BF2S Forums Who knows about cameras?

DrunkFace wrote:

mcminty, for what I suspect hes going to use it for. A 450D with standard lens would suffice as a starting camera, which would still set him back $700. Buying anything 'better' is just a waste of money for most people.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … _-30120262

Kmarion wrote:

Start with an entry level DSLR camera. It's going to take you awhile just to learn how to shoot properly. This camera gives you a bunch for the price: http://i.gizmodo.com/5182772/canon-rebe … -vids-899- .

It comes out in May. Do not underestimate the coin you are going to spend on accessories. I've long exceeded the cost of my camera body.

Mitch wrote:

Ty wrote:

Keep it on topic.

Why do you need a camera like that? Are you a good photographer? By that I mean are you nearly as good as Minty?

Lastly: Pink Floyd rules.

I dont NEED a camera like that. I just want a cam to take pics while im at work (think of... a lifeguard taking pics for people on the beach then uploading them for them later - but apply it to a skatepark and you have my job)

But things are fast moving, and my current cam cant even touch it. I push the button then like 2 seconds later it clicks.

I garentee you i wont be spending that much on a camera, i was just fishing for prices.

Last edited by DefCon-17 (2009-04-11 08:54:18)

DefCon-17 wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Ty wrote:

Keep it on topic.

Why do you need a camera like that? Are you a good photographer? By that I mean are you nearly as good as Minty?

Lastly: Pink Floyd rules.

I dont NEED a camera like that. I just want a cam to take pics while im at work (think of... a lifeguard taking pics for people on the beach then uploading them for them later - but apply it to a skatepark and you have my job)

But things are fast moving, and my current cam cant even touch it. I push the button then like 2 seconds later it clicks.

I garentee you i wont be spending that much on a camera, i was just fishing for prices.

Look for a second hand D40 then. They'll be around $300-400.
Then, if it doesn't come with a lens, get the f1.8 50mm lens for it. As I said before, that one is around $150.

I use a D80 and that lens, and get shots like these:
http://th01.deviantart.com/fs42/300W/i/ … leEyeZ.jpg

http://th07.deviantart.com/fs42/300W/i/ … leEyeZ.jpg

http://th06.deviantart.com/fs42/300W/i/ … leEyeZ.jpg

..and the D80 isn't that much different from the D40.

Kmarion wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

A new Nikon D40 with 18-55mm lens costs 299€ in Austria.

That should be good enough for you Mitch.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras … l?tag=rnav

With shutter speed of up to 1/4000 of a second you can capture Lance Armstrong without blurring.
In continuous mode you can capture about 2.5 pics per second.

It has Auto mode and complete manual mode, and various half-auto-half-manual modes.

But it doesnt shoot video...

Normally I would say don't get caught up in the megapixel stuff. But 6.1 is significant.

mcminty wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

A new Nikon D40 with 18-55mm lens costs 299€ in Austria.

That should be good enough for you Mitch.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras … l?tag=rnav

With shutter speed of up to 1/4000 of a second you can capture Lance Armstrong without blurring.
In continuous mode you can capture about 2.5 pics per second.

It has Auto mode and complete manual mode, and various half-auto-half-manual modes.

But it doesnt shoot video...

Normally I would say don't get caught up in the megapixel stuff. But 6.1 is significant.

QFT.

What are most entry level ones these days? The Canon EOS 450D is ~12, and its less featured brother 1000D has ~10. Canon's latest announcement of the 500D has it at ~15.

Thats a shit load more pixels to play with.

lavadisk wrote:

You're a fagot (WOWHWOHOH JUST KIDDING ) but my friend canyon says you should get a rebel canon rebel xti

DefCon-17 wrote:

mcminty wrote:

And since I'm in that mood...


Zeidmaan, that D40 most likely wouldn't satisfy his needs..

CNET wrote:

Slow kit lens; occasionally slow to focus

Looking past the fact that the camera would most likely not be able to accurately track a guy skating.. the kit lens is "slow". It has a small maximum aperture, thus it doesn't let in that much light..


If I may:

The max aperture of the lens is f/3.5 at 18mm. Back in the days of film, there was a rule called the "Sunny 16 Rule". On a bright sunny day, if you dialed in an aperture of f/16, and set your shutter speed to 1/focal length, your image should be in the ballpark for correct exposure (granted, your film had to be ISO100 speed).


Applying that here:

Effective focal length when the lens is set to 18mm -> ~30mm.. so the shutter speed for correct exposure at f/16 is 1/30. Converting 1/30s @ f/16 to f/3.5, we get a shutter speed of ~1/500.

While that is enough to stop the action, it falls well short of 1/4000th of a second. Also, if it is overcast or not totally bright outside then it will be 1-2 stops less (so from 1/250th to 1/125th).. which isn't fast enough to stop the action.

..Or you could just buy a new lens.

Like the 1.8 50mm, which I have mentioned 300 times by now.

Kmarion wrote:

DefCon-17 wrote:

I love my 50mm. It turns photography into exercise.

With the sports I take pictures of, you can't hang back with a telephoto and expect to get good shots, so having a fixed lens isn't really a bad thing.

I have a 70-300mm, and I never use that thing, unless it's to take pictures of birds.
I would like a wideangle though..

Are you in our flickr group?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=120261

ghettoperson wrote:

But no one shooting sports photography focuses on the target as it's happening. You focus it before, then use the AF-L to hold it like that, then take the picture as the target moves past you. Fair enough on the other points, but I can't say I've run into any issues with my D40 so far.