Need help of buying digital SLR camera

drphoto · « **Reply #40 on:** 23 Aug 2008, 10:07 pm »

Randy! Sorry your question got overlooked. I know you probably don't want to lug around a tripod, or whether the cathedral staff folks would let you use one, but I would suggest using only available light. A single a speedlight is NOT a good way to light interiors. Supplemental lighting of interiors for photography can be pretty tricky business.

But here's the good news. Modern DSLR's have pretty low noise at high ISO equivilents (in case you have to hand hold) They have a wider dynamic range than film, which means you don't often need supplemental lighting to open the shadows. Plus, you can white balance anything now without on camera filters, which is a real plus.

If you can shoot on a tripod, and if you have a capable image editing program (ie: pshop) you can always shoot a 'bracket' or range of exposures and then combine them to get a wider range image. I do stuff like that all the time.

good luck.

drphoto · « **Reply #41 on:** 23 Aug 2008, 11:26 pm »

tried to post an interior shot, but messed it up somehow.

Randy · « **Reply #42 on:** 23 Aug 2008, 11:59 pm »

dr - thanks much for your answers. Thinking back, I guess I did take most of the interiors in Paris with available light, with some long time exposures. I remember leaning on railings and walls trying to be steady. Almost all of my shots turned out beautifully. In London, in Westminster Abbey where they don't allow any photography, I snuck a couple, and had more trouble since I couldn't be obviously taking pictures. I got some amazing shots of stained glass windows in Paris. Obviously you can't do that with a flash. These were all prints. My problem now is I can't find anyone who can process prints decently, but I am ready to make the digital switch anyway. I am looking forward to see what the D-60 can do and will not get an outboard flash just yet, anyway. I am curious to see how time exposures are done with it. I have a lot to learn, I'm afraid. I have a new Mac and will have to learn iPhoto, too.

drphoto · « **Reply #43 on:** 24 Aug 2008, 08:12 pm »

Randy, I have an Epson 4000 which uses archival inks. I could make some prints for you of you want. I did some for Marbles a few weeks ago. My cost unfortunately are more than what places like shutterfly.com charge. I'm not posting this as a money making venture (I have no desire to get into the lab business) but will help out friends from this site.

Randy · « **Reply #44 on:** 24 Aug 2008, 10:11 pm »

dr, thanks for the offer, but I don't need anything done right now. I pretty much ceased taking photos a while back for several reasons, one of which was the poor processing I started getting. My long time quickie lab in Casper went out of business. They were very good and would redo any prints I wasn't happy with. The local guy was good for a while, but the last few times I went there, they weren't any good. Very discouraging. Thanks again.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #45 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 12:20 am »

I have been a shooting pro for decades, repair cameras, teach photography, and worked selling cameras for years. Nikon through and through (and Hassy, Linhof etc.)
For $1,000 you should be able to get a low-miles used D200 (very fast) and lens. I am a film guy who was dragged kicking and screaming into digital, but love my D200 and D300. There are a lot of guys & gals jumping from the D200 to the D300, so lots are available. I wouldn't have bought a D300 except that I put down my bag and a truck drove over it (literally). D200 was destroyed, the 70-200 2.8 vr lens mounted on it didn't have a scratch. Except for the larger screen I'd have been happy with another D200.

If you had come into my camera store in the early 70's I'd have told you to narrow the field to 2 or 3 cameras in your range, then buy the one that feels the most comfortable in your hands. Having said that if you buy Nikon you can use any of HUNDREDS of manual focus lenses that are available cheap. I still use my 105mm MF lens from 1975, and big telephotos (over 400mm) work great in manual focus. DON'T get the 28-80 unless it is free with an $800 body. Get the 18-70 if possible. VERY versatile.
My two cents worth......

Bob

tanchiro58 · « **Reply #46 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 01:09 am »

Quote from: thunderbrick on 26 Aug 2008, 12:20 am

I have been a shooting pro for decades, repair cameras, teach photography, and worked selling cameras for years. Nikon through and through (and Hassy, Linhof etc.)
For $1,000 you should be able to get a low-miles used D200 (very fast) and lens. I am a film guy who was dragged kicking and screaming into digital, but love my D200 and D300. There are a lot of guys & gals jumping from the D200 to the D300, so lots are available. I wouldn't have bought a D300 except that I put down my bag and a truck drove over it (literally). D200 was destroyed, the 70-200 2.8 vr lens mounted on it didn't have a scratch. Except for the larger screen I'd have been happy with another D200.

If you had come into my camera store in the early 70's I'd have told you to narrow the field to 2 or 3 cameras in your range, then buy the one that feels the most comfortable in your hands. Having said that if you buy Nikon you can use any of HUNDREDS of manual focus lenses that are available cheap. I still use my 105mm MF lens from 1975, and big telephotos (over 400mm) work great in manual focus. DON'T get the 28-80 unless it is free with an $800 body. Get the 18-70 if possible. VERY versatile.
My two cents worth......

Bob

I love Nikon and their pictures. I had own an FG (my entry level one) and used very simple lens even the aftermarket lenses (pictures were still nice). Now I just bought D70S and 18-135mm f 3.5G which I can afford for now. Do you think the 18-135 lens is good enough for D70S?

