but man, with a kit like that, I'd be pretty content for ages. But that's how life is, we want more than we can get and we're never truly satisfied with what we have. Tragic if you think about it :tongue:


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Hmm, yeah I figured a few stuff but so far I've only fiddled with it a few mins before I ran out of batteries. So there's just so much I can zoom into an object huh? I was trying to zoom into a bird on a branch so that it fitted most of the frame but I couldn't. Is it possible? The bird was only about 7 ft away. After the batteries recharge, I'm going to give it a try.


With prime lenses your zoom is your feet. You either have to go to the bird or bring the bird to you. 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Read the zoom vs prime section half way down. Actually you should probably read it all but that section is about what you asked atm.


----------



## Natty

Thanks, I'll give it a thorough read. Definately will come back with some neat photos to show :tongue: . Well, after I study for my midterm. I can't wait till spring break, I need a breather.


----------



## Natty

Oh, big question!

How come there's no way to shut off the camera sound? The shutter sound that is. Is it impossible? It would be tight taking picture in total silence, especially when you don't want to get noticed.


----------



## epicfish

Natty said:


> Oh, big question!
> 
> How come there's no way to shut off the camera sound? The shutter sound that is. Is it impossible? It would be tight taking picture in total silence, especially when you don't want to get noticed.


Haha, no.


----------



## mistergreen

it's user feedback.. People feel more comforted when they here the shutter sound.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> it's user feedback.. People feel more comforted when they here the shutter sound.


I really wish there was an option to turn it off though....
Oh well :icon_sad:


----------



## Anupam

Natty said:


> Oh, big question!
> 
> How come there's no way to shut off the camera sound? The shutter sound that is. Is it impossible? It would be tight taking picture in total silence, especially when you don't want to get noticed.


Are you talking about a DSLR? If so, it's not just user feedback, it's the sound of the moving mirror and the actual movement of a physical shutter. No way it can be turned off. Fire the shutter with the lens off the camera.


----------



## epicfish

Natty said:


> I really wish there was an option to turn it off though....
> Oh well :icon_sad:


It's not a virtual, pre-programmed noise like you can sometimes find on some digital cameras. It's the actual physical shutter movement. It's like asking "How do I turn off the vrooooom sound my car makes?"


----------



## Natty

epicfish said:


> It's not a virtual, pre-programmed noise like you can sometimes find on some digital cameras. It's the actual physical shutter movement. It's like asking "*How do I turn off the vrooooom sound my car makes*?"


 
Get a hybrid, that's how.

But yeah, I was just wondering. I figured it was the shutter.


----------



## mistergreen

Are we taking pictures we shouldn't be taking?

ahummm.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> Are we taking pictures we shouldn't be taking?
> 
> ahummm.


:hihi:

Sometimes I just wanna take pictures of people without them noticing. I live in Oakland so taking pictures of people can and may be lethal to my health if you know what I mean :redface:. 

"Uh, no sir, I'm not stalking your family! How's Lisa been by the way?"

:tongue:

But I do wish there was a silent option in the settings somewhere. Oh well. There goes my chance of becoming a spy, hey, with a camera that big, I'd get caught pretty fast anyway.


----------



## mistergreen

A telephoto lens is perfect for spy stuff. You can be 100 yards away and get a nice photo.
try not to point it into some girl's window.


----------



## epicfish

mistergreen said:


> A telephoto lens is perfect for spy stuff. You can be 100 yards away and get a nice photo.
> try not to blatantly point it into some girl's window.


Fixed.


----------



## Natty

epicfish said:


> Fixed.


Lol

Hey, I got some problems taking pictures and focusing.

I got two problems:

1. I tried using my new macro lens to focus into one of my tanks to take pictures of my shrimps and even tried focusing on the rocks and it is blury. What confuses me is I can focus on other stuff outside of the tank in darker settings and not get this problem. I can't focus stuff in the tank that well, anyone know why?

