Okay, say I'm ready to take the plunge into photography, with the goal of capturing those perfect Disney photos. What would be the three most important pieces of equipment I would need? A camera, obviously - but what type? and what else?
i'm only reccommending canon because i was already invested into the canon lens system before the digital revolution nikon equivilant equipment may serve you just as well canon rebel xti, great starter dslr, small and light, good for travel sigma 30mm f1.4, gives close to " standard" focal view, gets good reviews and 1.4 allows a lot of low light and indoor family link below to very good essay on how to build a system http://www.photo.net/equipment/building ... lr-system/ good travel tripod, the velbon luxif reccommended by tim along with manfrotto pistol grip head is an excellent choice, just picked up these myself gary
it is next to impossible to recommend one camera over another due to the variance in cost, user preference, etc. what feels good in my hands might be lousy for someone else. but....if someone was to be serious about taking good photos i would recommend, in addition to the camera itself... 1. external flash. the built in flash is great for taking washed out lousy photos with tons of red-eye and not much else. notice how the professional photographers -usually- dont ever shoot with a straight flash unless you are outdoors? 2. carrying case. if you are going to spend the money on some nice gear, you might as well be able to protect it. 3. tripod. if you want to get excellent night time photos, you need to be able to brace your camera and let time do it's thing. it doesnt have to be a $1000 tripod to do the job - usually anything near $100 is sufficent, but you need to make sure it can hold the combined weight of your camera/lens/flash without tipping or wobbling. these are just my opinions, hope they help. i look forward to seeing what others have in mind.
Hi guys (and gal)! My 1st post here, BTW. I may be nothing more than a novice myself, but if I may, I would like to throw my own opinion out there. When I hear someone is looking to "start out", I assume it to mean right from the beginning, with little or no background experience at all. For just that reason, I personally recommend a cheaper starter kit alternative, at least until you're certain just how into this photography thing you want to get. I personally work with a 3 year old Sony compact point-and-shoot (DSC-P92 5.0mp), and a flimsy $7 walmart tripod for stabilizing my night shots (I don't need a heavy duty tripod for a lightweight camera). I also have a carrying case, and plenty of spare memory and rechargable batteries. Really that's all you're going to need for a little while, or at least long enough to get a feel for it. Not to mention the fact that I can carry all of that, including the little tripod, in my pockets if I should so choose, making it absolutely no inconvenience at all to haul literally all of my gear. Why spend the cash on a $800-$1200 SLR and a big 'ol honkin tripod and external flash asembly and solar filter and lens adapter and, and, and,... etc., if you aren't certain that this is a hobby that is going to stick to you? My roommate is busy getting caught up in buying all of that "extra" stuff now, and I'm watching his cash fly out the window, and all the while my pictures are right on par with his, and sometimes even better. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it is possible to take excellent pictures without high-end equipment, and if you are in fact a true blue novice, this may be a safer, less expensive gamble. That being said, I'd love to be able to upgrade my equipment to give me more options, especially now that the photography bug has bitten me pretty good. But as of right now, I'm a poor starving college kid on a budget (and immensely in debt on student loans), so I'm sticking by my low-budget setup for probably a few more years now.
Whatever camera you get, be sure not to be swayed by the IS ads - they stop the shake on the camera, and not the movement in front of the camera. Right now Panasonic has an ad that has the people in a tea-cup style ride, saying that it's stopping motion (all cameras do that anyway). If you are really new to photography, a Point and Shoot (Sony or Canon are my choices there) camera, lots of memory (1GB cards - bigger ones are nice but if you lose them, you have lost much more), a small tripod (gorilla-pods are fun) and a case. If you have been "around" then it depends on your budget. Also remember that it's not the camera that takes great shots, it's what's around that camera that makes the shot - in front and behind.
I'm biased towards Canon based on my 14 years personal experience with Canon. I'm biased against Kodak/Olympus/Panasonic based on my personal experiences with them. Doesn't mean that I can't recommend any other camera manufacturers, but for my style of shooting (need of wide angle and low-light) so far only Canon can fit the bill. although I'm contemplating in getting a D40 for my daughter and/or retire from the photography business and switch to Pentax K10D. Oh well, I don't even know what I want anymore : Enough rambling, back to topic: for budget system I recommend Pentax K100D with Sigma 18-125 lens (I don't know whether this lens is available for Pentax mount, however) for mid-level system I recommend Nikon D50 with 18-200VR lens or Rebel XTi with the upcoming Sigma 18-200 OS lens for upper mid-level system I recommend Canon 30D with 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS (literally everybody in my company use this combination as our basic set) last but not least, get the camera that fits well in your hands. I love the XTi performance, but it's just too small for my taste. My student, on the other hand, wants to get a 30D but it's too large for her hands.
That is really important when looking at any camera, especially SLRs - I had the opposite problem to your student. I thought I would be "good enough" with the XT (last year a month after the 30D came out), but it was too small and the Nikon layout just didn't seem to work. The 30D felt right. P&S cameras are the same. If you want them as an everywhere device they have to be big enough to handle and small enough to lug - like why camera phones are getting increasingly sophisticated and more common.
definatley get a fast prime lens. a 50mm runs about 75$, the 85mm is excellent. always invest in lenses rather than cameras. the photo will only be as good as the glass. a 2,000$ dslr with a 100$ cheap kit lens is kind of like getting a ferrari and putting used no-name tires on it and filling it with low grade gas and then driving it in 2nd. 1,500$ lenses rock (and they better) but a 350$ zoom will be far more satisfying in the long run and give you more room to grow than the kit lens. skip the kit lens, save the 100$ and spend it on a better lens (and in optics, usually you get what you pay for. the more expensive the lens the better it is. not always but usually. there's a reason why sports photographers and high end fashion guys use 4,000$ 300/2.8 lens and not a 200$ 28-300/5.6 plastic zoom.) problem is that the faster the lens the heavier it is. in single length lenses it doesn't really matter. but a 70-200/2.8 is heavy as a carry around lens. and after walking 10 miles around the magic kingdom in a full day, you're going to hate that lens. so there is always compromises. but thats why I would get a portrait length fast prime lens (50,85,100mm). affordable, sharp, fast, good inside and out, light to carry, and easy to handhold. and if you get a tripod you also need a "remote switch" so that you can click the shutter without having to actually touch the camera which could cause camera shake and ruin the photo. the less vibration the better.
sounds just like something i wrote in a different thread. agreed 100%. here is a report of two pics i had in another thread. top pic is with $400 28-135 is/usm, bottom is with $1150 24-105 L is/usm, same post processing technique. notice the bottom is so much more vibrant, sharp, and contrastier.
Vibrant, yes. Sharp, yes. Contrast? Was the weather the same? Top looks overcast (look in the window), bottom is very sunny. But the L is better, not denying that.
boy i never realized how much detail my 28-135 is missing...i can't even see the guy's hat in the first one have to show this to hubby when i am giving him my spiel on why i need that L glass!
Here I go again... more useless knowledge.... a pitard is a weapon or tool of war... so... basically it means causing your own injury....
How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard There's much more detail there, including, at the end, a bonus reference to Monsters Inc, explaining a scene where a petard is actually used.
