Old Mister Crow

bwaynef

Omono
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
2,329
Location
Clemson SC
USDA Zone
8a
To fill the screen/sensor/film/image with your subject you can get in really close and use a wide-angle lens (low #mm). The alternative to that is to get far away and zoom in (high #mm).

Now, consider you're not shooting a flat image (someone's face or a bonsai tree with any depth). Up close, the lens is noticeably closer to part of what you're capturing than some others. A wide-angle portrait tends to make a person's nose look out of proportion ..for instance.

Being further away reduces the difference (proportionally) between whats closest to the lens and whats further away. This reduces that particular kind of distortion (neither barrel nor pincushion distortion).

Also, most digital cameras don't have a full-size sensor. My d50 for instance has a 2/3-sized sensor. That gives a 1.5x zoom effectively on any lens I buy. (2/3 flipped is 3/2 which is 1.5. If it concerns you...theres a lot of math involved and a lot of information available that I'm not interested in getting into right now.)
 

Rick Moquin

Omono
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
20
Location
Dartmouth, NS Canada
USDA Zone
6a
The difference is the flexibility afforded by the SLR. You have complete control. Shutter speed, aperture, and iso (the film or sensor's sensitivity to light) are completely adjustable on an SLR. On my old fuji s3100 I had an semi-manual mode, but I was never able to adjust as finely as I can with my d50. You're also not tied to the lens you purchase. This further increases the flexibility and broadens the choices that you get/have to make.

I've contended that Al was wrong on a lot of his points, one of those points being the one that has you concerned (though I didn't mention it earlier). My old s3100 was able to take a wonderfully undistorted image in the lens' sweetspot. Even the 18-55mm lens mentioned as being sold in the kit for the d50 has a sweetspot/range that doesn't have any noticeable distortion be it pincushion or barrel. Read the distortion part at: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm

A fixed lens like most 110's that I'm familiar (not very familiar) is much less prone to distortion than a zoom. The tradeoff you make with a zoom is this very distortion discussed, as some concessions are made to afford you a range of lengths through which to zoom.

Thanks Wayne that was my beliefs also. Wrt zoom that also makes sense as I discussed with riffle scopes the point of impact varies on "cheap" scopes in comparison with more expensive ones that albeit there is a little deflection POP (point of impact) it is not as severe as on the "cheaper" models.

In closing I'm not kidding myself with my present camera, it is an entry level zoom, which I wanted and Santa could afford. I did spend many hours reading reviews of various cameras before choosing this one. Comparatively speaking I saw very little difference when reading these reviews wrt capabilities between SLR and non SLR besides price. The point you have added wrt to the fine tuning of manual settings is indeed an important one, which I guess is taken for granted when reading SLR reviews in comparison with NSLRs.
 

Graydon

Chumono
Messages
717
Reaction score
11
Once you enter the market for a true DSLR (meaning swappable lenses, a real viewfinder and manual controls - for the sake of clarification) be aware of the lens multiplier factor on most entry level prosumer bodies. Unless you are purchasing a full frame body (like what the pros use) the sensor that captures the image is smaller than full frame (the benchmark for that frame is 35mm wide). I'm no photography expert and I do not know how to explain this much better but here is an example:

I have a Canon 40D. It is not a full frame sensor. It has a focal length conversion factor of 1.6.

Why is this important? When you are considering a lens you need to take this factor in to consideration. It makes it tougher to get a short lens (a 28mm becomes a 44.8mm focal length). Good news is longer lenses are more efficient. A 100mm to 400mm lens becomes a 160mm to 640mm. Macro lenses will not perform as you expect based on this factor too but I doubt that would effect the way we shoot bonsai.

Macro lenses allow you to be closer to your subject and retain focus. To understand this take a non macro lens and focus on your subject. Now move closer and try to focus. Eventually you will be too close and it will simply be a blur. Move back until you get a good focus and note that distance. Macro lenses are designed to produce the best image at the closest macro focus and capture the image at a 1:2 ratio or better. There are lighting issues with macro lenses as you get so close that there is not much available light to illuminate the subject. A good telephoto macro solves that issue allowing you to keep distance between the lens and the subject.

Tripods are a must. It's also worth getting a remote for your camera to trigger the shutter. Using one of them will completely stop camera shake.
 

