Digital Cameras...anyone Into Them / Sell Them?

[seemax]

RAW is just that , raw pixel data. JPG is compression algorithm, it essentially uses some tricks to remove information (ie pixel data) to make the image file smaller. Obviously the trick is removing the right information so that our eyes don't pick up the losses. The same principle applies to MP3.

I have a Pentax K100D, 6 megapixel DSLR. JPG superfine printed at almost A4 is still perfectly clear, no obvious defects.

Spend time learning about photography (aperture, depth of field, etc)... view some photos on the web and try and find what appeals to you about them. Composition is a key skill... practice and practice again.

I recommend getting a high quality prime lens , perhaps a 50mm f/1.8 or lower to start with.

 

[pokolbinguy]

I recommend getting a high quality prime lens , perhaps a 50mm f/1.8 or lower to start with.

Any recommendations on brands, models....pricetags??

Thanks for all the help seemax,

Pok

 

[seemax]

If you have no budget the FA 50mm is really nice.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses...X_FA_50mm_F1.4/

Plenty of cheap offerings from Sigma and Tamron... but with lenses you get what you pay for.

If you intend to stay with Pentax thought, quality lenses are money well spent and will last a life time if cared for.

 

[Airgead]

Thats what I thought. RAW is I assume better when doing large prints etc??? Feel free to explain what is better about it....got to learn sometime. At the moment I am keen to learn how to take better shots, most will be stored and viewed digitally...but I guess I should start a printed collection.

OK... JPEG is a compressed format and its a lossy compression. Essentially you loose information when you compress to jpeg. RAW is an uncompressed format so every bit of information that the camera captured is there in the raw file.

If you are just shooting for display on screen or for email or something like that then jpeg is fine. If you intend to do any sort of editing - cropping, adjusting the levels, whatever, or are shooting with the intent of printin them out at a decent size (A4 or bigger) then RAW is the way to go. If you do editing with a jpeg, any edits will magnify the jpeg compression artefacts (that blockyness you see on a jpeg when you zoom right in) so each time you apply an edit you loose more quality. Again fine if its just for on screen display at a small resolution (1280x or whatever).

In short, if you want to display at full resolution or intend to print at some stage, shoot in raw. You can convert from raw to jpeg but not the other way. If ytoiu are shooting in jpeg, that quality is lost forever. If you go back later and think "that would look cool in A3 hanging on my wall" then you are stuck with the jpeg.

I always shoot raw unless I know I'm going to be shooting in long bursts (10 or more at a time) and the quality isn't that important (sports shots for example). But other than that I leave it in raw just in case.

Cheers
Dave

P.S.. i hope that made sense. It made sense to me but I'm down 3 or 4 beers, a bottle of red and a single malt tonight so I have no idea whether I'm typing gibberish or not.

 

[pokolbinguy]

P.S.. i hope that made sense. It made sense to me but I'm down 3 or 4 beers, a bottle of red and a single malt tonight so I have no idea whether I'm typing gibberish or not.

Thanks for the explanation guys.

Airgead that made plenty of sense, even after my beer at work, two beers at home, one beer at the local fasta pasta...turns out the owner is a home brewer and had a bottle of home brew in the fridge...he opened it to share...was pretty good, nice light easy drinking lager (reminded me of Bia Hoi in Vietnam), ohh and the 3 glasses of wine with dinner....so we are most probably on a similar level....well atleast closer than me being stone cold sober.

Cheers, Pok

 

[pokolbinguy]

If you have no budget the FA 50mm is really nice.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses...X_FA_50mm_F1.4/

Plenty of cheap offerings from Sigma and Tamron... but with lenses you get what you pay for.

If you intend to stay with Pentax thought, quality lenses are money well spent and will last a life time if cared for.

What would you expect to pay for a Sigma/tamron???

At the moment I dont really want to spend any more money...but like with brewing...there can be exceptions ... but the pentax lens is $400+

Cheers, Pok

 

[Airgead]

What would you expect to pay for a Sigma/tamron???

