Printable View
Got to play with an SLR camera at work today, and what can I say, the whole turn the lens to focus/zoom feels so natural :p. So I'm interested in getting one. Can anyone give me a brief explanation of the features offered? ie, what does 30-80 mean on the side of the lens, the f. numbers etc?
Thanks
I'm not going to explain all the terms for you, but I'm going mention them so that you can go and find out more. ;)
The 30-80 on the side of the lens is the zoom width of the zoom lens. 30 is considered a relatively wide angle (but not real 'wide angle' lens) and 80 is kinda like a moderate zoom. The f figures is the focal length.
The important things you need to know about SLR camera is what kind of camera you're hoping to get. You can spend anything from £50 up to £3,000 just for the body. Depending on how hardcore you want to be, you can get yourself a 2nd hand manual SLR body relatively cheap - no many people actually want them these days. Getting lenses for manual bodies may not be as easy as AF (auto focus) because of the lack of new parts. Manual is great if you want to know more about photography and the more advance techniques which the AFs tend to hide from you.
For AF cameras, you have a whole range of bodies to choose from - from the el cheapo glorified box (ie. everything is auto and nothing can be manually adjusted) to the super-duper professional rig (which everything is auto and everything can be manually changed).
Another thing is a choice of lenses. I'd recommend you pick a couple - one zoom (say, a 70-210mm) and a fix focus (say, a 28mm). They should cover you for most situations. Of course, you can splash out on a 400mm telephoto monster bazooka, but you may not want to blow that kind of money in the beginning. It all depends on what kind of photography you want to get into - sports, scenary, portraits, etc... Different horses for different courses...
Let me know if you want to know more... ;)
I've got a Canon EOS that's quite good for what I use it for; it'll do everything automatically if Iwant it to. If I want o play thugh I can change pretty much everything.
I've got a 28-70mm lens and a 50mm lens, to be honest the telephoto lens (the one that zooms in and out) never leaves the camera.
I still prefer film to digi; but then I guess I'm kinda old fashioned like that :D
I'd get yourself a beginners guide to photography; there's a lot of them out there so you can learn the basics which are pretty much unchanged for the last 50 years. Then all you need to do is go and play wand experiment with your new toy :D
[pimp-mode]
www.digi-darkroom.com
[/pimp mode]:D
Digital or film SLR?
For 35mm film, a 50mm gives about the same range of view as the human eye, so it is regarded as 'standard' view. If the number is higher than that, it has the effect of making you seem closer. It magnifies the view, a bit like looking through a pair of binoculars or a telescope, hence the name "telephoto". So, for something like wildlife photography, you probably want a decent telephoto lens - like 300mm - or more.
If the number is smaller than that, then the angle that the camera can 'see' is wider than that ofthe human eye. It a bit like seeing properly out of the sides of your eyes as well as straight ahead. The main use (though there are many) is for landscape photos where you want a nice wide vista. These are "wide-angle" lenses.
If you see a lens where there are a range of numbers, then the lens can zoom from one end of therange to the other, i.e. 28-80mm gives moderate wide-angle to mild zoom. 50-500mm gives standard view to high-power telephoto.
The F numbers represent the maximum aperture of the lens. To get proper exposure, you need the right amount of light to hit the film (or CCD sensor in a digital camera). There are various aspects to this, but the most common two are shutter speed and aperture. The faster the shutter speed, the less light will get in. Similarly, a camera has a sort-of iris arrangement built in the lens. This can be opened or closed and the result determines the amount of light you let in. It also changes depth of field but that's another issue.
The number actually refers to the MAXIMUM aperture the lens can handle. The smaller the number, the larger the aperture. i.e. F2.8 is a larger aperture than F8 which, in turn, is larger than F22.
The larger the maximum aperture, the more light you can let in for a given shutter speed and, therefore, the less light you need available to get a decent picture. Unfortunately, large apertures also make decent optics MUCH harder to make, and therefore they are commensurately more expensive. You get what you pay for, especially for telephotos. A 75-300mm ZOOM lens with an F5.6 maximum aperture might cost you £150-£200 (mine cost me >£500). An F2.8 300mm 'prime' (i.e. fixed focal length, not zoom) might cost you £4000. Don't ask what a decent quality 1200mm lens costs, but start thinking "small house" type money - I kid you not.
As for SLR features, yikes, that's a whole book :D Motordrives, automatic flash-exposure compensation, second-curtain synchronisation, auto-expsoure bracketing, depth of field preview, eye-controlled autofocus, and so on.