Rick Moquin

Omono
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
20
Location
Dartmouth, NS Canada
USDA Zone
6a
Gotcha Graydon, that makes a lot of sense and has clarified a few questions. I have printed off the link I posted and will be soaking up what is written so I can understand this new mumbo jumbo. You guys have been extremely helpful, in more ways than one. I did visit a photography forum a few years ago, unfortunately the discussion was way above my head. Thanks for bringing things into perspective.
 

rlist

Shohin
Messages
294
Reaction score
7
Location
Portland, OR
USDA Zone
8a
Everybody, thanks for the information. I have been looking to replace my old Sony S-100 with something that can meet the best of all worlds, meaning it is: affordable, can serve a variety of purposes from point and shoot photos to high quality bonsai portraits, is somewhat small and compact for ease of transport, can take everything from landscape to nice macro shots (scenery, trees, bonsai, pots, accents and all the way down to fishing flies), is idiot proof (i.e. me), and allows for manual manipulation of settings so I can modify and shoot how I need.

In a brief stop at a local electonic megastore a week or so ago, I came across the Sony H7 and thought it might fit the bill. I would appreciate any feedback anyone is willing to offer. Thanks!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/
 

Walter Pall

Masterpiece
Messages
3,618
Reaction score
20,293
Location
south of Munich, Germany
USDA Zone
7b
The Nikon D40 toghether with either the 18-55 kit lens, or much better with the 18-70 lens is the best affordable DSLR for the average habbyist, I think. I use it all the time. It makes jpg-images out of camera which are extremely good. Most pictures don't need photoshopping. But the camera can be also used professionally. It only costs around US$ 500 including lens or much less used.

All these are made with D40:
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0860ofv.jpg
    DSC_0860ofv.jpg
    67.5 KB · Views: 13
  • 2007-12-DSC_1378ofv.jpg
    2007-12-DSC_1378ofv.jpg
    64.8 KB · Views: 8
  • DSC_1420ofv.jpg
    DSC_1420ofv.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_1398ofv.jpg
    DSC_1398ofv.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0830ofv.jpg
    DSC_0830ofv.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 14

Rick Moquin

Omono
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
20
Location
Dartmouth, NS Canada
USDA Zone
6a
Everybody, thanks for the information. I have been looking to replace my old Sony S-100 with something that can meet the best of all worlds, meaning it is: affordable, can serve a variety of purposes from point and shoot photos to high quality bonsai portraits, is somewhat small and compact for ease of transport, can take everything from landscape to nice macro shots (scenery, trees, bonsai, pots, accents and all the way down to fishing flies), is idiot proof (i.e. me), and allows for manual manipulation of settings so I can modify and shoot how I need.

In a brief stop at a local electonic megastore a week or so ago, I came across the Sony H7 and thought it might fit the bill. I would appreciate any feedback anyone is willing to offer. Thanks!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/

Seems reasonable Rich, my only comment as previously mentioned, I don't like proprietary batteries, nor am I to fussy on rechargeables. Other than that looks good!
 
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
15
Location
Ottawa, KS
USDA Zone
6
Thanks everyone for this excellent discussion! I am still just a child when it comes to photography, but I did manage to invest in a pretty good DSLR this year. Now I just need to get lighting and backdrop materials in place that will let me do what I want.
 

grouper52

Masterpiece
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
3,718
Location
Port Orchard, WA
USDA Zone
8
Rich,

I really know nothing about photography, and am not in Walter's league, but many folks have remarked about my tree photographs on the forums. I have been real happy with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel body, and just a Canon 28-135mm utility lense, for bonsai and lots of other photographic needs as well. A tripod and a piece of black velvet cloth and ambient outdoor light is all I use, and Mr. Crow taught me most of what I know. I tweak a little in iPhoto (Mac) and then use Photoshop Elements just to crop and prepare for posting formating. Works for me. Most of what I post takes about 10 minutes to set up, shoot, download, tweak and upload to a forum. I have no idea what an f-stop is. :D I admire those who do, but I think pretty decent photos are now possible for those of us too challenged to ever figure all that stuff out. Good luck with your shopping expedition!

Will
 

Graydon

Chumono
Messages
717
Reaction score
11
Seems reasonable Rich, my only comment as previously mentioned, I don't like proprietary batteries, nor am I to fussy on rechargeables. Other than that looks good!

I may understand your distaste for battery packs but IMHO the packs that come with the cameras we are discussing are more than adequate for days of shooting without flash. My camera even has an accurate meter showing me battery charge. The included charger tops them off in less than an hour and is smaller than a deck of cards. A spare pack is less than $20. My last Canon's batteries lasted several years. In fact I replaced the body before the batteries stopped holding a charge and I still use them in my new body. With a flash they last not as long but that is to be expected.