Thanks,
Tan

thunderbrick · « **Reply #47 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 01:13 am »

I think the 18-136 is a good range, maybe a bit much as far as being a slow lens, but I do not know anything about the F70.

Bob

tanchiro58 · « **Reply #48 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 01:23 am »

Quote from: thunderbrick on 26 Aug 2008, 01:13 am

I think the 18-136 is a good range, maybe a bit much as far as being a slow lens, but I do not know anything about the F70.

Bob

t

Based on low.profile's experiences (very nice pics) he suggest me to get 50mm f1.8 for indoor/dim light/no flash. What is your suggestion with your experiences? Thanks again.

Tan

thunderbrick · « **Reply #49 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 02:14 am »

Agreed, but wide open it has very little depth of field (area of sharp focus). MF models are cheap; there was an E-series on years ago that was very highly regarded for image quality. My guess is that $20 would be a good price. For the more "normal" 50 1.8 normal lens, be sure to get an AI-S MF multicoated model. An autofocus model should be $75-90, tops.

Be aware, people who are used to zooms may experience a form of vertigo when stuck with a fixed lens.

I shoot low-light theater work with my 18-70. Hand-holding technique is a critical issue when working in low light, nearly as important as VR or wide aperture. IMHO

thunderbrick · « **Reply #50 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 02:16 am »

In addition, I seriously doubt that you can see the difference in lenses on the web. An amazing photo is 99% skill. Or luck. I've done it both ways.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #51 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 03:02 am »

The 1.8 af is inexpensive and pretty good, but the 1.4 af would be my choice when I get a nikon with a screw drive motor. It makes that last bit of difference in shutter speed, and combined with something like a d300, can give really clean pictures at iso800. It's iso800 performance is pretty good, even on a D40. A bounceable flash will also do the trick, if you want to stick with something like the 18-70, but it will provide a very different look and feel. Thunderbrick can do handheld with his 18-70 in low light - I think he's really good, and an exception :p

The MF lenses are holding up pretty well in price. I paid about $50 for my Series E 50mm f/1.8, got lucky on my 50mm f/1.4 for $120 (normally closer to $180 shipped,) and paid $300 for the 55mm f/1.2 (overpriced, imo.) You won't find one for $20, that's for sure. It's hard to find even old vivitar lenses for that little money.

Randy · « **Reply #52 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 03:11 am »

I'd like to post a picture, but don't know how. Can anyone help? (I know this gets asked about once a week on one forum of another, so sorry.)

thunderbrick · « **Reply #53 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 03:29 am »

Sorry, I just figured out you got a D70, not an F70. My bad. Great camera. I've done a magazine cover with one. My wife took it over as "hers" and won't give it back. Hope she never gets her hands on my D200.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #54 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 03:33 am »

I have bought from KEH but found them to be WAY overpriced. Local markets (except NYC and LA) are usually much better.

low.pfile · « **Reply #55 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 05:34 am »

Quote from: Randy on 26 Aug 2008, 03:11 am

I'd like to post a picture, but don't know how. Can anyone help? (I know this gets asked about once a week on one forum of another, so sorry.)

PLACING IMAGES IN POSTS ON AC....

Here is the thread that explains posting a photo:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=40968.0

Skip right to post #6

BTW that process if for pics that you upload from your computer to your own AudioCircle Gallery (free).

low.pfile · « **Reply #56 on:** 26 Aug 2008, 05:56 am »

While these are hardly great images I am posting to show low light capability of a fast 50mm. I shot my first music concert with my new 50mm f/1.4 in a very dark bar with basic stage lighting (dim). I think this is really the first concert that I've photographed. These photos are just for my personal use. It was all a learning experience since I played with shooting without the pop up fill flash-with very high ISO speeds, with the pop up flash it with/without a paper diffuser. I am just recently getting back into photography and am dusting off many cobwebs. I'm having fun.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edsee/sets/72157606819626378/

These pics could have been taken with a 50mm f/1.8 just as easily as the f/1.4.

Having a fast lens makes focusing/composition so much easier. But It was still difficult focus in this darkness and the pressure of limiting my blocking of the performance. Many of these pics have missed focus: the depth of field is very shallow at the apertures I used, slow shutter speeds (e.g. 1/20) and just my focus errors.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #57 on:** 27 Aug 2008, 12:44 am »

I totally agree with low.phile. I am glad he brought up having a faster lens as being great for low-light focusing and composition.
Whoever mentioned 2.8, 2.5. 2.0, etc. lenses being considered fast was also right on the money.
Bob

tanchiro58 · « **Reply #58 on:** 4 Sep 2008, 05:52 am »

Hello Gents,

These pictures were shot by me (a beginning photographer or amateur) with Nikon D70S and Nikkor 18-135mm f3.5-4-5D AF IF ED lens and CF Ultra II

What do you think or any opinion?

Many thanks,
Tan

WerTicus · « **Reply #59 on:** 4 Sep 2008, 06:54 am »

you need some sunlight so your not using the flash?