Actually you got it backwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by spikegifted
30-80 is the focal length, and F stops are the aperture size
True about the older models being sought after. Ten years ago you couldn't give 'em away, now they're demanding very fair prices.
If you can get your hands on an old pentax manual SLR or something like an early 70's Nikon F, they take extremely good pictures. But it may take a few reels of film to learn how to use the manual settings properly.
Once you feel comfortable and get to know your camera, however, making the adjustments becomes second nature.
I assume we're talking about 35mm film cameras here and not digital? If not, then some of the SLR digital models out there now are quite fantastic, although a little pricey.
Having said that, Canon have released a very nice 6MP SLR for under £1000, if you're planning a holiday to the states or know a friend etc, I've seen them for $780, which given the current exchange rate works out at a a smidge over £400, which is a complete and utter bargain, even if you do have to pay VAT on top when you get it back over here :)
there is no doubt that SLRs give better quality images than compcts but its a mix of money and experience for choosing the right camera...there are so many out there its hard to pick just one off the shelf and say 'this is the one for me'. there's also the question of 35mm or digital, or if your into it in a big way, have lots of cash to throw around and can afford to cock-up lots as you learn go for medium format where quality and size are greater than 35mm, and digital to some extent.
and, as with many things, you pay for the name; a nikon with comparable parts and functions almost always costs more than, say, a minolta. but that doesn't mean it takes better pictures. you decide that.
i'm currently loking into photography in a big way at the mo and i'm buggered by all the choices out there, all appear as good as the next only differing in price, but what go for?
as a rule go for the BEST optics you can afford (lenses) as these are the important quality defining parts, after all photography is about light and the better quality that gets to the film the better your pictures. after that its up to you to find a model that suits your needs. some makes use plastic in their cheap models to make the body (canon) which is lighter than metal (pentax) but obviously not as robust. if you are wanting to give it a go I can recommend 2nd hand cameras are your best bet and work up from there. I own an olympus om4 which I started on, and I get pictures in magasines etc - it was 2nd hand and its a very robust camera (it would have to be to survive the beating I give it!!).
make sure you have a light meter in the camera...again, you're buggered without.
if you digital - expect to pay through the nose for an SLR, i'm personally not keen on them but the technology is getting much better with, i think, 10Mp as the best now (don't quote me on that).
anyway, shop around, think about what you'd use it for and have fun :)
I've got a canon EOS rebel... Fantastic little camera!
takes some lovely pictures. My parents have the higher spec one, but love them too.
My dads got a pretty budget Nikon slr, I think he paid around 180 for it with a 30-80 zoom lens and you really cant take a bad picture with it, even with cheapfilm. As Shiato said, the money needs to go on the lenses.
It's definately worth getting a library book or two out.
yup, the little canons are very good for what you get out of them.
I'm a serious Canon fan. I used to work in a Camera shop; I'd sell people who came in and asked for something whatever they wanted, but people who asked my advice generally left with a Canon:). The EOS300V is a cracking little camera if you're buying new, secondhand you can get something like an EOS 10, 100 or 50E for about the same money. They'll be a bit bigger and more robust with faster shutter speeds and more features, but the 300V will focus a bit faster and better. I have an EOS 10 and an EOS 620, and a mix of Sigma and Canon lenses (including two L series ones:cool: ).
The 28-80mm lens (or 28-90) you get with a typical kit will get you started fine, but as you get serious you'll want to buy better (or different) lenses. Avoid 35-80s, 35 isn't wide enough a lot of the time.
Oh, and don't buy cheap film, it's a false economy.
I learnt a hell of a lot about cameras when I was starting out from http://photo.net. Haven't been back in a while but it's worth a go....
Rich :¬)
what film do you recommend (besides slide film which can cost a bit...mind you doesn't the price include processing etc?)
as I mentioned earlier I'm hoping to get into photography more and more (had enough of achademia) any advice? I did a bit at a studio round the corner but when I went to look for them the other day they'd gone :( I'd like to do more of my own work ut figured I'd see how everything works in a studio first off then take that knowledge outside (I love animals so natural progression I figured was towards photographing them before they all, sadly, go)
:)
shiato_storm:
wish you wouldn't be such a pessimist, the animals won't go (well, I sincerely hope not anyway, that would truly be a pisser)
slide film does include cost of processing, actually works out quite good value. But, of course, you'll need a viewing device
Good news is, with the advent of digital photography and lcd projectors, second hand prices of slide projectors have fallen dramatically. Kodak Carousel projectors, used, are really cheap now.
