View Full Version : the Moon!
managed to take some pics tonight, im learning how to use my camera, so nothing professional!
this is how it looks from the garden...
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w163/clivjoo/DSCF0253.jpg
and this is full zoom...
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w163/clivjoo/DSCF0250.jpg
both images are direct from camera. not too bad, i didnt play too much with the settings as it was a bit cold, but not bad results.
(RIP) PLANK
19-01-2011, 21:21
I'm impresssed, i want a new camera now!
hey I tell you what Plank, its not the best camera ever, but this Fuji HS10 cost me £269 at Argos, bought it using the card, so its buy now pay later. for what you get at that price, bargain, its a brill camera.
(RIP) PLANK
19-01-2011, 21:27
I used to love photography years ago when 35mm was all the rage, i just have point an shoot cheapo digitals now. I would liek to upgrade to somthing better. I wil have to check out the one you have :thumbs
I used to love photography years ago when 35mm was all the rage, i just have point an shoot cheapo digitals now. I would liek to upgrade to somthing better. I wil have to check out the one you have :thumbs
i have a fujifilm s series bridge camera , its really good , its a cross between a slr and a dslr
I used to love photography years ago when 35mm was all the rage, i just have point an shoot cheapo digitals now. I would liek to upgrade to somthing better. I wil have to check out the one you have :thumbs
worth a peak at that price. its a Bridge camera, but seems to me to lean more towards SLR, due to the super 30x zoom lens (i tell you, its flipping awesome), it will still take filters etc so quite versatile. it doesnt have or take a remote though, but thats no big deal. its got all your usual point and shoot stuff, plus, its all manual as well, including focus. oh, and the zoom is manual as well, which takes some getting used to but its faster than electronic! powers up quick, and dependent on chosen settings, pretty quick between shots.
my fav feature, is "motion remover", lets say youve taken a picture of a right nice building over the road, and a bloody bus drives past....it will remove the bus....:lol
I bet you are over the moon with that one Clivvy.:lol
I used to use an Olympus OM20 SLR, brilliant, still have it and all the lenses etc, but the cost of developing and having to wait is a pain.
It's a pity they don't do an electronic conversion.
I have a small digital camera at the moment but I would prefer a mid range digital SLR, now they are getting cheaper for high resolution.
(RIP) PLANK
19-01-2011, 22:13
i've got an OM10 with plenty of lenses and filters etc. I have often wondered (and asked) if there is a digital body that would accept the lenses :nenau
i've got an OM10 with plenty of lenses and filters etc. I have often wondered (and asked) if there is a digital body that would accept the lenses :nenau
post a pic of the bottom of the lenses and i'll tell ya
(RIP) PLANK
19-01-2011, 22:17
post a pic of the bottom of the lenses and i'll tell ya
I will, but it will be a whiole unitl i sort all the junk out that it's hiding under at the back of the shed :doh
zippy656
19-01-2011, 22:18
i have a fujifilm s series bridge camera , its really good , its a cross between a slr and a dslr
HAy Briggie that the finepic one??
Just got my eldest one of them, great camera.. and ond i hope to get to use it!:clap:clap
HAy Briggie that the finepic one??
Just got my eldest one of them, great camera.. and ond i hope to get to use it!:clap:clap
yep thats it mate , i took this pic with it .
http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y311/phuctiphino/2010_10190028.jpg
zippy656
19-01-2011, 22:23
can i be rude, and ask how much you paid?? I got AMY's got £50 off ebay..
have you worked out how to do every thing now then too??
can i be rude, and ask how much you paid?? I got AMY's got £50 off ebay..
have you worked out how to do every thing now then too??
it was a birthday pressie from my dearly beloved
extreme-4x4
19-01-2011, 22:57
i've got an OM10 with plenty of lenses and filters etc. I have often wondered (and asked) if there is a digital body that would accept the lenses :nenau
old bloke down the road got me into pics a little . i had a nikon slr i think he picked the camera i paid obviously , but it took lenses etc of older cameras
. he is very good at pics.... lots contact with all the divorce and contact stuff. must pop in one day for a coffee .
the Nikon SLR's are top quality
i've got an OM10 with plenty of lenses and filters etc. I have often wondered (and asked) if there is a digital body that would accept the lenses :nenau
i've been looking around and from what i can see they should fit other olympus cameras, not 100% sure tho, take them to a camera shop and ask them.