At the moment I dont really want to spend any more money...but like with brewing...there can be exceptions ... but the pentax lens is $400+

Cheers, Pok

Sigma/Tamron do make some nice lenses... but they also make some absolute dogs as well (I used a tamron 90mmm macro a couple of time and it was beautiful... I also used a 70-200 zoom and it was terrible). There are a bunch of good lens review sites which you would do well to check out. Its been a long time since I looked at any so I'm not sure which are the best ones any more. Google will probably have a better idea than me.

Pentax used to make a very good lens back when I used Pentax gear. Not sure what the quality is like now. Most makes have a low budget range, a mid range and a pro range. Avoid the low budget range at all costs. Its just not worth it. Cheap plastic mounts, cheap plastic optics, cheap plastic images. The mid range gear (and $400 for a 50mm prime sounds pretty mid range) is usually pretty good. The Pro range is to die for. I have my eye on some Canon L series (pro) lenses but the cheapest is around 2k...

Even Tamron and Sigma used to do a higher end range that might be worth a look. I'm really out of touch these days.

Cheers
Dave

Edit - Oh yeah.. one last thing... Remember its not just the camera that takes the photo.. .most of the image quality comes from the lens so its well worth saving for a better lens. The best sensor in the world won't take a good image if you put cheap optics in front of it.

 

[bradsbrew]

Reviving an old thread here I know but there are a few camera geeks on here and I am looking at getting a DSLR for the wife for her birthday also getting her a course to do as well. Are these any good? Which would be the better buy? I like the look of the Nikon, is it worth the extra$180.

Canon EOS 1100D DSLR Camera with 18-55mm & 75-300mm Lenses = $591

Nikon D3100 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm & 55-300mm VR Lenses = $770

Cheers

 

[sp0rk]

TBH, I'd go this deal
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/SALE-BRAND-NEW-CANON-EOS-650D-DSLR-BODY-18-55mm-IS-II-75-300mm-III-LENS-/330843051194?pt=AU_Digital_Cameras&hash=item4d07c854ba&_uhb=1
Better than both you've got there and only a little more expensive than the Nikon

They say they have Aussie warranties, so if I had the cash I'd go that

 

[Malted]

Just to add some geek-to-normal-person interpretation:
RAW files would be like film negatives, you can tweak them in all manner of ways to produce interesting photo prints.
JPEG files are like a photo print, you can scan them and tweak them a bit but there will be some loss of quality.

Canon & Nikon are both good quality IMO. Both would produce images of good quality bigger than you are likely to be able to afford to print. Don't get hung up on 12 megapixels versus 14 mp. Check out the prices of good quality lenses for them, IMO they are similar.
A good tool in the wrong hands will produce shiite, a regular tool in the hands of a good operator can make magic happen.
I had a basic Canon but bought good lenses for it but it is at the end of the day, what is in the viewfinder is what counts. So my opinion is handle both cameras in a store somewhere and see which one you seem to like better for what ever reason.

 

[Camo6]

Reviving an old thread here I know but there are a few camera geeks on here and I am looking at getting a DSLR for the wife for her birthday also getting her a course to do as well. Are these any good? Which would be the better buy? I like the look of the Nikon, is it worth the extra$180.

Canon EOS 1100D DSLR Camera with 18-55mm & 75-300mm Lenses = $591

Nikon D3100 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm & 55-300mm VR Lenses = $770

Cheers

I bought the missus a Nikon 5100 a year or so ago in a similar package for about $1100. Brilliant camera but way overkill for what she needed. I had a couple of blokes at work buy the same one who were right into photography and said it was the duck's guts. However one of them had issues with his ( bought internationally) and my fathers one had problems also. I think this was a known fault with a batch of 5100's. Both cameras were replaced quickly under warranty though. Ours has been fine.

I imagine the 3100 is of a similar standard to the 5100 without some of the bells and whistles (that my wife will never use nor need) but can't really comment directly.

I think it's a bit of the old Ford/Holden thing between the two. Both good products from two well respected makers just depends which one your dad owned!

