|
midwestslacker
Nov 21, 2002, 3:27 AM
Post #1 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2002
Posts: 57
|
I love photography and want to finally get a real camera. What should I be looking for in a camera and why? Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
phillyb285
Nov 21, 2002, 3:58 AM
Post #2 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 35
|
i have a Nikon N65, its a great camera w/ lots of features, good for a beginner, not too expensive, if u get it, find a cheap price online, the lens could be larger, the standard is 28-80mm i think im goin to upgrade to something that goes up to the 200-300 range, espically for climbing shots from farther away, if u have any ??s hit me back.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 21, 2002, 4:21 AM
Post #3 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
The problem with those wide-range 28-200/300mm zooms is that, once you're out to the long end, the aperture is relatively small, and under good lighting conditions (sunrise, sunset) when you really want all the speed you can get, you won't have it.
If you do go that route, do yourself a favor and spring for something like an 85/1.8 for low light and people shots. Small, light, and fast as hell.
I would suggest that, brands and styles aside, the best camera for anyone is the camera they're willing to carry with them any time they have a kodak moment. I have a nice SLR with a heap of nice lenses and while I've got a boatload of great slides out of it, there are times when I've left it in the truck (out of laziness or deference to my girlfriend's wishes) and watched some amazing shots slip through my fingers. This is painful...
If you're looking at the little digicams, the Canon models are nicely made -- I've seen them survive some truly brutal falls (top of the Redgarden ramp at Eldo for example). As mentioned previously, the smaller Nikon SLRs (N65 and N80) are also quite nice. Do get a fast normal lens (35/2.0, 50/1.4, or 85/1.8 are fast and cheap; try all three, why don't ya) if you choose to equip an SLR with a wide-range zoom. You will eventually be glad you did. I have 3 extremely fast primes (f/1.4) and I use them constantly whenever I have the luxury of moving around (eg. not hanging off a rope or stuck on a ledge).
PS. When you have the luxury of doing so, the single best thing you can do to make your pictures (film, digital, video -- doesn't matter) sharper, is to use a good tripod. This, too, is a matter of "the best one is the one you have with you"... the little Bogen tabletop model (you place it on top of a backpack or boulder to shoot) or an Ultrapod (you can strap it to a tree branch) are quite nice for a lightweight climbing setup.
[ This Message was edited by: tim on 2002-11-20 20:25 ]
|
|
|
|
|
morganicclimbing
Nov 21, 2002, 5:10 AM
Post #4 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 10, 2002
Posts: 88
|
I'm a big fan of digital. I like the idea of taking pictures then also being able to take little movie clips. It's a great way to capture your favorite routes. I have the Canon G2 but the G3 that just came out has longer movie clips.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Nov 21, 2002, 5:53 AM
Post #5 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I use a Pentax K1000 because its super cheap (under $120 for body and a good 50mm lense) and its pretty much indestructable. The downside is that it weighs a ton. Its completely manual, so you'll need to be prepared for the unexpected.
|
|
|
|
|
mattheww
Nov 21, 2002, 6:31 AM
Post #6 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2001
Posts: 121
|
I have a Nikon 6006 (discontinued) with the 28-80mm Sigma zoom that can with it and a 70-300mm Sigma zoom that I bought for the closeups. I love it's versatility but it IS pretty cumbersom at times. I also like my Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom 80. It's a point and shoot, is water resistant, and make pictures as well as my Nikon. I also plan to get the digital Sony 4.1 megapixel camera (can't remember the model) and a Epson Photoprinter to play with.
[ This Message was edited by: mattheww on 2002-11-20 22:32 ]
|
|
|
|
|
tigerbythetail
Nov 21, 2002, 7:49 AM
Post #7 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 514
|
You want a SLR or a digital? I've recently gotten a Olympus digital camera and it kick ass. Take a shot and if it's no good delete it right away. Or if it's good you can download it and e-mail it in 3 minutes. With the different image qualitys you can select an appropriate one and take killer shots. Go digital!
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Nov 21, 2002, 1:16 PM
Post #8 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
My Minolta 600si classic is good (enough for an amateur photographer!) but is NOISY.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 21, 2002, 1:47 PM
Post #9 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I agree with Tim. Get a camera you are willing to cart around with you, brands and models aside.