(RIP) PLANK
19-01-2011, 23:45
on the lens interchangability thing i just found this thread:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100413073633AA2uhfR
looks possible, but the body they suggest is out of my price range :(
on the lens interchangability thing i just found this thread:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100413073633AA2uhfR
looks possible, but the body they suggest is out of my price range :(
you should be able to pick up a e420 body reasonably cheap http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Olympus-Camedia-E420-Body-Camera-ONLY-/270682135110?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_Dig italCameras_JN&hash=item3f05e99a46
lacroupade
20-01-2011, 00:03
on the lens interchangability thing i just found this thread:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100413073633AA2uhfR
looks possible, but the body they suggest is out of my price range :(
They do fit, but thats only half the story....the problem is that you lose virtually all of the automated functions, from autofocus to exposure.....you have to do the whole thing manually. In addition, the resolution never seems quite as good.
I've always used Nikon and still have a thirty year old FE that still easily outperforms even the best digital SLRs in terms of picture quality, yet if I put the lenses on to my D70S, the results are never as good as with the dedicated digital lens.
(RIP) PLANK
20-01-2011, 00:12
Interesting, it might be worth me just buying a cheaper camera complete with a decent lens, and forgeting my old stuff. I'll get around to it eventualy :thumb2
lacroupade
20-01-2011, 00:27
Interesting, it might be worth me just buying a cheaper camera complete with a decent lens, and forgeting my old stuff. I'll get around to it eventualy :thumb2
TBH it is Plank, you can get carried away and spend stupid money but the technology is always leaping ahead....I mean the latest pro DSLRs are alteady over the 20 megapixie mark, but with four figure price tags....but you can buy, say, a 6Mp Nikon D70S second hand for about 200-250....it would have been around 700 new.
And don't be led astray by 12Mp point and shoot cameras....the lens is what takes pictures not the CCD and an apparently lower resolution Nikon, Canon etc DSLR lens will piss all over them any day of the week as far as picture resolution goes.
Just take a few older DSLRs and read their reviews online, then pick one you fancy.:thumb2
(RIP) PLANK
20-01-2011, 00:33
I saw somehting on telly about cameras with big mega pixxels, and they reconed, that you would be better off with a better quality camera with no more than 10 mega whatsist, as yu say the lens is responsible for a lot. And they reconed that the processor in the camera was also important, and that cheaper caeras with very high resolution didn't have the processor speed to match and were slow to respond, and slow to reload after a shot.
A photographer from a big local paper came to our house last year and he had a s****y digital camera he said the body alone cost £15k :eek: and that was taking shots a fast as a motor drive 35mm slr, it was quite impressive as were the photos, but who can afford that :nenau not me!
extreme-4x4
20-01-2011, 00:40
the bloke i know runs the local camera club, since his wife died . so picking up a nice used camera is the place to buy
try before you buy too
lacroupade
20-01-2011, 00:45
I saw somehting on telly about cameras with big mega pixxels, and they reconed, that you would be better off with a better quality camera with no more than 10 mega whatsist, as yu say the lens is responsible for a lot. And they reconed that the processor in the camera was also important, and that cheaper caeras with very high resolution didn't have the processor speed to match and were slow to respond, and slow to reload after a shot.
A photographer from a big local paper came to our house last year and he had a s****y digital camera he said the body alone cost £15k :eek: and that was taking shots a fast as a motor drive 35mm slr, it was quite impressive as were the photos, but who can afford that :nenau not me!
never so much bullshit talked about as money eh?! :lol
I mean not only are the mainstream top end DSLRs all around the £5000 mark, but WTF would a local paper photographer be doing affording a camera that would be well over £20k with lenses (if the body was £15k)....was his name Walter Mitty by any chance LOL!
