The Camera Question Thread

[spider]

May we see something pictures of your work with the DCR250, please?

And Draiman, Thank for you letting me know, I was unaware. (new to all of this)

 

[Thompson08]

There is no Nikon macro lens which gets anywhere near the 5:1 magnification ratio of the Canon 65mm MPE.

And when was there a Nikkor 65mm lens with vibration reduction?

Well I never did say anything about a Canon macro lens so I do not know why you said that? And I was thinking of this lens http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-105mm-2...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1245188918&sr=1-2. This would be perfect for him(just expensive!)

 

[Thompson08]

Really not very much. I think around 5cm or less. I am really good at approaching animals so it is not an issue. I am most likely going to get a 105mm lens in the near future.

For example I took this

A couple of weeks ago. Sadly it was a really windy day and the plant was moving so the image is not as sharp as it could be.

This one I took last Friday. I actually shot this hand held so I lost some detail.

I also have a Raynox DCR 250. It works pretty good with a macro lens. I have not been able to try it outside in nature yet. I did play with it in the Chicago botanical gardens this winter and it worked well.

nice pictures! Are these taken with your sigma lens, and are they fully zoomed in?? Also what type of flash do you use?

 

[Venom]

I am sorry?...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tcak/3581401239/

http://cgi.ebay.com/FISH-EYE-FISHEYE-0-36X-LENS-KIT-F-Canon-SX10-IS-SX10IS_W0QQitemZ180364683267QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigital_Camera_Accessories?hash=item29fe92a803&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1205|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

I am just going to invest in these lenses.

The accessory list for the PowerShot SX10 is a lot smaller than the one for the PowerShot S5. The main reason for the change is that the SX10 does not support conversion lenses. Here's what accessories are available:

From: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sx10-review/

 

[codykrr]

ok well i have a delima! now after i got back from the mo bug hunt. i was cleaning my lenses (18-135mm nikkor, and a 70-300m nikkor) both are the kit lenses that came with my D80. well i took the protecting fliteroff of each and started cleaning the acual lens. and noticed i have dust inside of both of my lenses!! now these lenses are both brand new.(feb 15th is when i got them of 09) and they should still be perfect as i take very good careof m stuff. so now here is my other dilema. i bought extra protection through best buy(where i got it from) and they aid they could fix it but it would take 6 to 8 weeks to get them bck! thats would leave me lens less. and also i was told that 75% of the time when attempting to clean inside of lenses the techs usually make things worse. so to get me by i just bought an 18-55mm nikkor it was 58bucks! with free shipping. couldnt beat that. so what should i do if the lenses im sending off come back worse? any advice o comments to ease my mind at this point will help!

 

[Noexcuse4you]

ok well i have a delima! now after i got back from the mo bug hunt. i was cleaning my lenses (18-135mm nikkor, and a 70-300m nikkor) both are the kit lenses that came with my D80. well i took the protecting fliteroff of each and started cleaning the acual lens. and noticed i have dust inside of both of my lenses!! now these lenses are both brand new.(feb 15th is when i got them of 09) and they should still be perfect as i take very good careof m stuff. so now here is my other dilema. i bought extra protection through best buy(where i got it from) and they aid they could fix it but it would take 6 to 8 weeks to get them bck! thats would leave me lens less. and also i was told that 75% of the time when attempting to clean inside of lenses the techs usually make things worse. so to get me by i just bought an 18-55mm nikkor it was 58bucks! with free shipping. couldnt beat that. so what should i do if the lenses im sending off come back worse? any advice o comments to ease my mind at this point will help!

Don't worry about dust in the lens. It won't affect your photos one bit. If you get it cleaned, it'll just come right back again. Its caused by the air being pumped into and out of the lens when you zoom.

 

[codykrr]

really!...well im not sure if it wont affext anything but it bugs me and i paid for protection so im going to use it abyway. besides then i wouldnt be able to let the wife think i bought that other lens for no reason...soooo shhhh!

 

[Noexcuse4you]

really!...well im not sure if it wont affext anything but it bugs me and i paid for protection so im going to use it abyway. besides then i wouldnt be able to let the wife think i bought that other lens for no reason...soooo shhhh!

Then why did you bother asking the question? Do what you want. I guarantee it will come back.

 

[codykrr]

no need to be rude man...i was just thowingit out there so someone could ease my mind some...which you did..thats all.(thanks too) so do your lenses have dust in them too?

 

[Noexcuse4you]

no need to be rude man...i was just thowingit out there so someone could ease my mind some...which you did..thats all.(thanks too) so do your lenses have dust in them too?

Sorry, wasn't trying to be rude. I was just trying to save you from going 2 months without having a lens for a repair that isn't necessary. Pretty much all my lenses have some specks of dust in them. Dust on the sensor shows up, but not dust inside the lens or even on the front of the lens. If you take a pic of a bright point of light (like the sun) you might be able to see them.