Let's face it - everything has proprietary batteries. All of my cordless drills and tools have them, my camera as I mentioned as well as my video camera, my cell phone, my laptop, my... I think you get the point. Once you understand the proper way to maintain lithium ion batteries you will find they offer more service for less cost in the long run.

Don't let that battery pack steer you clear of a better camera.
 

Graydon

Chumono
Messages
717
Reaction score
11
I would like to bring up a tip for those of you who have cameras capable of shooting in RAW or RAW + JPEG and software capable of editing RAW images - Pull out your manual and learn how to shoot RAW. RAW is like a JPEG but is "raw" with little or no manipulation applied in the camera. It will need to be edited and converted to a TIFF or JPEG in the software of your choice on your computer but the little extra effort is worth your time. Especially if you are shooting 12 photos of your tree not 175 photos at a wedding or family cook out.

Why RAW? Ability to correct mistakes post shooting that would not be correctable if that shot was in the forum of a JPEG. When you shoot an image that image is captured on the image sensor in your camera. Here are the two paths of that image:

JPEG = capture > signal processing (interpolation) > add white balance, contrast, sharpness and saturation > compression > JPEG output

RAW = capture > raw file

The RAW data is then modified (original untouched in some cases allowing you to save the current view) by adding things like white balance or white and black points, color correction and saturation, exposure compensation and more. Want your greens greener and more like what you see but not disrupt the other colors in the photo? Want stark whites and good color? Don't want to learn what f-stops and aperture priority mean? Have no idea how to white balance? Try RAW if you can. It may be easier to learn.

The downside is that RAW images are much larger than JPEG and depending on your camera that can take longer to store to the memory card. Are we shooting sports or racing? No - we are shooting trees that (if all went well) are pretty much stationary. Some cameras allow you to save the shot as RAW and JPEG but that does take even more room on your card. It is nice however so you can look at the jpeg later and if it needs some adjusting - if so you have the RAW to process away.

Give it a shot (pun intended) and see if it is worth your time. I think you will be surprised.
 

Smoke

Ignore-Amus
Messages
11,668
Reaction score
20,724
Location
Fresno, CA
USDA Zone
9
Most of Al's posts were completely inaccurate. Distortion is not a product of light as some of Al's posts suggest, rather its caused by improper engineering of the lens. Also, what is seen in the viewfinder of a(n?) SLR is categorically not 100% of what the photo will be. 95-98% is the norm here. Also, every non-slr digicam I've used has had white balance control as well as at least rudimentary ISO controls. Kodak, fuji (s3100), and HP (I think).

Rick's suggesting the the D50 has a lot of barrel distortion is just as errant. The particular lens that is used /MAY/ have some barrel distortion but the camera is just a means of recording what the lens reflects to the sensor/film.



Hi all......speaking of distortion, there are many distortions to my words here.


Wayne said: "Distortion is not a product of light as some of Al's posts suggest, rather its caused by improper engineering of the lens."

I never said it was. What I said was: "No matter how well you frame the picture you will always have mega distortion because of the fisheye lens included in most non SLR digitals.

Which is a product of the lens. What I said about the light was that in order to compensate for the poorly designed lens I needed to back up in order to minimize the distortion, but due to the small size of the lens and it's inferior light gathering properties I was forced to shoot much closer to the subject that I would have preferred.

That should take care of that distortion.

Now about looking thru a lens rather than a viewfinder, Wayne has mysteriously come up with the notion that I said that 100 % of what I see gets reproduced on the image.

What I said: "Since it is a SLR the line of site is through the lens. What you see is what the camera prints. On the Fuji what I saw is not what was represented in the final print. You look though a viewfinder and not through the lens."

I never gave any percentages of imagery. What I see is what I get. I made no comparison, that is for camera geeks to argue about. But then you end with: "95-98% is the norm here" Come on your going to make a big thing out of 2-5 percent.

I am no camera geek and have never purported to be. When I purchased my first digital camera I figured that if it looked like an SLR camera it must photograph like one. This was wishfull thinking on my part. Since I had never owned a digital SLR I was not able to make a comparison. I thought I was taking pretty good photo's, and for the most I did. I took hundreds of exhibits and my own trees and posted them mostly at BT but some other forums as well. I can't tell you how many time Carl Bergstrom commented on my photo's. "Hey Al that looks good, now if you could just get rid of the bowed effect from your camera.." He was right. It was 4 long years before I was able to spend that much for a nicer camera. I shopped around and was able to actually try out some display models over the weekend from the camera store I trade at. When I was ready to purchase I did so fast to get the Nikon D-50 before it was gone from the shelves. The D-40 was out but I liked the D-50 better, liked the larger size of the body and also the material it is made of. I also preferred the D-50 lens over the D-40.