I mean not only are the mainstream top end DSLRs all around the £5000 mark, but WTF would a local paper photographer be doing affording a camera that would be well over £20k with lenses
agreed, top end bodys are just over 5k, its the lenses that cost though some ranging upto and over 12k, only serious sports photographer get lenses at that price, i cant see a papr paying that much for a camera setup, even the big papers rely on the paps and their expensive gear for the photos they use, me thinks he was telling big huge pork pies.
(RIP) PLANK
20-01-2011, 14:00
Well, i'm only going on what he told me, and it did look a decent camera - but i know nothing.
Simon King was on telly last night having a camera fixed that he claimed cost £30k :eek: and on the telly as well, bloody liar i'm ging to write to Ofcom. :augie
out of interest i just did a not very thtorough search of ebay and the most exspenive camera on there (35mm) was around £43k and the most exspensive digital around £8k. But they might have included a free Bently and a Bolex watch for all i know as i didnt look any further.
But your right i didn't find any digital ones costing £15k :nenau
late additon to my post, these are pretty pricey, the best part of £9k plus vat!
http://www.rapidgroup.net/products/hasselblad_cfv39.html
lacroupade
20-01-2011, 14:14
Well, i'm only going on what he told me, and it did look a decent camera - but i know nothing.
Simon King was on telly last night having a camera fixed that he claimed cost £30k :eek: and on the telly as well, bloody liar i'm ging to write to Ofcom. :augie
out of interest i just did a not very thtorough search of ebay and the most exspenive camera on there (35mm) was around £43k and the most exspensive digital around £8k. But they might have included a free Bently and a Bolex watch for all i know as i didnt look any further.
But your right i didn't find any digital ones costing £15k :nenau
late additon to my post, these are pretty pricey, the best part of £9k plus vat!
http://www.rapidgroup.net/products/hasselblad_cfv39.html
Aha! Simon King was almost certainly telling the truth.....it is possible to poay that sort of money for a seriously top end camera but he isn't a local rag photographer is he, he's a well-known nature snapper and broadcaster...and the link you posted is a medium/large format Hasselblad as used by serious portrait/landscape/nature/commercial photographers....Its much more unwieldy than a 35mm and not the sort of thing a paper photographer ever uses, and its in a very different quality bracket, both construction and output.
don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.....! :thumbs:lol
(RIP) PLANK
20-01-2011, 14:20
don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.....! :thumbs:lol
that's why i googled before bleiveing you :augie
I remeber his face and the day he came, remember when our goat got stolen and i posted it on here? http://www.nissan4x4ownersclub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6696&highlight=goat
it was just before Christmas 09 when he came, and to think I thought he had an honest face - I thought photographers weree decent upstanding citizens, who never lied, or got involved in high speed chses with Mercedes cars - my illusions are shattered. :(
lacroupade
20-01-2011, 14:38
that's why i googled before bleiveing you :augie
I remeber his face and the day he came, remember when our goat got stolen and i posted it on here? http://www.nissan4x4ownersclub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6696&highlight=goat
it was just before Christmas 09 when he came, and to think I thought he had an honest face - I thought photographers weree decent upstanding citizens, who never lied, or got involved in high speed chses with Mercedes cars - my illusions are shattered. :(
how could we forget the goat! I mean what else do we pay our tenners for - bugger all to do with cars!!!:lol:lol:lol
(RIP) PLANK
20-01-2011, 19:26
how could we forget the goat! I mean what else do we pay our tenners for - bugger all to do with cars!!!:lol:lol:lol
if everyone started sticking to talking about cars all the time, i think most of us would get bored and leave :thumbs
zippy656
20-01-2011, 19:44
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w163/clivjoo/DSCF0250.jpg
back on thread,
yep THAT'S the moon. you dont need an eye test either
Yep, it's the moon alright. So is this .........
http://www.moorside.net/photos/moon_02.jpg
I took that with a Pentax K200D using a 45 year old Tamron 400mm lens.
Don't get too hung up on makes & models of camera. It really doesn't matter. Just about all DSLRs (and most point & shoots too) are capable of taking superb photos. It's usually the wobbly organic bit behind the viewfinder that lets the camera down rather than the other way round.
Andrew
lacroupade
21-01-2011, 15:54
Yep, it's the moon alright. So is this .........
I took that with a Pentax K200D using a 45 year old Tamron 400mm lens.