 

[blacktara]

lower f gives you a shallorer depth of field, higher f = smaller aprature and greater depth of field - by combining f and shutter speed you end up with the shot exposed poperly for the depth of field you have

example - to shoot lightning - set f and your exposure level to give you a 15 to 30 second exposure with high depth if field, focused to just off infinity - point at an active part of the storm and take a bunch of shots and occasionally you get magic

as for a fish lens - it's a toy - and not something that's gonna be a value for the money for a beginer - and the fish implies distortion

I have two wide lenses - a 20 which is a great lens that I use a lot and a 15 which is a true fish and which I use once a blue moon for a kewl effect shot - bang for the buck especially for a beginer go wide but not to the true fish-eye (anything under 20 is gonna start getting taht fish-eye distortion

my two cents

buy the best lens you can and go as far out the ends of the spectrum as makes sense and you can afford - your best shots are gonna be under 35 and over 135 - and stay the HELL away from digital zoom if its economically feasible

 

[blacktara]

as for what Venom said on Canon over Nikon - I gotta tell you - equivalent cameras in their lines - to anyone not a real pro and looking for differences, the differences in noise at high iso is negligable

that said, the BEST thing about my canon is it is AWESOME in low light - but it was a lot of money

I started with a low end Canon and kep with Canons because I got familiar with their operating quirks - you get a high end Nikon and you'll have good low light capability there too

This also gets into what you are shooting - you really gonna go for high ISO low light stuff you wanna shoot RAW

As far as a processing program, it's a little quirky, but for the money, Lightroom is the best combo of price/capabilities to start to work RAW - that's one guy's opinion

 

[blacktara]

one last comment - if you are in the fixed lens realm, then the HECK with both Nikon AND Canon - the best little secret in digital - Panasonic-Lumix

They have Leitz lenses, which will blow the doors off any similarly priced Canon or Nikon

now with interchangeable lenses, Leitz gets - shall we say - pricey - quickly

 

[spider]

Question : With the Raynox DCR250, will I also need to purchase a filter holder, like the Lensmate SX filterholder?

 

[codykrr]

truthfully...wheather you have a point and shoot or an slr or a Dslr its all expensive and one always leads to another. im by no means a pro.hell just look at my pics and you can see that. but i will say. nikon is more ecpensive by far. and we can argue between brands all day. truth is its matter of opinion. but i will say if you going to go big do it and go with either canon or nikon for sure. there ome of the longest running companies that truely only make camera stuff. and thats it. sony should stick to radios and tvs and panasonic the same. as far as iso. goes. shooting raw can enable you to fix all that in photo processing. but for those who cant shoot in raw.(like me, because i lack a working coputer as of now and use a ps3 for internet source) just do your best and take tons and tons of pics. out of a 100 you may only get 2 good ones but its worth it, and you evenually get better the right way. for instance. how many people who shoot in raw. acually take the time to change their white balance every 5 minutes? very few..qhy? because photoshop has made the average photographer lazy. thinking "i can fix it later" wen truely you should fix it before the shot. even if out of 50 shots you get one. at least your doing it right. thats why SLR people stay SLR people because once in the dark room its all a surprize!

 

[Draiman]

Well I never did say anything about a Canon macro lens so I do not know why you said that? And I was thinking of this lens http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-105mm-2...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1245188918&sr=1-2. This would be perfect for him(just expensive!)

Oh, really?

The nikon 65mm macro vr lens is perfect for you then.

:?

 

[Thompson08]

Oh, really?



:?

lol wow dude, either lens is good anyways..not really that serious

 

[GOMER113]

I've had a standard point 'n shoot camera for a while and recently upgraded to a Sony DSC-H50 with tons more bells and whistles. I've taken my new camera with me to a few coffee shops where live music is played and the lighting is always far from great. In order to at least be able to see my subjects in my viewfinder, I have to turn down the shutter speed and aperture to really low numbers (respectively 4 and 4.5, or something like that).

This last time I took pictures, I noticed that the microphones in most of the pictures were coming out much more focused than the people onstage. Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

Again, the lighting is really bad. I obviously had the camera set to capture the images in Sepia and I believe I set the white balance to "incandescent". How could I get better pictures with this camera under these lighting conditions? Turn up the ISO and set the aperture to a higher number to make up for it? What about manual focus or the "AF range finder indicator"? Any help would be great. Thanks!

 

[Talkenlate04]

I am most likely going to get a 105mm lens in the near future.

Find someone to borrow it from or rent it first because that lens is not for everyone. I have both the 60 and the 105 and I rarely use the 105. If I had known how little I would use that lens I would have never bought it.

 

[Craig]

Interesting! I will most likely rent it first then. I do see these on craigslist for sale a lot. So I think other people agree. I have the 50mm that I use all the time. I just need more working distance.