SLR Camera...

[DaveB]

Hi JIm,

All of the shots I post are taken with an old CanonEOS300D.. the first affordable digital SLR and now superceeded many times! Much as I'd love a fancy lens to bolt onto the front, unfortunately.. my funds don't live up to my desires so I make do with a Sigma 18-50mm and Sigma 18-300mm. Due to the size of the CCD, these have a multiplication value of x1.6 so the 18-50mm equates to (roughly) 28-80mm and the 18-300mm equates to 28-480mm. They're adequate but suffer from reasonably small apetures.. F3.5-5.6 for the 18-50 and F3.5-6.3 for the 18-300. Not so much of a problem with the right light but airshow days in the UK rarely offer the right light for lenses of this size

Try NOT to go gung-ho into changing lenses all the time as this obviously increases the risk of getting dust/dirt inside the body. Two of us managed to get quite nice shots of thunderfly's at Duxford early in the year and these were INSIDE not outside the camera :o You can never be too careful when changing lenses ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Chris Sykes]

:doho: My heads hurting from all the babble! Nah really its apreaciated! Dont really understand the thing about from Glass/Film SLR to digie but im straight into diggie...

[forthbridge]

HI Dave

You've hit a couple of things on the head there ;-)

Changing lenses: I only ever do so outside, quickly, and with the camera facing DOWNWARDS - EG bring the lens UP to it.
Thrips (Thunderflies) are a good reason for the reintroduction of DDT IMO . Usually however I avoid areas where I know they are out and about, the worst I had was one of the little bleeders crawling inside the screen on the back of the camera :o :@

(As well as in my hair, eyes, and all over the bl**dy car - even still on it after a 40 mile blast down the M-Way)

They are a blight for sure!!

Properly set up, a range of between 100-400 mm should give useable results at airshows for example, and proper planning (EG get the static stuff when something boring is on) should mean you're not changing lenses like a madman.

Come to think of it, my £99 Sigma 55-200 is on my camera about 360 days of the year, with the f1.8 50mm getting some use when I can be bothered (not often) and the kit lens barely gets a look in!

[DaveB]

Chris..

You don't really need to at this stage mate. Just be aware that you don't need to go out and buy a brand spanking new 400mm lens if you already have a 300mm lens as this, in real terms, equates to the same thing (slightly larger) when bolted onto the front of your digi camera. The F-Stop saga is no different on digi cameras as it was on your old film camera so nowt new to learn there. Most new digi cameras come with a 'one size fits all - point and shoot' setting so give that a go before you start getting adventurous ;-)

Put it this way.. the way you shoot with a digital SLR is no different to how you'd do it with a film camera. The major difference is that you no longer worry about the cost of film and shoot hundreds of shots instead of 10's of shots

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[ianhind]

The major difference is that you no longer worry about the cost of film and shoot hundreds of shots instead of 10's of shots

Exactly - so don't come away with just a 64Mb memory card and your new camera!

but im straight into diggie..

Ok so ignore all the film comments. What we are talking about is the magnification of a particular lens. In the days of film the focal length of SLR cameras was about 50mm and so a 450mm lens gave 450/50 = 9 x magnification.

But interesting point that "forthbridge" makes about focal lengths mean that the different makes of digital cameras will produce different magnifications.

For Olympus digital SLR the focal length is 25mm, for Canon/Nikon digital SLR around 35mm

Using the same calculation as above, it seems that an Olympus with a 150mm lens gives the same magnification as a Nikon with a 200 mm lens - anyone agree?

If so, a 40-150mm Olympus lens should match a Nikon/Canon lens of 55-200mm or thereabouts for effect.

Sorry to confuse, but you need to compare like with like.


Review of Olympus here:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Olymp ... R-reviewed
and
http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/digital-c ... 410?page=2

[airboatr]

whilst a nice long tele photo is needed for good close-ups
I found that my 17~35 mm was just as... if not more important
I could find ways to get a little closer by walking up to my subject or with software by cropping in
I could never seam to make walls or other solid barriers disappear to back up far enough to get my close-up subjects in the frame
with that 28~100 mm lens that I bought with my D30.

I still have her. only 3.4 mp ( I think 3.5 ??) it was the first digital to match fugi provia 100 up to 8x10
on a Epson 1380 printer, which recently bit the dust

all in all if your out to take pictures of your trips and events you witness
keep it simple as possible
I must reiterate my trips are much more enjoyable shooting with my z812 than lugging all that Canon gear.

BUt.....
if you plan to do some pro work with your picture taking. SLR is the only way to go.
Not a bad way to pay for your hobby gear....... it's what paid for most of mine.

MHO.....