Don't get too hung up on makes & models of camera. It really doesn't matter. Just about all DSLRs (and most point & shoots too) are capable of taking superb photos. It's usually the wobbly organic bit behind the viewfinder that lets the camera down rather than the other way round.
Andrew
Great pic Andrew.
My only argument on the DSLR front is one specific to digital that only really expensive ones fix....and thats contrast. Even with an expensive Nikon using RAW format and good processing software (and I know other people with much more expensive kit with the same issue) its a PITA getting the maximum from a shot these days....oh for the digital equivalent of Kodachrome 64 :(
(RIP) PLANK
21-01-2011, 16:15
I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but that photo of the moon, looks like a fine example of contrast :thumb2
I want to move up from our digital compacts as they are very limited, the auto settings menu's don't make allowance for things like 'low light' photos and just stick the flash on wether you want it or not. And if you turn it off the pictures aren't too clever. I am hoping moving up will give me more control, and of coure, the slr format a better 'framing' ability.
But to be honest i don't have a lot of money to spend on this hobby, without getting it in the neck fomr 'her indoors' so It will take a while before i buy anything at all.
any one who has an aquarium and is into photography will understand this
these were the best pics i managed out of my bridge camera with the colors as you see them with the naked eye
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee283/kbekl/camera%20help/DSCF3248.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee283/kbekl/camera%20help/Picture111.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee283/kbekl/camera%20help/Picture024Large.jpg
was made worse by night light blue lol
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee283/kbekl/camera%20help/Picture093Large.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee283/kbekl/camera%20help/Picture093Large.jpg
this is what was seen with the eye but the rocks weren't so red
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee283/kbekl/camera%20help/Picture009.jpg
this is where a dslr was really handy to have but with the cost of running a tank and only using the camera for the fishy photos i couldn't justify the expense
I'm not sure that's true.
Here's a few more photos .......... one was taken with a mobile phone; one with a 1.3Mpx Olympus point & shoot; one with a Ricoh KR10 35mm film camera and one with a Pentax K200D DSLR and 18-55mm kit lens.
I'm not sure it's at all obvious which is which. (Promise me you won't look at the EXIF data).
Deer ....
http://www.moorside.net/photos/test/01jan2010.jpg
Amaryllis ....
http://www.moorside.net/photos/test/amaryllis.jpg
Cuthbertson at Lix Toll garage near Killin .....
http://www.moorside.net/photos/test/cuthbertson_small.jpg
Horse & sheep .... Wales
http://www.moorside.net/photos/test/wildlife01.jpg
Software for editing (improving?) photos is dead cheap these days - Photoshop Elements will do everything you need for less than 50 squids.
Andrew
lacroupade
21-01-2011, 16:44
Yeah but I'm just fussy.....
I'm guessing the sheep is the 1.3 megapixies....and I haven't looked so probably wrong and its the Landy.
(RIP) PLANK
21-01-2011, 16:51
that's somehting else i could do with, decent photo software!
lacroupade
21-01-2011, 16:56
that's somehting else i could do with, decent photo software!
seriously, Picasa has a lot of the enhancement tools the average snapper needs and their default auto levels are pretty good....oh and its free of course, always a bonus!
Its not something a concerned professional would use necessarily but its easy and very good.
(RIP) PLANK
21-01-2011, 16:57
seriously, Picasa has a lot of the enhancement tools the average snapper needs and their default auto levels are pretty good....oh and its free of course, always a bonus!
Its not something a concerned professional would use necessarily but its easy and very good.
cheers for the tip :thumb2
lacroupade
21-01-2011, 17:01
cheers for the tip :thumb2
and its a Google tool so well produced and supported. just do a search and download, doesn't take long.
Picasa hangs on some XP boxes (it did on mine). If it does on yours, try Photoscape. It also is free, excellent & doesn't hang - it's possibly more complete than Picasa too.
So still no real idea which photos were taken by which cameras?? If you aren't sure (without cheating and looking at the EXIFs) then maybe it doesn't matter as much as some think. (Clue: the Cuthbertson shot is a scan from a 35mm Fuji Reala negative).
Andrew
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.