2. I got some pictures to show for this one. Basically, I was trying to take pictures of some rose thorns but I have an issue with color. First the pictures:

Canon DSLR that I recently bought









My Old Canon Powershot










The problem is the thorns are a lot nicer red then that, the powershot seems to capture the color a bit better. I get this pinkish color with the DSLR and I tried using different settings. I just basically wanna capture what I see and I'm not getting that. What can I do? What I see is almost a complete full violet color, the camera sure doesn't capture it. I capture in jpg.


----------



## mistergreen

1. the lens should be parallel to the glass of your tank.. Glass will distort & blur on an angle.

2. You'll have to adjust the colors in photoshop or something. color saturation is tricky depending not only on the camera but on the software that displays the image on a monitor. And it depends on the monitor too!.. Color shifts.. It's not a constant.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> 1. the lens should be parallel to the glass of your tank.. Glass will distort & blur on an angle.
> 
> 2. You'll have to adjust the colors in photoshop or something. color saturation is tricky depending not only on the camera but on the software that displays the image on a monitor. And it depends on the monitor too!.. Color shifts.. It's not a constant.


Wow thanks!

For question number 2, so if the color isn't to my liking and the camera cannot capture it in full detail like I want, I have to take it in RAW and then edit it on photoshop then? 

So just because I don't get the exact same color that I see doesn't mean there's anything bad with the lens or camera, just means I have to edit it on photoshop a bit more? I was hoping I could catch the color without it though, I gotta learn about that photoshop picture editing thing. Going to retrace the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## mistergreen

you can adjust the color with jpeg output too. It depends what your final goal is.. For the web & video (stop motion animation), jpeg is more than fine.

Actually, if you get a polarizing filter on your lens, it'll make the color a little more saturated without photoshop. And helps with glares. It's less than $10 so it's a good investment.


----------



## Natty

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=canon+polarizing+filter

Which one would be good? You also can't use it for different lenses can you? I plan to use it both on the kit and the 100mm macro.

EDIT
How exactly do you tell if the filters will fit the lens?


----------



## mistergreen

get the 58mm one.. that's what I have on my lens.

might as well get the set
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Dig...3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236906057&sr=8-3


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> get the 58mm one.. that's what I have on my lens.
> 
> might as well get the set
> http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Dig...3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236906057&sr=8-3


How do you tell that the 58mm lenses will fit? I mean, I know it says its for my camera, I'm just saying in general because I see a bunch of filters listed as 58mm. I'm just wondering does 58mm filters fit all EF and EF-S lenses?

I also heard of circular polarizing filters, is that better than the simple polarizing filter in that set?

Which one would also bring that more violet look in the thorns btw, the UV filter? 

:tongue: I'm gonna go out and take more pics!


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> How do you tell that the 58mm lenses will fit? I mean, I know it says its for my camera, I'm just saying in general because I see a bunch of filters listed as 58mm. I'm just wondering does 58mm filters fit all EF and EF-S lenses?
> 
> I also heard of circular polarizing filters, is that better than the simple polarizing filter in that set?
> 
> Which one would also bring that more violet look in the thorns btw, the UV filter?
> 
> :tongue: I'm gonna go out and take more pics!


The mm that any lens uses for filters/hoods should be on the lens it self. No one filter size works for all EF EF-S lenses. The macro takes a 58mm filter/hood fitting. I think the kit lens uses the same 58mm size.

Your white balance may be off or you simply over exposed the image too. 

I would make sure you know exactly what the filters do before you buy them. 

One more thing. You spent 400 on a nice lens that you are going to put a cheap 10 dollar piece of glass in front of. Your pictures will only be as good as that cheap filter lets them be.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> One more thing. You spent 400 on a nice lens that you are going to put a cheap 10 dollar piece of glass in front of. Your pictures will only be as good as that cheap filter lets them be.


So what do you suggest that I do, just photoshop it?

I tried underexposing it as well and it got a bit dark. I'll try again tomorrow.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> So what do you suggest that I do, just photoshop it?
> 
> I tried underexposing it as well and it got a bit dark. I'll try again tomorrow.


Photoshop would be easiest. The powershot pic you posted seems to be more shaded while the macro shot seems to have more light on the stem and more backlight which could wash out the colors. I could be a lighting issue too.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Photoshop would be easiest. The powershot pic you posted seems to be more shaded while the macro shot seems to have more light on the stem and more backlight which could wash out the colors. I could be a lighting issue too.