ATB
Joe

[Chris Sykes]

Well the camera offer in PCW had a card with it at an extra £20/30 therefor making the price £379.99 i think... Well ill bear in mind the comments made for Sat and poke and have a go at the cameras on range

[DaveB]

Hi Chris

There really is much to consider when going digital SLR and the more you know beforehand (while seeming impossible to grasp) WILL eventually fall into place and become obvious so don't worry. Take in as much as you can and be prepared ;-)

The 'Lens' thing is all to do with a mixture of old and new formats and isn't ultimately important as the kit you're looking at already comes with 2 lenses which should cover most of your shooting needs. To put it simply.. or as simply as I can.. all 35mm lenses rely on and are calibrated for use with 35mm film. Open the back of your 35mm camera and you'll see the apeture is 35mm (diagonally) so all of the lenses are designed to shoot/show what will fit onto a piece of 35mm negative (plus or minus a little bit). Digital cameras don't generally have a rear apeture.. the bit that's visible when the shutter opens which would (on a film camera) have been occupied by virgin film.. 35mm from top left to bottom right (or vice versa). Canon digitals in particular use/used a ccd/sensor off their APS range of cameras which was capable of wide angle shots at the flick of a switch. What this means is that the apeture exposed to light when the shutter was open was slightly shorter (vertically) and slightly longer (horizontally).

Imagine a letter box 2ft wide by 1ft deep and film of the same size. When you open the shutter.. you'll get a negative 2ft by 1ft. Now.. if you change the film to a smaller format but look through the same size viewfinder, there is no way that by using the same lens, you're going to get all of what you see using 2ft by 1ft film onto a smaller film size. The outsides will be cropped.

This is what is meant by the 'magnification' you see when using standard 35mm lenses ;-)

It's worth noting that 'digital zoom' works in much the same way. If you take a shot say 640x480 with a 2xDigital Zoom.. all it does is crop the outside of your shot to show what you'd see if you took the same shot at 1024x768.. made a new 'blank' shot in your photo editing software at 640x480 then pasted the 1024x768 shot into it. Digital Zoom is, IMHO.. so much poo. The important factor is 'Optical' zoom. No digital jiggery-pokery.. the glass is doing the job ;-)

Grief.. I seem to have 'gone off on one' a bit. Hope I've made some things clear.. more things than I've muddied

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[forthbridge]

HI Chris,

As Dave and others have already said: don't worry too much about crop factors and focal lengths - the lenses supplied with the bundle you are looking at WILL be fine for virtually anything you want to to except ultra-wide landscapes or zooming in to a Pilot's eyeballs ;-)

On the memory side, go for the cheapest card you can get to begin with I assume Compact Flash?

MX2.co.uk offer some astounding deals, and I've dealt with them a few times, no problems.

The reason I say 'cheapest' is that unless you are shooting MAJOR bursts, the slower write/read speeds do not matter - and I would not be giving PC world £30 for a similar card that I could get for less than half that price! Look around - you may manage a local Jessops for a 512meg card to start off before ordering anything online...! Just beware that Compact Flash is very reliable and do not get talked into 'better' (EG more expensive) cards initially. A pro using high end kit shooting lots of images does need a faster and higher capacity card, but the average guy in the street not so much so. Wait until you know how your camera handles writing to the card before you shell out extra. Plus, better to have maybe 1 small and 2 larger cards that way you are not commiting everything to one card! I use (amongst others) the Integral 1Gig CF card that MX2 are doing for a tenner. I can shoot about 7 or 8 large JPEG in burst, or between 3 and 5 RAW shots before the camera's buffer has to wait - and it has never caused me a problem.

(All this means is that the camera stops shooting until the memory buffer is clear -perhaps a second or two depending on conditions).

The more expensive cards allow faster 'writes' so there is less chance of getting a full buffer - particularly shooting JPEGS.

They also allow faster copying off the card, so a pro will prefer them to get work downloaded more quickly.

Just be wary of PC World's deals - spend as little as you can and you will be able to treble or more your memory capacity by ordering online for the same money!

[DaveB]

A fine last statement there Jim and absolutely correct ;-)

Memory prices have tumbled over the last twelve months and I begin to wonder when that trend is going to stop! :o However, the likes of PCW will still sell it at a premium and comparable cards can be had very easily from elsewhere much cheaper even including P+P so don't fall into the 'as I'm here.. I might as well get it' trap ;-)

My first 'fast' CF card was a Sandisk 512mb Ultra II card and set me back around £75 which was the going price for a card of this type at that time. The last Sandisk card I bought earlier this year is a 1gb Extreme III, cost around £25 and even that can be considered expensive now. I've just bought a Panasonic Lumix FX33 as a crimbo pressie for my daughter (from Comet as it happens as I couldn't find it cheaper) and added a basic 2gb SD card which set me back the princely some of £19.99. I could have bought a 'name' brand (Fuji) of the same size for £34.99 but why bother! I'm certain I could get a 2gb Fuji card for a lot less if I really wanted one and she'll not know the difference anyway

ATB

DaveB :tab: