• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

So, here is some input from someone who like yourself doesn't know much about photography:

1 1/2 years ago I HAD TO buy a SLR... my Canon S60 simply didn't do it with the baby... all those missed moments with the delay. A close friend of mine in the same boat went ahead and bought the Nikon D80. I liked it and did some research here on BARF and elsewhere, but after doing the research frankly came up with kind of a 60/40 split between Canon XTi and Nikon D80...

I liked the larger size of the D80... somehow it 'felt' better in my hand, so I went to best buy to buy one... played around with it and the Xti, and after a long time playing with both, I told the guy 'please bring me the Nikon'... he went and came back, saying they didn't have one in stock and I had to come back next day or something... I said ok, no problem, go get the Canon for me then. I mean.... seriously, for my level of use, they both were close enough that either one would do for me.

Now, I have bought a couple of other lenses (nothing high end) and a flash, and I must say I am VERY happy with the Xti. Our friends who bought the Nikon, they take just as good a pictures as I do with their nikon... but somehow they are always complementing my pictures and always kinda compare their own to mine and somehow sound disappointed in their nikon, but I wouldn't hesitate to change with them any minute... I just don't think they are using the functionality available to them. (not that I am either, but I just do pay a little more attention.)

Prior to buying this, I bought the Canon S60 (again, against Nikon equivalent)... and that was simply due to the colors that I saw from Canon... to me, Canon reproduces skin tones better than Nikon...may be its my eyes, but looking at pictures side by side, I went with Canon over Nikon equivalent when I was looking at S60 just because of the colors being more natural looking. I have NOT noticed that kind of a different in the SLRs though.
 
VeloceMoto said:
Can you shoot indoors with no flash, with a 50mm/1.8?

Goodness gracious how I despise indoor flash shots.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, yes. That little lens will suck up any and all available light. Fast prime lenses FTMFW! :thumbup

And yes, indoor flash sucks. I shoot mostly off-camera flash, but that's way beyond the scope of this thread.
 
VeloceMoto said:
Can you shoot indoors with no flash, with a 50mm/1.8?

Goodness gracious how I despise indoor flash shots.
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to do a clean shot.... it seems like even at 1.8, the speed is still too slow (pics become blurry.)
 
faz said:
I haven't been able to do a clean shot.... it seems like even at 1.8, the speed is still too slow (pics become blurry.)
Click to expand...

What ISO are you shooting at? ISO 800 should generally give you adequate shutter speeds with a 1.8 wide open. Unless you don't believe in electricity or something. :dunno
 
sent u that pm...

take a look

i take indoor pics all the time with the 50mm. its def a good lens to have
 
cycle61 said:
What ISO are you shooting at? ISO 800 should generally give you adequate shutter speeds with a 1.8 wide open. Unless you don't believe in electricity or something. :dunno
Click to expand...

Does this mean I won't need something faster like a 1.4??

Does anyone have an example of indoor shots with a 50mm/1.8, no flash? Or 1.4. Very curious.
 
Speaking of ultra wide angles, Nick I shot with my dads 14-24 on a solo ride I did last week. First pic I took of my bike, i was like 10 feet away. Then I realized I could barely see the bike in the shot, I had to get about 2 feet away :rofl
 
vman said:
Okay dudes...

The OP wants to get what seems to be his first DSLR and you're talking about image stabilization. That is totally irrelevant for any beginner. To get started with digital photography all you need to get is a used decent camera. Most cameras produced within past two years would do. Save your money and get a used kit. Play with it. Once you become good get a better lens. Arguing about Canon vs Nikon is for people who get into photography just so they can argue about something.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. If you decide you want to keep going, you're unlikely to want to have to buy a new camera body AND new glass if you switch brands. IS is also a technology to be aware of when buying your first non-kit lens.

Cycle61 is right though: both Nikon and Canon use in-lens systems. I was thinking of Sony, which is in-body. As far the in-lens vs in-body argument goes, I defer to the rest of the internet, as the arguments are very technical.
 
VeloceMoto said:
Does this mean I won't need something faster like a 1.4??

Does anyone have an example of indoor shots with a 50mm/1.8, no flash? Or 1.4. Very curious.
Click to expand...

The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 are pretty minimal, and generally not worth 3x the price. Hang on, I have a firelight portrait of my daughter with my ancient manual focus fiddy.

Edit: found it. By the light of a fading campfire, and the stars above:

2801661251_536bdaf349_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
cycle61 said:
The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 are pretty minimal, and generally not worth 3x the price. Hang on, I have a firelight portrait of my daughter with my ancient manual focus fiddy.

Edit: found it. By the light of a fading campfire, and the stars above:
Click to expand...

Whoa, that's cool!

Did you have to use a tripod with the light so low?

With my point-and-shoot, I can get night shots, but it has to be perfectly still for the few seconds that the shutter is open.
 
Indoor lighting....or any type of lighting is not static. I see folks here asking for sample of indoor lighting pictures and I hope you realize the samples you see may not be the same degree of lighting in your indoor setting. Just because a lens is 1.8, 1.4 or even 1.2 does not mean it will always give you proper exposure indoors. A general knowledge of your camera's sensor capabilities, lighting, lighting temperature, lens capabilities and knowing how to expose is crucial (and quite a few other aspects). For me, I am able to take a decently sharp picture of something immobile with a shutter speed of 1/25. Many can go slower but I know 1/25 is my limitation. Anything slower and camera shake, hand shake, ...etc will soften the picture. Also, a good rule of thumb is you can get decent camera freeze at 1/125. Definitely 1/250.