So how would you approach this situation? It would be real nice looking to have captured it better.


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> So how would you approach this situation? It would be real nice looking to have captured it better.


If you just are interested in improving color I would start messing with white balance, lighting and exposure setting. If all else fails photoshop. RAW data lets you play with white balance after the fact so you might want to try that.


----------



## Natty

I took some RAW footage and I put it into photoshop but photoshop says that it is not the right kind of document...

That's weird...


----------



## Natty

Natty said:


> I took some RAW footage and I put it into photoshop but photoshop says that it is not the right kind of document...
> 
> That's weird...


I did a search, going to follow this, hopefully it'll work:

http://en.kioskea.net/forum/affich-57723-photoshop-cs3-can-t-open-raw-files#4


----------



## Natty

Natty said:


> I did a search, going to follow this, hopefully it'll work:
> 
> http://en.kioskea.net/forum/affich-57723-photoshop-cs3-can-t-open-raw-files#4


 
Works! Tight lol. Thanks Natty, you're the greatest forum member ever!

:hihi:


----------



## Natty

OMG LOL! That is so freaken cool!

Hey, how do you enter this mode when using JPG? I'll fiddle around with it a bit more.

EDIT

Found, but not exactly like that of RAW, but it has those options though.
Image>Adjustments


----------



## mistergreen

isn't fun answering your own questions?

when you want to play with regular images (not raw), go to image/adjust

for brightness & contrast do levels. you get more control.
for color balance & saturation go to hue/saturation..

and if you want to feel the pain, go to color curves.


----------



## plakat

I thought I mentioned RAW having compatibility problems earlier somewhere.

Seems like you got something working. I used this http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4369


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> isn't fun answering your own questions?
> 
> when you want to play with regular images (not raw), go to image/adjust
> 
> for brightness & contrast do levels. you get more control.
> for color balance & saturation go to hue/saturation..
> 
> and if you want to feel the pain, go to color curves.


Lol yeah it was highly amusing talking to myself.

Any benefits in messing with the color curves over the other controls? I would guess the color curves control all the colors so you see multiple changes at the same time. Lol I'll fiddle around with it more tomorrow, just wanted to see real quick what it was about since I had to do other stuff.

I was hoping to gather enough skills one of these days so that I can take good enough pictures of what I actually want instead of continously having to modify it to what I want. Having enough skills to capture what I want, exactly how I want it.

Is that really hard to accomplish? I know you guys edit with RAW a lot, how often do you do it?


----------



## Natty

I got a question.

I'm thinking of purchasing a telephoto lens. I definately want a lens that is not like my macro 100mm which sorta requires me to get close to a bird if I want to have a good focus of it up close.

I want to use this lens for capturing small stuff from a pretty good distance, significantly further than the macro lens. I want to capture small stuff, zoom into it and be able to focus. For example, a flower about half a block away, I want to zoom into it, have it fill out a good majority of the picture frame, and be able to focus and take a shot of it.

So far I'm looking at 

70-200mm F4 L Lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-GREY/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html

And the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

Any opinions? Going back to read on it some more. Many people advise getting the 200mm instead that's why I'm considering the 200mm more atm.


----------



## plakat

The first lens will give better image quality because it is a L series but it lacks IS so you are going to have to be very steady at max focal length. The second has IS but the image quality will be worse. Not necessarily bad just not as good as the L lens assuming you can eliminate any hand shake.

The other thing to consider is that you have a 1.6 focal length body so that 200mm lens is going to be giving you something more along the lines of 320mm zoomed all the way in and the 300 will be more like 480.

I can't tell you if this going to allow you to get close ups of flowers from a block away but I would bet they will be nowhere near your macro close up at that distance.

If possible rent or borrow a lens in that focal length to see if it will suit your needs. You might need longer focal length.


----------



## Natty

Will either one fit this description?



> I want to capture small stuff, zoom into it and be able to focus even while standing pretty far away.


Because the macro lens is nice but in order to get a real close zoom of a flower, I'll have to walk as close up to the flower as possible as well. This is okay but taking pictures of birds is extremely hard because if I get too close they run away and I can't get a big picture of them and be able to focus.