My contention in that reply was to let Rick know that most of what Carl is talking about in his tutorial will not help him as much as it will for a person with an SLR. I had a point and shoot when he wrote it, it it did nothing for me since what he was talking about was not available on my camera. While some of the features that he talks about might be available to Rick in a small part there is a trade off in performance in his camera. I had the Fuji S2800 which was the four year old earlier model of his S5700.

Carl used to have a signature that said something like, "why argue for mediocrity". I agree. Why are we argueing for mediocrity. We all know DSLR cameras are far superior to point and shoots, so why all the fuss.


I would rather you guys commenteted about my photos rather than nitpicking over the inadaquacy of my verbage. I posted photo's, like I always do. I let my photo's always do my talking. Like I said I eagerly await photo's from other people to look at. Trust me if they are good I will tell you so.

BTW, here's the Distortion facts from Ken Rockwell from yor link. Zero at 55mm which I contended.

Distortion (at infinity)

The distortion is pretty good! it has some barrel distortion at 18mm which goes away at 55mm. If you have PhotoShop CS2 it's trivial to correct completely.

It has less barrel distortion than the 18 - 70 mm lens at the 18mm setting. Even the $1,500 17 - 55 mm lens has almost the same distortion at 17mm. At 55 mm this cheap 18 - 55 has no distortion while the ten-times as expensive 17 - 55 has visible pincushion distortion!
18 mm: Barrel. CS2's lens distortion correction fixes it perfectly at a setting of +4.50. If you don't have PhotoShop CS2 and look for distortion you will see it at 18 mm. For about the price of CS2 you can get the 12 - 24 mm which has no distortion at 18 mm.

24 mm: very little barrel. CS2's lens distortion correction fixes it perfectly at a setting of +1.50.

35 mm: Negligible barrel. CS2's lens distortion correction fixes it at a setting of +1.00. This is the same distortion as the Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4.

45 mm: none. Maybe set CS2's lens distortion correction to 0.1, except that that tool can't be set that close to zero.

55 mm: none. Zero.



FWIW...Take a look at Art of Bonsai and the North America vs. Europe contest. The photo's I previously posted here are there from the contest, as they were shot with the camera and not compressed as here. Use your cursor on the photo to enlarge them and take a look at my photo's versus some of the more well known bonsai photographers that are known for taking photo's. You will see that my photo's actually get better when enlarged. I wish I could say the same for some of those other guys.

Dissapointed as usual, Al


OH...and Thanks Graydon RAW RULES!
 
Last edited:

agraham

Shohin
Messages
276
Reaction score
51
Location
South Texas
USDA Zone
9
Al,

Your trees and the photos of them were excellent.I use a Nikon D70,DSLR.Nice camera although it is a bit old.Before that I used a Nikon point and shoot.NOT a DSLR.But it did have a zoom lens.With good light,I could be far enough back to hit the lens' "sweet spot" and have no distortion.

DSLR's are definitely more versatile,but distortion is not inherent to quality point and shoot style cameras.

Edited to add and clarify....these pictures were taken with a point and shoot(non slr) camera.
 

Attachments

  • 1627dscn4562copy.jpg
    1627dscn4562copy.jpg
    38.9 KB · Views: 18
  • DSCN18086x9bandw copy.jpg
    DSCN18086x9bandw copy.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:

bonsai barry

Omono
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
58
Location
Cental Coast of California
USDA Zone
9
The Nikon D40 toghether with either the 18-55 kit lens, or much better with the 18-70 lens is the best affordable DSLR for the average habbyist, I think. I use it all the time. It makes jpg-images out of camera which are extremely good. Most pictures don't need photoshopping. But the camera can be also used professionally. It only costs around US$ 500 including lens or much less used.

:

I'll second Walter's opinion. I teach photography in an the eighth grade yearbook class. This camera is simple enough that I'm able to send students on assignment that have never shot a picture with anything other than a cell phone. They come back with results that they are excited about. On the other hand, even though it is simple it has many professional features if you're willing to take a few hours to learn about them. After buying one of the Nikon D-40 models for school, I bought one for myself within the week.

