Cameras

[gaia.plateau]

So I'm going to be getting a DSLR this Winter, going to need one for work. Problematically however, I know very little about cameras. So you should give me advice.

I'm leaning toward this one. Need a minimum of 12 MP, need to be able to shoot a shit ton of shots at once, most importantly need to be able to catch high intensity action going rilly rilly fast with perfect resolution. Price range is like $750-$1,200. Video capability is nice but not necessary. Ruggedness would be a tremendous plus.

Thoughts?

[cgore]

So I'm going to be getting a DSLR this Winter, going to need one for work. Problematically however, I know very little about cameras. So you should give me advice.

I'm leaning toward this one. Need a minimum of 12 MP, need to be able to shoot a shit ton of shots at once, most importantly need to be able to catch high intensity action going rilly rilly fast with perfect resolution. Price range is like $750-$1,200. Video capability is nice but not necessary. Ruggedness would be a tremendous plus.

Thoughts?

I own the canon rebel XSI and its 12.2 MP. I really love the camera and its 3.5 frames per second. If you wanna do action shots your gonna need a fast lense not just a camera.. Your lense alone might run you your price range let alone the camera..

[gaia.plateau]

Well I don't need to catch bullets flying mid-air. But like, maybe grenades?

[cgore]

Well last year my friend shot highschool football and the lense he used needed to be able to get the players and ball without being blurry. this one right here and it cost him a bit..
Whats your lighting gonna be like where you work? Edited October 3, 2009 by cgore

[gaia.plateau]

Well last year my friend shot highschool football and the lense he used needed to be able to get the players and ball without being blurry. this one right here and it cost him a bit..

Is it the fast aperture I want? All these terms are confusing to me.

Whats your lighting gonna be like where you work?

Depending on whether I'm shooting at day or night... I guess either the sun, or napalmic illumination.

[cgore]

Not sure what napalmic illumination would be.. but if your shooting at night id recommend a flash in all honesty. Even with an expensive lense night pictures are still gonna be a pain if there are no extremely bright lights.

And fast aperture?
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-features...tings/aperture/

that will explain it..

[gaia.plateau]

Napalmic illumination: the light given by napalm.

I think the one I'm looking at has a built-in flash. It also comes with an EFS 18-55mm IS lens.

[Helix746]

i have a nikon n80 it works great for me:) got an A in my photo class with it

[Balthazar]

got an A in my photo class with it

This made me smile

I have a Nikon D70S, but it didn't take me long to understand that I'm a shitty photographer. Also, I have nothing to contribute with, except this: I want your job.

[cgore]

the 18-55 f/5.6 is the standard kit lense. Its not very sharp and wont get you far. Go to the local camera shops around and talk to them or talk to friends that are into photography.

[gaia.plateau]

i have a nikon n80 it works great for me:) got an A in my photo class with it

got an A in my photo class with it

This made me smile

I have a Nikon D70S, but it didn't take me long to understand that I'm a shitty photographer. Also, I have nothing to contribute with, except this: I want your job.

I was looking at Nikons, but I'm not crazy about their... holdiness. Like, their shape. They're kind of unwieldy.

It's not my job yet I still have to finish my MA. But I'm all but guaranteed an entry level war correspondent position at Al Jazeera as soon as I'm done.

the 18-55 f/5.6 is the standard kit lense. Its not very sharp and wont get you far. Go to the local camera shops around and talk to them or talk to friends that are into photography.

Bear in mind that I'll be having to jump into trenches and shit with this thing... are their good quality lenses which are also small? Or is it sort of a thing where, the better the lens, the bigger/longer it is? If I found a good quality lens that was also small, and very versatile so I wouldn't need to carry others with me... I'd be willing to shell out an extra $300-400 for it.

[Balthazar]

Here's a simplified explanation of lenses and focal length:



In practice:



If I were you I'd ask someone who's actually done a lot of the kinds of photographies you'll be taking before spending alls yours moneys.

[cgore]

Excuse me, but WHY THE HELL do you have to jump into trenches with a camera to begin with?!

[gaia.plateau]

I'm having a hard time imagining any photographic situation where you wouldn't have to jump into trenches... you get better light angles that way.

[liquidglass]

I'm not a pro by any means but I'm pretty damn good even with simple point and shoots.

MP aren't always the thing to look for though. Not saying you're wrong, just a suggestion.

Here's an article http://lifehacker.com/5086834/think-of-meg...rms-of-cupcakes

[StreetBob]

I would consider a Nikon or Canon since they both have a solid reputation, and are both mainstream allowing a lot of lens options and availability.

So which is better, Canon or Nikon? Neither really... their picture taking capabilities are too close to tell the difference, but Canon users will not switch, neither will Nikon users. the difference is all in the buttonology and menus. Once you get comfortable using one brand, it would be like trying to write or throw a ball with with your opposite hand to switch. So if this is your first camera, it really doesn't matter.

