Semi-Pro Photography

[Allen]

Right, I presume this'll be the right forum. I used to love photography when I was younger, having a polaroid when I was a kid and making my own pin hole cameras and such. I also used to have red curtains and a red lampshade in a terrible attempt at processing my own photo's with a little 'kit' I had.

Anyway, in April this year, I went to Paris with my g/f and she took her cheap digital camera and I took what I thought were some half decent shots, so I was considering how much it would cost to get a decent camera setup these days.

Now, I haven't had a decent camera for years and I don't know anything about digital cameras. Is anyone here into photography, either as a hobby or professionally, who can give some tips on what to look out for with digital cameras? I believe it'll be an SLR camera I'll need, and I'd be interested in doing all sorts of pictures from scenery to pets, well.. anything really!

Also, what courses are available to be done (i.e. what professional bodies are there in photography) so I can get a qualifiacation or just learn more about it in either a night class or something. This is something I've always wanted to do at the back of my mind but never really did anything about it! Now I'd like to find out what I can do about it!

Cheers in advance for any help you can give.

[Rave]

If you want a Digital SLR you're still looking at £600+ I think. The Canon EOS 300D is probably the cheapest, and is a good camera. Canon's range of lenses is the best too (in my considered opinion, Nikonistas).

Depending on the type of photography you want to do, I wouldn't definately rule out film. Digital is good for sports, reportage, action photography etc., but for landscape/macro/still life/creative work film will usually give you better quality. As good as 6 Megapixels is, it still doesn't compare to a well exposed slide for detail and colour saturation. Since the digital sensor is smaller than a bit of film, it's harder to get a decent wideangle too (although the flipside is that your telephoto power gets a boost).

I worked at Jessops until about a year and a half ago, so although my knowledge of current cameras is pretty rusty, I have a good idea about the issues in general. I also took only a digital camera on holiday with me this year, so don't think I have a pro-film agenda.

Rich :¬)

[Zak33]

my input then too: I have an aging Minolta Dynax 5000i SLR film camera. It still cuts the mustard...and it os over 10 years old.

My Dad had a Dynax 7000i and he loved it...right up until he got this:
http://www.fuji.co.uk/digital/cameras/s602pro/
His photo skills have EXPLODED...he was good...but frankly he is superb now. Why? It costs nothing after the outlay, and you do it all at home when you get back. It really IS exciting going home and uploading it all.

Now I dont pretend to know a lot about camera technology, but I DO know that while Digital Magnification is nice....Optical is better AS LONG AS THE LENSES are good. That one is superb. The Macro facility (very close up) is astonishing. Apparently, according to real photographers, digital cameras dont do proper macro, but suffice it to say you can photograph a spider the size of a 5p piece and on the PC screen 3 minutes later you can see the hairs on its llegs....all of them....upclose...and the mandibles. It is awesome.

The potential of a good Digital Camera is now even better because of places like this:
http://www.photobox.co.uk/

where you upload all your piccies and they send them out to you on much better paper and with much higher quality than you could afford to do at hime, at any size you want

In short....a good camera needs the following:

Spare batteries. You MUST be able to afford spare batteries. Digi camera's eat them. If its a cold day, the battery lie is cack....it NEEDS to be easy to swap batteries. These big Fuji's hold 4xAA batteries and you can of course get rechargeables Get spares.

Memory...you just cant get enough...budget for memory. These camera's also do really very good film. More memory cards is good.

and as with all things...plan your attack: A good camera this year, but not a range topper....then in 9 months replan your attack. Love of photography growing? Good, you now know hwat you need in detail. Love of photography just average? Good...you didn't spend an absolute fortune.

Portability: That camera I show up there/\ is a big old boy I chose it cos Dad's one is superb. But its huge.
Sair, my other half, has this :
http://www.fuji.co.uk/digital/camera...eras/range.php

It is nearly as good as Dad's, half the size and weight, and it switches on in a split second...its ready in under two seconds...Dad's takes 4 to 5 seconds...that's an AGE. BUT the battery life is DIRE like a little mobile phone battery. Not 4 big AA cells.

Hope that lot helps....it IS a minefield but its an exciting minefield

[Rob]

Right, I'm no expert photographer - ask Shiato Storm for that - but...

Following on from what Zak said about planning your attack, maybe you might consider one of these Fuji S7000 . Now it's not a full SLR (lense changing), but besides auto point and shoot they are full manual as well. And I have seen the results from these cameras, and they are absolutely superb. Would certainly allow you to develop your skills and get a feel before blowing £600-£1000 on a full SLR. I have seen them around for under £300 - Dixons did have a good deal a while ago.

I have just started with a 4Mp and already I know that I need to move up to one of these.


Just my 2p


Rob

[Allen]

Thanks for the imput so far guys. I think you're right in getting a smaller camera first, before blowing a huge wad on a digital SLR camera, even though they do look rather nice!

Rob, that camera there looks mighty fine for the price, a definate consideration.

So, Shiato Storm is into his photography is he? Cool, lets see if he'll come and join the thread then!

So, anyone have any knowledge about photography courses/qualifications etc.?

Cheers, keep the advise coming, I will read and take note of everything said.