PS It also shoots in the RAW format, too.
 

bwaynef

Omono
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
2,329
Location
Clemson SC
USDA Zone
8a
Al, after reading your reply, and re-reading what you wrote, I can see what you're saying. My apologies for misunderstanding you ...but a comma here or there wouldn't hurt.

I still think point-n-shooters can take advantage of Carl's article but we're getting back to nitpickery.

As to the d40, I'm a bit leary as you can't use old lenses. This body requires a "DX" lens whereas the d50,d70(s), and d80 all take advantage of Nikon's extensive line of lenses (some of which can be had cheap in a used condition).
 
Last edited:

Rick Moquin

Omono
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
20
Location
Dartmouth, NS Canada
USDA Zone
6a
OK let's see if we can bring this thread back on track.

My beliefs in the delta between SLR and SLR have previously been discussed as folks explained to me.

My latest camera was acquired for many reasons to include a series of full manual settings. In doing so I knew it was not an SLR and from what limited info I had gathered saw very little difference in comparison with NSLR, when viewing the specs. That was then this is now.

What I have come to find out in the last few days, assisted by what can be termed a heated discussion, is that outside of the capability of using previously acquired lenses (read good) to suit a particular situation, the main component of the DSLRs that renders them many steps above the NSLRs is sensor size (something I did not know about until yesterday) and their ability to go into full manual not unlike a 35mm, and not the lense itself as was allured to, intentional or not.

Because of the gambit of features on my present camera: shutter speed, white, aperture, ISO adjustments etc... Now I fully understand the delta between the two. SLRs do indeed have a wider range for settings and a finer adjustment vice coarse adjutment of said settings as found on NSLRS. I was looking for information on what folks use for settings. I had remembered that Carl had mention some settings when taking photos, but do not remeber where. I thought it was in his article, which contains good info but is not what I was looking for. Walter had previously mentioned how he took pictures and what he used, I did find a portion over at IBC after many searches as it was burried in a thread vice a thread on photography.

As I stated in my first post I was inquisitive not argumentative. I did not want to turn this thread into a debate. I do not like to quote in posts but will do so for the sake of clarity vice anything else. It seems Al you summarized the discussion in one post and left out some important aspects of "our" discussion, this was further amplified in one of my responses, where I stated more or less that you have not had the opportunity to clarify your statements (or something along those lines) and would surely chime in and enlighten us.

No matter how well you frame the picture you will always have mega distortion because of the fisheye lens included in most non SLR digitals.

Now we know this particular statement to be untrue as even with expensive lenses on SLRs there will always be a certain amount of distortion present. Every camera has a sweet spot where this phenomena doesn't occur. On DSLRs as you have stated, because of manual adjustments this fault can be compensated and corrected with exposure, shuter speed and to some degree ISO adjustments. My 110 which was a point and shoot, auto flash never took a "fisheye" shot as far as I can remember. When picking up my photos I was often commented on their quality from the attendant.

My question was in my reply, and perhaps it was not clear. We can all see the distortion apparent with the use of the Fuji 2800 in comparison with the D50. What was not clear in your post was: was the distortion caused by the inability to shoot in full manual with the Fuji vice directly related to the lense? The reason I raised the point was that upon review of the D50 it mentioned the D50 did contain a fair amount of barrel distortion, which after the fact I have come to understand can be compensated for with manual adjustments. From what I have read to date it seems that "fisheye" can be pretty much eliminated by altering settings, and that regardless of the camera a certain amount will exist and be demonstrated unless we can correct for it and based on that data, then yes a DSLR will win hands down over an NSLR because of the flexibility, vice it being solely because of the lense.

What did surprise me is the last set of pics which all were taken with a black background, which I have come to find out is a product of light and exposure. Would you care to elaborate on how you achieved this? as the last picture represents a sort of umber background.

On SLR's the white balance is adjustable in many formats while color temperature is changeable. ISO speeds can be changed as well as many different shooting options outside of AUTO. Most non SLR digitals must be used in auto mode to focus the camera. On an SLR the camera can be put in manual, focused and the ISO changed to take a longer exposure picture to capture image possibilities just not capable on a non SLR camera.

Would you care to elaborate? As previously mentioned I can do all that. The range is not there and will openly admit it, nor is the fine settings achievable, but changeable nonetheless. Your statement seems to imply that only SLRs can achieve this mode of photography. I know in your statement you used "most" but in light of your opening line, it leads to mis-interpretation of your intentions.