So if you decide on the brand, which model? Well if you compare picture quality between Nikon D70, D100, 200, 300 for example, you will not see much difference in capability by the numbers, and probably no difference in the quality by what you see in the picture... so why the huge price difference? It's all in the buttons. Having more buttons available to your fingers to adjust on the fly without stopping to look at a menu is where the cost comes in. If your not going to use the camera enough to become comfortable enough with button locations and functions to make fast adjustments, often without removing your eye from the view finder, then your not going to use the extra money you dished out for the higher end camera.

[chinamon]

sorry wish i knew stuff about cameras.
its something i always wanted to get in to.

[gaia.plateau]

sorry wish i knew stuff about cameras.
its something i always wanted to get in to.

You are a filthy, filthy whore.

I'm not a pro by any means but I'm pretty damn good even with simple point and shoots.

MP aren't always the thing to look for though. Not saying you're wrong, just a suggestion.

Here's an article http://lifehacker.com/5086834/think-of-meg...rms-of-cupcakes

Yarr, I've read up on this common misconception. But I expect that I'll be capturing scenes fairly frequently wherein I don't even know at the time what or who the subject is, and therefore will probably be cropping quite a bit. More MP = more cropping without losing resolution, doesn't it?

Streetbob: thanks for your input. I think I'll decide on the more rugged series by Canon, to eliminate an overabundance of choices.

[chinamon]

I think I'll decide on the more rugged series by Canon, to eliminate an overabundance of choices.

good choice.
i find that the sensors and bodies by canon and nikon are all top quality so its a tough competition between the two. however, canon glass is definitely better than nikon glass so canon ftw.

i think you mentioned that you want to shoot sports. when it comes to sports you will want a lens that has a long focal length (70-200mm or longer depending on the sport) and fast (wide aperture). dont forget to factor in the 1.6X crop if you are not getting the 5d or 1d or 1ds. also when shooting with telephoto you will want a lens that has IS if you arent using a tripod. i think its always good to have IS even if there is a tripod being used. expect to spend as much on the lens as the body itself but that depends on which body you choose.

[gaia.plateau]

I think I'll decide on the more rugged series by Canon, to eliminate an overabundance of choices.

good choice.
i find that the sensors and bodies by canon and nikon are all top quality so its a tough competition between the two. however, canon glass is definitely better than nikon glass so canon ftw.

i think you mentioned that you want to shoot sports. when it comes to sports you will want a lens that has a long focal length (70-200mm or longer depending on the sport) and fast (wide aperture). dont forget to factor in the 1.6X crop if you are not getting the 5d or 1d or 1ds. also when shooting with telephoto you will want a lens that has IS if you arent using a tripod. i think its always good to have IS even if there is a tripod being used. expect to spend as much on the lens as the body itself but that depends on which body you choose.

Not sports, wars. They both have that WHORE sound to them. It's tricky.

Does this affect your recommendation?

Also: I'm going into conflict journalism, not conflict photography... I mostly just need this to get together a portfolio, and because I've always had a natural eye for it, and because I like to be prepared. The reason I want a good MP rate is for situations like, suppose I'm witnessing a genocide, and I have no idea who the military personnel are. Unless I have time to get close-ups of all of them, I need to just take wide shots, and be able to crop them when and if I get the information later. Edited October 5, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Edit: Addendum:

I've heard of IS lenses, but I don't know what they are. What are they? I guess I'll need to make sure that I get it. Cos I'll never be using a tripod. So what are they?

[chinamon]

I think I'll decide on the more rugged series by Canon, to eliminate an overabundance of choices.

good choice.
i find that the sensors and bodies by canon and nikon are all top quality so its a tough competition between the two. however, canon glass is definitely better than nikon glass so canon ftw.

i think you mentioned that you want to shoot sports. when it comes to sports you will want a lens that has a long focal length (70-200mm or longer depending on the sport) and fast (wide aperture). dont forget to factor in the 1.6X crop if you are not getting the 5d or 1d or 1ds. also when shooting with telephoto you will want a lens that has IS if you arent using a tripod. i think its always good to have IS even if there is a tripod being used. expect to spend as much on the lens as the body itself but that depends on which body you choose.

Not sports, wars. They both have that WHORE sound to them. It's tricky.

Does this affect your recommendation?

Also: I'm going into conflict journalism, not conflict photography... I mostly just need this to get together a portfolio, and because I've always had a natural eye for it, and because I like to be prepared. The reason I want a good MP rate is for situations like, suppose I'm witnessing a genocide, and I have no idea who the military personnel are. Unless I have time to get close-ups of all of them, I need to just take wide shots, and be able to crop them when and if I get the information later.

hmm im not familiar with that type of photography.

[gaia.plateau]

i recognize you as an authority. i am comfortable with considering your imagination of what sorts of lenses would be useful as solid evidence. sooo fucked right now.

[chinamon]

Edit: Addendum:

I've heard of IS lenses, but I don't know what they are. What are they? I guess I'll need to make sure that I get it. Cos I'll never be using a tripod. So what are they?

IS stands for Image Stabilization.
it can be turned on and off and is built in to the lens.
when activated, it will correct blurryness caused by camera-shake (or shaky hands).

[gaia.plateau]

is there a disadvantage to using IS?