[Zak33]

having seen the spec on that one Rob linked too....thats where MY money would go..

Its very very close to my Dad's and it will therefore be great. Good mem card too. Get yourself a load MORE rechargeable AA batteries, get them all loaded up....

and you are OFF

[Allen]

Hehehe... now to find a course which'll show me how to use it to it's full potential!

[shiato storm]

hi guys - just got your pm Allen...seems like lots of people here have answered your request reasonably well - I'm quite busy right now and you just caught me, I won't be near a computer until tomorrow late/early monday so I'll add my 2p then if thats ok but thanks for asking for me and I will return.

p.s. beware that the Fuji s7000, although a pretty good camera, EATS batteries. my dad has one. and there is a substantial delay in what you see through the view-finder to when you take the picture...often has my dad missed soemthing due to this. I think it has something to do with its image processing...just something to look out for.

oh, and you can't beat an SLR

[Rave]

Fuji digital cameras- I'll come out as the one person who doesn't like them. My two main objections are:

1) the XD cards. Way too expensive. In fairness this also applies to Sony cameras with Memory Sticks.

2) The Super CCD cameras. Yes, a camera with a 3mp Super CCD is better than a normal 3mp CCD camera, but ut also costs more, and it uses more space on the memory card than is needed. Which since they're expensive anyway, is a bad thing.

I believe that Fuji now make some good cameras without super CCDs, but I don't know enough about them to comment on whether they're any good or not. I have nothing against Fuji in general either BTW, my favourite film camera is a Fuji, and Fuji Velvia is a jaw droppingly good film. Every photographer should shoot at least one roll of it in their life.

Rich :¬)

[unrealrocks]

Everything said above is good. The S602 is a good camrea for starting out, its quite cheap and has alot of features (also its one of the few Fuji camreas that dont take those god awful xD cards).

People have jumped over SLR cameras. IMO I would still seriously consider them as you can pick up a decent body for £200-300 (which equates to the lower DSLR camreas costing £700). Lens wise if its a modern SLR then it'll probably take USM lenses anyways so the price for lenses won't change (good ones will be alot of £££s). As a rough guide most people recon you can extract a good 25MPix image out of a 35mm negative (yeah twenty five !!!).

Course wise - take a look at your local colleges ... they'll often put on night courses for things like photography, although Sept enrollment will have gone past they often do Jan enrollment as well

[Zak33]

and y last bit of advice

START DIGITAL....THEN progress to a 35mm camera. Why? Cos it costs nothing to cock up 1000's of pictures in digital once you've got the camera

and as for Rave......VELVIA is just awesome. Creamy smooth with vivid colours and the most fantastic ability to be blown up .....

Fuji Velvia is the perfect pint of Guiness

[Allen]

START DIGITAL....THEN progress to a 35mm camera. Why? Cos it costs nothing to cock up 1000's of pictures in digital once you've got the camera

Damn good point there Zak! Thanks!

and as for Rave......VELVIA is just awesome. Creamy smooth with vivid colours and the most fantastic ability to be blown up .....

Fuji Velvia is the perfect pint of Guiness

Velvia is just the film, right? Sorry, stoopid question! No need for a digital camera then. Maybe later on.

[Zak33]

Velvia is just film....so its nothing to do with the camera. All I will say for 35mm camera film is this (and remember its all personal)

KODAK FILMS SUCK BIG TIME. It is all marketing hype and they happen to own the pmarket of conveniance film purchases....Petrol Stations. News Agents etc...BECAUSE the profit margin is high for the retailers.

I would ALWAYS buy Fuji film, or even Boots own brand rather than Kodak. It does nothing good for the money.

[Allen]

Thanks, good to know... even for personal usage!

[unrealrocks]

Thats up for personal oppinion ... personally Kodak's Pro (or even Gold Ultra range) I find is very good. Also Kodaks processing facilities are much better than anyone elses - comparing to the results of some of those all in one machines they use at boots or '1 hour express' shops you just can't compare it.

Also - if its so crap, why does EVERY film filmed on standard reel or Super70 use Kodak film and kodak processing facilities? (I know its kinda different film but its still film).

[Rave]

Thats up for personal oppinion ... personally Kodak's Pro (or even Gold Ultra range) I find is very good. Also Kodaks processing facilities are much better than anyone elses - comparing to the results of some of those all in one machines they use at boots or '1 hour express' shops you just can't compare it.

That's the polar opposite of my experience; I used to work in a shop where you could send the film away to Kodak, or do it on the Fuji Digital minilab instore. The quality of the minilab prints was usually a LOT better than Kodak could manage. Kodak had a nasty habit of losing customer's films too.

However, they do make some reasonable films. As lovely as Velvia is, it's expensive (although it's come down a bit recently) and at ASA50, a bit slow for some stuff. Elite Chrome Extra Colour was cheaper and a very good alround film, I shot my entire holiday to Japan on it (9 rolls) and got some brilliant results. Royal Gold film was pretty good too, as is the Portra range. The only Kodak films I actively disliked were the various flavours of Gold. Gold Ultra is way too contrasty and has nasty colour reproduction, and Gold Ultra Zoom (the ASA800 one) was stupidly grainy.

Rich :¬)