Macro is nice but it has that issue.

I also considered renting lens but I remember seeing the cost of it, little costly imo.... 
I can probably buy one of those lens and if I dont like it, sale it back and still not lose that much money (the cost for renting that is). I'll check around, hopefully there will be a store that'll let me try it while I'm inside.


----------



## Natty

Doing some picture comparisons:

300mm one
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0007Y794O/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all

200mm L lens
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000053HH5/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> Will either one fit this description?


Sure but neither will give you macro quality image at a distance and probably not even if you get close considering neither is a macro if that is what you are looking for.

Here are some sample images for the First lens and Second


----------



## Natty

Looking at links from post #227

Yeah, can't see much of a difference, maybe I'm just not experienced enough to tell. Like if you mixed all the pictures together and ask me to say which one is from which lens I'd probably be stomped...

Any experienced eyes, please tell me what to look for?


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Sure but neither will give you macro quality image at a distance and probably not even if you get close considering neither is a macro if that is what you are looking for.
> 
> Here are some sample images for the First lens and Second


The close up quality shots in the amazon links should be good enough. Let me compare, it is just so hard to compare, image quality imo is very close.

EDIT

My mind keeps getting manipulated by the fact that I keep thinking that the 200mm is SUPPOSE to look better so images in the 200mm automatically gets a higher rating in my mind. However, if I do mix the photos I can't really tell..

Can you? Any experienced input would be cool.

I mean, if they took pictures of the same subject in the same distance using the same settings than maybe, but the shots could have been effected by a lot of other things other then the lens right?


----------



## plakat

Natty said:


> The close up quality shots in the amazon links should be good enough. Let me compare, it is just so hard to compare, image quality imo is very close.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> My mind keeps getting manipulated by the fact that I keep thinking that the 200mm is SUPPOSE to look better so images in the 200mm automatically gets a higher rating in my mind. However, if I do mix the photos I can't really tell..
> 
> Can you? Any experienced input would be cool.


There are several problems with comparing photos this way. You would have to assume that all camera bodies are the same and in the same condition which they are not. The body will change image quality. You also don't know how much post production has gone on with these photos. It might be right out of the camera or the people might have spent hours adjusting curves to get things right.

If you look at the review pages it will tell technical details about each lens and might give a heads up between the two using some standards. 

I would be wary getting a lens of that length with out IS. Check out the blurry duck photo on amazon link.

EDIT

You and your double ninja edit.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> You and your double ninja edit.


:hihi:
Yeah, I do a lot of editing after I post, most of it around 2-10 mins after it is posted. My bad.


----------



## Natty

I got an issue. I was outside trying to capture some pictures when I noticed something in my camera frame, like a little hair. I also noticed two really small black specks at the lower right of the frame as well.

So my thought was that it was some kind of dust that flew either on my lens or in my camera. Checked and it wasn't on my lens because I took my lens off and still saw it on there through the view finder.

So I took some lens cloth and I took the lens off and did a little cleaning inside the camera, there's two piece of glass in there, one at the top and one that is sort of diagonal. I blew in there so I could get some humidity on the lens and I wiped it and the specs are still there...

Can I use a q tip or something? The specs are really hard to get out, what can I do? I did get the hair out but now I got a few streaks in there...


----------



## Anupam

DON'T touch the SLR mirror. Use a blower.


----------



## Natty

Anupam said:


> DON'T touch the SLR mirror. Use a blower.


So I can't touch it even with a lens cloth?

Is it too late because I already touched it. I tried blowing the mirror really hard before as well but the specs wouldn't get off...that's why I thought of the lens cloth. Which one is the slr mirror? There's two.


----------



## plakat

Did you check to make sure the specs aren't on the viewfinder? I wouldn't touch the inside of the camera with stuff unless its made to clean inside the camera. You can cause more harm than good messing with stuff unless you know what you are doing.


----------



## Natty

plakat said:


> Did you check to make sure the specs aren't on the viewfinder? I wouldn't touch the inside of the camera with stuff unless its made to clean inside the camera. You can cause more harm than good messing with stuff unless you know what you are doing.