You have to ask yourself what your motivations are. Do you want ot learn the art of photography? then get a basic used SLR at a camera shop, some good FAST lenses, and learn. DO you want something to take nice point and shoot shots? there are lots of decent P&S cameras out there for cheap. Look around. Here you can go film or digital for what your needs warrant.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
cman
Nov 21, 2002, 2:34 PM
Post #10 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 43
|
I have a f80 with 3 lenses and it spends too much time at home.
It's just too much camera for climbing.
A small digi is the way to go.
The sony u20 looks like my baby. Very small and light with a fast, glass lens.
|
|
|
|
|
mshore
Nov 21, 2002, 2:57 PM
Post #11 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 114
|
My opinion is that you have to throw down some serious money if you ever want really clear shots in any condition. Don't get a zoom lens if it's not at least 2.8 for aperature. If your going Canon - a great great great first lens is a 70-200 2.8 USM. If your smart and you like digi - get a body like the D30 or D60 and you will get 450mm zoom out of it with only one F stop loss. You can get the whole setup used in great condition from bhphoto for under 2500 bucks and be on your way to professional quhlity photos faster than you can blink. Mucj luck.......
|
|
|
|
|
peanutbutterandjelly
Nov 21, 2002, 8:42 PM
Post #12 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2001
Posts: 238
|
Before i start let me say that I work at a camera store and each year can get 1 piece of gear from canon for under wholesale.I shoot Canon and have the Canon 2?-80 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-400 IS and a fixed wide angle lense that I forget the mm on. To start photography or a first system you do not want to start with theses lenses. First of all if you buy them retail they will cost you about 800-1600 each. My fist camera was a Rebel G and for that I had a sigma 28-80 ?-5.6 and a 70-300 ?-5.6. These lenses took great pictures. They have some limitations like shooting basketball, volleyball, ect inside in a gym with poor lighting, night football games and weddings without using a flash. I dont think you plan on doing this so I am saying that getting the cheaper cameras with a higher fstop lense is not bad at all. One problem with getting a digital slr for climbing photography is that the canon models multiply the magnification 1.6X and the nikon 1.5X and this ruins your wide angle pictures. As for what system to go to with you should look at how the bodies are set up and what you like.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Nov 21, 2002, 9:43 PM
Post #13 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I've been using a Nikon D100 with a 28mm lens on occasion. I'm haven't noticed any issues. What do you mean by "ruins your wide anle pictures"? What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Nov 21, 2002, 9:50 PM
Post #14 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
my old Olympus OM-1 with a 28mm lense was beautiful. All manuel, easy to field repair, good quality. Unfortunately, even it was not durable enough to survive a thirty foot groudfall followed by a 90 foot roll down slickrock slab into a pinyon tree.
ouch.
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Nov 21, 2002, 10:07 PM
Post #15 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
dsafanda,
He is stating that the focal length multiplier on the D100 is 1.5 due to the size of the cmos sensor. Take your lens focal length multiply X 1.5 and you have the acutal focal length of that lens on a D100. That high $$$ 20mm wide angle is a now a 30mm mediocre wide angle. This does not affect image quality, just image cropping. However, Kodak's new digi for Nikons lenses and canon's new 1DS eliminate this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Nov 21, 2002, 10:18 PM
Post #16 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. New camera so I haven't had a chance to put it through its paces. Fortunately the lens I bought used for not so much $$$.