So if you are having a hard time freezing images or getting soft images at low light do a quick exposure reading (on AV) and see what shutter speed your camera wants to use at set aperature. If its anything slower than 1/125 and the subject is moving than you will most likely get motion blur and perhaps soft image due to camera shake. Just remember nothing in photography is static (with exception to studio shooting but even then it is not quite static) and there are a lot of factors (not limited to gear) that will affect your shot.
 
Rambeezi said:
Indoor lighting....or any type of lighting is not static. I see folks here asking for sample of indoor lighting pictures and I hope you realize the samples you see may not be the same degree of lighting in your indoor setting. Just because a lens is 1.8, 1.4 or even 1.2 does not mean it will always give you proper exposure indoors. A general knowledge of your camera's sensor capabilities, lighting, lighting temperature, lens capabilities and knowing how to expose is crucial (and quite a few other aspects). For me, I am able to take a decently sharp picture of something immobile with a shutter speed of 1/25. Many can go slower but I know 1/25 is my limitation. Anything slower and camera shake, hand shake, ...etc will soften the picture. Also, a good rule of thumb is you can get decent camera freeze at 1/125. Definitely 1/250.

So if you are having a hard time freezing images or getting soft images at low light do a quick exposure reading (on AV) and see what shutter speed your camera wants to use at set aperature. If its anything slower than 1/125 and the subject is moving than you will most likely get motion blur and perhaps soft image due to camera shake. Just remember nothing in photography is static (with exception to studio shooting but even then it is not quite static) and there are a lot of factors (not limited to gear) that will affect your shot.
Click to expand...


So, you're saying that it's not the arrow, it's the Indian? :teeth
 
Invest in a tripod. I hardly take pics w/o a tripod any more because tripod + a remote make things much much easier. Fewer shots where things are out of focus. To summarize a package that I'd suggest:

- D40 with a kit lens + 50mm of your liking. Get this used if you can.

- A circular polarizer at least for one lens. If all lenses take the same filter, then you're golden. I'd get this brand new.

- A tripod. Get a used sturdy one. Don't put an expensive camera on a $20 pos :)

- A flash may be necessary later on, but it is not necessary by any means.

And I will never ever buy an argument about how one camera's tech specs are "the thing" and how you can't take pictures with anything less than the latest XYZ. This is bullshit. Honestly, people who spend too much time trying to compare specs of every chip inside every camera are probably lousy photographers justifying their faults. If technology was the only thing that drove creativity, we would never have pictures like this:

Adams_Church_Taos_Pueblo.jpg


Once you have a camera, learn how to travel and you'll be all set. If Ansel Adams was able to take good pictures in 1942, then it is clear that technology is just a variable; and an insignificant one.
 
Last edited:
wannabe said:
So, you're saying that it's not the arrow, it's the Indian? :teeth
Click to expand...

Oh no. Not at all. Both actually are important factors. One can argue a true arrow will always fly true granted the 'Indian' knows not only how to handle the bow but also know the string strength, air humidity, wind and arm strength to make that shot. One can also argue a good Indian can make a true shot knowing his arrow is bent and his bow not so good. :p
 
vman said:
Invest in a tripod. I hardly take pics w/o a tripod any more because tripod + a remote make things much much easier. Fewer shots where things are out of focus. To summarize a package that I'd suggest:

- D40 with a kit lens + 50mm of your liking. Get this used if you can.

- A circular polarizer at least for one lens. If all lenses take the same filter, then you're golden. I'd get this brand new.

- A tripod. Get a used sturdy one. Don't put an expensive camera on a $20 pos :)

- A flash may be necessary later on, but it is not necessary by any means.

And I will never ever buy an argument about how one camera's tech specs are "the thing" and how you can't take pictures with anything less than the latest XYZ. This is bullshit. Honestly, people who spend too much time trying to compare specs of every chip inside every camera are probably lousy photographers justifying their faults. If technology was the only thing that drove creativity, we would never have pictures like this:


Once you have a camera, learn how to travel and you'll be all set. If Ansel Adams was able to take good pictures in 1942, then it is clear that technology is just a variable; and an insignificant one.
Click to expand...

Well said.

But with that said I'm still lusting for a 5D or the new 5D MKII. :p
 
cycle61 said:
The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 are pretty minimal, and generally not worth 3x the price. Hang on, I have a firelight portrait of my daughter with my ancient manual focus fiddy.

Edit: found it. By the light of a fading campfire, and the stars above:

2801661251_536bdaf349_b.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm going to have do agree to disagree with you here, at least voicing from the Canon camp. When you're at the very end of your exposure limit, 2/3 of a stop counts for quite a lot. The 50mm f/1.4 is built a lot more robustly and will likely outlast three or four fantastic plastics, which is enough to justify the price, provided that its a lens you use a lot, which I do. More accurate AF, better optics, and much, much nicer bokeh are all icing on the cake.

Sure, if its not a lens you use much, stick with the cheap one. But is the higher price tag of the f/1.4 worth it? abso-fuckin-lutely.

Just don't get me started on the 50mm f/1.2. Too rich for my blood.
 
Last edited:
Also well said TylerW!! The bokeh on a 1.4 and 1.2 already makes it worthy in my book. AF, optics and build quality is worth it too. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top