Make of film? Usual suspects, Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, they are actually better than, say, Boots own brand.
Not true. SOME slide films do, many don't. If it says "process paid" it includes the processing, otherwise .....Quote:
Originally Posted by floppybootstomp
My favourite film is Fuji Velvia. ISO 50 (slide film) - it's known for bright, punchy colours, and the film I get is NOT process paid. Maybe there's a PP version of Velvia, but I've never seen it. Instead I use a small local lab. They process the film for me and leave it in strips, rather than mounting in slides. This suits me down to the ground as I use it mainly in slide scanners - but I have my own little mounting kit so I can mount any slides I want mounted, and ONLY the ones I want mounted.
But this brings me on to a CRITICAL point - there is no "best" film. It depends what you want to use it for. I do a lot of macro work, especially with flowers, so bright, vibrant colours word well in that context but I would NOT use Velvia for a wedding or a portrait session. In fact, in that situation, I'd probably use Fuji NPH (ISO 400) or NPS (ISO 160). These are print films and far better suited to portrait/wedding work. They are, however, classed as "professional" films and will benefit from being kept in the fridge unless you use them relatively quickly.
In general, there are two factors that determine the choice of slide or print.
1) A good slide film has a higher colour range. This is why a LOT of wildlife work, for instance, is done on slide. A lot of agencies also prefer, or sometimes, require it.
2) Slide film is MUCH less tolerant to exposure errors. With print film, you can probably do a good rescue job on an image up to 2 expsoure stops off correct. With a slide film, I'd suggest you get it within half a stop of right. It's MUCH less tolerant.
So slide film requires some different disciplines, especially if the shots are important and/or unrepeatable.
Within your choice of slide or negative, there are good, mediocre and bad films in each category. Actually, that probably should read excellent, good and OK films - there's no REALLY bad ones any more.
Then comes speed selection. THAT might determine your choice of film. If you are going to be shooting in very low light (maybe a pop concert where you can't use flash) you WILL want to use a fast film, and you might even want to push it. If you do want to push it, it helps to know which films respond to pushing well, and which don't. That same fast film could well be a nightmare in a very bright situation, like a sunlit beach scene. Also, the faster the film, the more visible grain it tends to have.
Pushing, by the way, is overriding the speed RATING on the film, and setting the camera manually to a faster setting. Then, when sending it off to the lab (and one you trust, not some mail-order mass-processor), TELL the lab very clearly that you have pushed the film (and by how much) and that you want that compensated for in the proessing. They can then adjust developing times.
The result - you can use the film in lower light than would normally be the case, and often, get away with it. The pushing process does, however, tend to increase film grain - and it's MUCH worse with some films than others. This is why it helps to know your film - and which will respond well to pushing and which won't.
This dodge, incidentally, is at it's most useful when you find yourself away from a film shop with a film that isn't fast enough for the job in your bag. It's not an ideal solution, but sometimes the only one.
Keep an eye on Practical Photography magazine. Usually, about once a year, they do a massive roundup of all currently available films, and they rate them. It's often slide one month and neg the next. They also do a similar roundup of several dozen major labs - and that can be illuminating too.
And you thought "what film?" was a simply question didn't you :D
Saracen:
I stand corrected. I haven't been involved with photography for some time now. Last time I purchased slide film, as far as I can remember they were all process paid.
I understand and agree with all you've said. Good advice.
When last I used 35mm print film there was definitely a difference in, how shall we say? Vibrancy and colour richness. If what you say is true, there now seems to be no absolute turkeys in the market place. Which has to be a good thing.
In my time I've owned a Pentax SLR, Nikon F and Rolleiflex TLR (great for weddings).
Also worked for a local newspaper for three years as photo-journalist. Have had many by-lines in Nationals, locals and some specialist publications. For the most part, hard news. Which really doesn't require a lot of journalistic skill, just accuracy.
I've been in some quite hairy situations trying to gain news pics (being thumped by squatters wasn't too much fun, hehe).
But, as I say, that was some time ago, I swapped career paths.
Because of that, I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say. May even re-kindle my interest in 'real' photography, using 35mm film.
I apreciate your contributions here, always interesting and thought provoking. Don't always agree, but it stirs the grey matter.
Thank you :)