the Moon!

[(RIP) PLANK]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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 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!

 

[R1cho]

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]

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 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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

back on thread,

yep THAT'S the moon. you dont need an eye test either

 

[andrewk]

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

 

[lacroupade]

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]

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.

 

[kbekl]

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

was made worse by night light blue lol

this is what was seen with the eye but the rocks weren't so red

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

 

[andrewk]

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 ....

Amaryllis ....

Cuthbertson at Lix Toll garage near Killin .....

Horse & sheep .... Wales

Software for editing (improving?) photos is dead cheap these days - Photoshop Elements will do everything you need for less than 50 squids.

Andrew

 

[lacroupade]

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]

that's somehting else i could do with, decent photo software!

 

[lacroupade]

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.