Yeah, it isn't on the viewfinder, at least on the outter side of it.

I goofed and I'm beating myself up for it. I'm checking up on Canon Factory Service Centers and the closest one is like incredibly far (Irvine, CA). What a bummer. I just wanted to take some pics now I have to consider sending it in for repairs........:icon_roll.

The booklet even says don't use those aircans since even the pressure on that may damage the mirrors. I didn't fill out my warranty card yet either.

*Punches imaginationary wall*


How do you know if the camera mirrors are damaged and is there no way to manually clean this myself?


----------



## mistergreen

wait a sec...
is the hair and spec in the photo?! check that first.
man, how did that happen? that rarely happens.

Stop by a camera shop to ask for advice. They also sell these electrostatic soft brushes.. It'll pick pick up any dust & such without any issues.


----------



## Natty

mistergreen said:


> wait a sec...
> is the hair and spec in the photo?! check that first.
> man, how did that happen? that rarely happens.
> 
> Stop by a camera shop to ask for advice. They also sell these electrostatic soft brushes.. It'll pick pick up any dust & such without any issues.


Yeah, I'll bring it by them tomorrow, so far its just on my view finder. Hopefully the one I'm going to tomorrow is knowledgable enough to be of some assistance.

I'll take a photo in a sec and tell you, the battery is charging. I'm also reading this place atm:

http://www.tribcsp.com/~sigma2/SensorDust01.html


----------



## Natty

Here's two pictures I just took in a white background:

F11









F25









How do I know if I messed up my mirror from touching it?


----------



## mistergreen

you're fine. from the link you gave, the mirror only affect the view finder and auto focus.. If those are fine, everything is fine.

for next time, just be extra sensitive with the mirror. it's pretty delicate. You definitely don't want your fingers in there.


----------



## Natty

I still got the two really small specs and the mirror has some finger print smugges on them, I'll definately have to ask the camera people tomorrow to see if there's anyway to clean it and make sure the finger prints on there wont effect the images somehow.

Here's two more images that I took, the blurriness is partially because of my hand shake I think:

NUMBER 1

NUMBER 2

I think I used auto focus on at least one of those pictures. Probably the second one.


----------



## plakat

If you want to test for dust use really small aperture and take a photo of a wall slightly out of focus so you can see the dust in the camera and not blotches on the wall. Also keep the ISO down because that won't help you when looking for dust. 

You might have better luck testing the autofocus with a smaller aperture and faster shutter speed. 1/30s for the focal length you are using is a tad bit slow which might cause blur from your hand shaking to show.


----------



## Anupam

If you can see it thru the viewfinder, the dust isn't on the sensor. It won't show up in photos.

If the dust is on the sensor, it won't be visible thru the viewfinder - only in photos (shoot a clear sky or something).

The mirror on SLRs is silvered on the surface side, so they are not meant to be touched. No big deal though, so long as you don't accidentally scrape the silvering (and it looks like you didn't). I'd just let it be - or if the smudge bothers you, get it cleaned by a professional - your camera will work fine.


----------



## Anupam

Oh! get a Giottos "rocket" for the future. It's a handy thing to have around. And safer than canned air which, on occasion, can spill out liquid and really mess up your mirror or sensor.


----------



## Natty

Anupam said:


> Oh! get a Giottos "rocket" for the future. It's a handy thing to have around. And safer than canned air which, on occasion, can spill out liquid and really mess up your mirror or sensor.


Where can I get it for a good price? I'm gonna look on ebay when I get home.



> The mirror on SLRs is silvered on the surface side, so they are not meant to be touched


I just bursted out laughing to myself today when I thought back about this. Everyone, even the booklet is like " DON'T TOUCH IT, IT IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE!!!" and they even said pressurized air is too much....

...and I'm over here really trying to clean it good yesturday hahaha!! I had my lens cloth all in there trying to get the two spots out. ROLMAO. I'm going to take it to the camera people now. Hopefully it'll be okay.


----------



## Natty

Hey, can you guys take a look at these pics, I recently took a few. Any problems that you see?

CLICK HERE


----------