My contention in that reply was to let Rick know that most of what Carl is talking about in his tutorial will not help him as much as it will for a person with an SLR. I had a point and shoot when he wrote it, it it did nothing for me since what he was talking about was not available on my camera.

Am I to understand that manual was not available on this particular camera? If so, then yes your argument makes sense, but once again should not be construed as strictly a function of the lens.

While some of the features that he talks about might be available to Rick in a small part there is a trade off in performance in his camera.

Yes indeed this is what I was referring to when I posted my original reply and since amplified in this one. I do not kid myself wrt the camera's capability. I do not own world class trees and probably never will. What I do want to do is render reasonable photographs of my trees, where depth albeit a 2D representation, is apparent compared to my previous camera. Since I have come to understand the importance of lighting, exposure, DOF etc... My old camera did not have the capability to capture depth on a steady basis, hopefully I will be able to resolve some of these issues with this one.

Carl used to have a signature that said something like, "why argue for mediocrity". I agree. Why are we arguing for mediocrity. We all know DSLR cameras are far superior to point and shoots, so why all the fuss.

No argument there!

Having said that not everyone has the luxury of owning a DSLR nor have reason to own one. At times the way you come across in your posts is that: "unless you have spent enormous sums of money, all you have is junk" I will concede that perhaps you do not intend to come across that way, but unfortunately you do, and the latter is not just related to camera issues.

Dis-appointed as usual, Al

... and so am I. I thought I had put forth some legitimate questions, ones that would generate a discussion where information would be shared and where we can all learn from it.

I would rather you guys commented about my photos rather than nitpicking over the inadequacy of my verbiage. I posted photo's, like I always do. I let my photo's always do my talking. Like I said I eagerly await photo's from other people to look at. Trust me if they are good I will tell you so.

Pat on the back! Bravo!! Yes I am being facetious Al, I am also dis-appointed because I posted a serious question to which I woke up to this morning to your verbiage. In my discussion I was merely trying to clarify points raised to better understand the mysteries of photography, not exchange in mud slinging.
 

Rick Moquin

Omono
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
20
Location
Dartmouth, NS Canada
USDA Zone
6a
I would like to thank all who have chimed in on this thread, it was enlightening to say the least. I have learned a great deal through this discussion. I look forward in continuing this discussion. Albeit non-bonsai based, I believe this is an important facet with what we do and can all benefit from it.

Graydon,

Thanks for the tidbit on Raw format, it is much clearer than my previous understanding of taking RAW pics, downloading to a CD and taken to a professional photographer for further rendition. If one has the ability to use packaged software, then yes it is the way to go when dealing with few pictures, but time consuming when dealing with large amounts. I also presume that taking these photos to a photographer for rendition would be an expensive proposition.
 
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
15
Location
Ottawa, KS
USDA Zone
6
I have been very happy with my Olympus Evolt E-500. Came with two lenses, 14-45mm f3.5/5.6 Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens and 40-150mm f3.5/4.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens, plus case, tripod and memory card.

It will take photos in Raw format as well as TIFF, and has all the manual settings, although there is such a wide variety of automatic settings that I haven't worried about learning to do it all manually yet.
 

Rick Moquin

Omono
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
20
Location
Dartmouth, NS Canada
USDA Zone
6a
I still think point-n-shooters can take advantage of Carl's article...

Yes indeed it is helpful to a certain degree. The link I provided earlier is a good place to learn the basics and has taught me quite a bit, along with this discussion in the last couple of days.

If and when I ever do purchase a DSLR, I definitely know what to look for when shopping for one. This was possible because this discussion was carried out in simple terms vice a photography forum where a lot is presumed (stuff you should know) that completely is over your head.

... Even on sites that discuss digital photography, it is often presumed that you have a grasp of certain things. Therefore, you leave overwhelmed and only have soaked in a portion of what was discussed and IMO further confused than before reading. As far as the retail business around here, many don't have a pea picking clue what they are talking about or will try to sell you bells and whistles vice functionality and quality.

To further explain my last statement, I am a consumer who likes to know what it doesn't do vice what it does. I hope that made sense. e.g warranties (not strictly camera related) but an example would be on vehicles that come with an "all dressed" warranty from bumper to bumper (purchased), but many did not cover the computer chip. The latter has been alleviated in many warranties but was prevalent at one time. That chip was expensive in the earlier days of EFI, not so much now. That is probably why it is contained in the warranty these days.
 
Top Bottom