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Nov 21, 2002, 10:22 PM
Post #17 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
Just think though. Your 300mm is now a 450 and your 600 is now a 900. not a bad trade off if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
midwestslacker
Nov 22, 2002, 3:48 AM
Post #18 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2002
Posts: 57
|
Thanks for all the info everyone. I definately want to get into the art of photo. and was looking toward an SLR, but I have a lot to learn about cameras and a lot to choose from.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
machiavellian
Nov 22, 2002, 4:45 AM
Post #19 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2002
Posts: 509
|
Even though you seem to be winding up your thread I’m still posting my $.02:
I use an Olympus OM-1 and love it. It is +35 years in age, has a dent from being dropped, has gone through three 50mm lenses, is extremely light (except when I put the 65mm-200mm on, though it’s still good with the 28mm) and takes really nice pictures. It’s fully manual and climber proof. The only problem with it is I can’t fit it in my purse… But I have a little XA 2 that fits and it has taken some of my best candid shots (friend flying through the air and off the proscenium…that is a classic). All in all as previously stated, the best camera is the one you will cart around with you and the one you own. Besides, why spend large amounts on a camera if you can get one that will do the job well, can be taken anywhere and you will not be as upset when you drop it (in huckleberries, in the rain and on talus).
P.S. Camhead, you know the joys of an OM-1.
P.P.S. Good luck.
[ This Message was edited by: machiavellian on 2002-11-21 20:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
joemor
Nov 22, 2002, 9:48 PM
Post #20 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2001
Posts: 609
|
im a big fan of old fully manual cameras. i have 2 pentax spotmatics (precurser to the k1000). they taks awesome shots, and have a depth of feild previewer which really helps you understand how the appature will affect your picture. the other bonus is youll find both te cameras and lenses for really cheep at second hand shops as there like 40 years old. the other bonus is because there fully mechanical and were made with all metal components rather than plastic cogs ect they have been made to last a long time.
go manual slr oldschool.
joe
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 22, 2002, 10:22 PM
Post #21 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Go cheap first and figure out if Photography is for you. Don't be one of those people that drops thousands of dollars on equip then leaves it sitting in a box somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Nov 24, 2002, 9:57 PM
Post #22 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
I was just about to ask this question, but since its already been posted, I guess Ill just put my question here:
I have taken photography classes before (junior high, so they werent exactly expert level, but I learned a lot about composition and such), and am really interested in getting back into photography. Mainly rockclimbing, but I may take it on backpacking trips as well, so it needs to be a durable camera. A fellow counselor at camp had what i think was an EOS Rebel 2000. I liked that camera, mainly because it was easy to use, but sitll had lots of features. What is your opinion on a camera like this, and would you recommend it for an amateur?
What types of lenses would you recommend, considering I will eb doing lots of different types of shots, from landscapes, to detailed climbing pictures.
I would like to get the camera for christmas, so it can't be that expensive.
Basically I need a relatively cheap camera for the amount of features, that is fairly durable as well. One that is easy and fun to use. The EOS was not fully manual, so if I wanted its point and shoot, but (as far as I know) had a lot of manual features as well, which I liked...
So gimme feedback on the camera you would chose for these requisites.
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Nov 24, 2002, 10:01 PM
Post #23 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
On another note, the EOS G is similarly priced, which would you choose, if given thee options? I see both for about 170 bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
bluedubbed
Nov 24, 2002, 10:58 PM
Post #24 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 33
|
Hey.
If money is not a problem and you want a camera that will last you a lifetime, I would suggest you get a Leica. Leica produces by far the best lenses you can get and also possibly the best bodies. The other great thing about Leica is that the bodies, and especially the lenses, retain their value as long as they are in good condition. I currently have an R4 and an M6 with lenses ranging from 15mm-210mm and am very pleased with them. You can find some pretty good deals on older used bodies/lenses on the web.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Nov 24, 2002, 11:30 PM
Post #25 of 33
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
> I would suggest you get a Leica
Get real. Stupid advice. Nobody new to photography is going to want or need such an esoteric and expensive (yes even used) piece of equipment that is really not suitable for the beginner or casual shooter.
I own an older Leica and I respect and admire them in the same way I respect Hasselblads. But neither belong in the hands of a beginner particularly if they are climbing.
Why are Leica people like religious zealots?
Always trying to tell people they are the best. Well they are not. The best is what works well for you. 99.9999999% of the people who EVER take a picture will not be able to tell the difference between a photo taken with a Leica and that taken with a basic 35mm SLR (given the same photog and film of course).
Get an older inexpensive manual camera if you want to learn about photography or a point and shoot if you just want to take pictures. Something in between like the Canon EOS Rebel or Nikon N65 if you want to do both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