 

[pk.sax]

I'd post a pic or two in a bit. But here is my take on it. Rangefinder style cameras, aka micro 4/3 and nex etc are superb quality and functionality. Plus the size and price. It ain't a compact but even with an adapter and a 50mm film lens it'd fit into my hoodie pocket. Definitely in the centre console tray on the dash in the truck. And the pictures talk for themselves. Currently sporting a pana gx1 (kogan.com.au) plus eBay adapter plus asahi 50/1.4 manual focus and aperture lens. I've owned a Leica dlux before and the second full he consumer handycam the world saw. Family and friends have dslrs and while I enjoy taking it off their hands to take th odd pic or few I wouldn't want to held one for longer than 10 minutes.

 

[anthonyUK]

As mentioned you will be in either the Nikon or Canon camp. There isn't much between them.
I've bought my daughter the D3200 and it is more camera than anyone but a professional will need.

There is some info from a pro on http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
He says there is no need for most people to go above the D3100/3200.

 

[Clutch]

Can anyone recommend a sub-$200 point and shoot that doesn't take AAs for my UK trip?

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Reviving an old thread here I know but there are a few camera geeks on here and I am looking at getting a DSLR for the wife for her birthday also getting her a course to do as well. Are these any good? Which would be the better buy? I like the look of the Nikon, is it worth the extra$180.
Canon EOS 1100D DSLR Camera with 18-55mm & 75-300mm Lenses = $591
Nikon D3100 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm & 55-300mm VR Lenses = $770

Cheers

Just saw this sorry if im too late, Brad have a look at kogan.com.au, they had the cheapest prices last time I looked a few months ago. I've had the canon 1100d for almost two years not complains it does everything I want it to (its the one I took to the swap). You may be able to pick up a more recent / higher specced one now. IMO the 2nd lense isn't necessary for a startup, you'd be better off spending the extra on a good case / bag. Zoom lenses can be picked up pretty easily. There are also a few camera comparison websites around which will help you choose between different makes in the same price range.

 

[ash2]

Just another silly Quest. how do you download pics in here for a reply to topic. :icon_offtopic:

 

[pk.sax]

Use the full editor reply 'more reply options'.

Or, upload to an image hosting site and paste the IMG code here.

PS: Clutch, saw a wifi Samsung 18x zoom for 129 or something at kogan, I think that one is supposed to be based on that fancy 3G camera they released. My panny 4/3 turned up with uk and Europe cords, I just had an au cord lying around too otherwise about 5 bux for one at the shop.

 

[bradsbrew]

Thanks everyone, haven't grabbed one yet but will be after researching bit more. Will be going into a few shops and getting a feel for them as well.
Liam I did not even think of kogan, cheers.

Cheers

 

[QldKev]

Remember kogan is grey imports,with the warranty turn around periods etc. I recently got a canon 700d (650d mk 2) with twin lens kit. Kogan is 948 plus post. Jbhifi did it for 999. The 650d is currently well priced as the last of them are sold. If you don't want to spend heaps more on lenses too soon I prefer the canon kit lenses over nikon. But it is a Holden vs Ford thing

 

[pokolbinguy]

Good to see some others utilising the old thread I started. I ended up with a Pentax Kx, twin lens kit....great camera especially for the $$

From memory the twin lens kit was about $900ish at the time.

Down side - takes AA's
Upside - Takes AA's
Why is this good....if your in the middle of nowhere and your batteries go flat....the chances of getting some AA's is much better than having time to recharge. i had this proved to me in the mountains of vietnam where my camera went flat, no power but a villager went to the next village to fetch me batteries while I had lunch.

I ended up buying a sigma lens that covers a wider range. about 55-200mm as my original lenses are 50-120 and 100-200 or something around those numbers. one lens to cover all of this means less stuff to carry.

So my tip would be to get the current model, I saw one in JB HiFi today, I think it was KM, about $525 for body and 50-100 (ish) lens.

Great camera to learn on, easy to use, great build and image quality....and if you decide 12 months down the track photography is not for you then you haven't dropped $1k+

Pok