Did You See Anything Good Today? [Read First Post]

  • Thread starter Thread starter GilesGuthrie
  • 47,197 comments
  • 3,413,829 views
Buy a decent body, just the body, that's right, forget the kit lens. Then spend about $100 on a 50mm 1.8/f from either manufacturer depending on your camera's brand (this lens could be a second hand if you can find a nice example). You'll have saved a bunch of money (from not getting the kit lens) and you now have the best learning photography kit that will last for years and years.

Put a tripod on your wishlist.

Edit: been playing around with a Canon 600D recently at work, really pleased with the improvements in these new entry level bodies.
 
Dac_Xint
Buy a decent body, just the body, that's right, forget the kit lens. Then spend about $100 on a 50mm 1.8/f from either manufacturer depending on your camera's brand (this lens could be a second hand if you can find a nice example).
Click to expand...

Isn't 50mm a weird size for a 'normal' (not full frame) body? With the crop you'll get 75mm.. I think the reason you recommend the 50mm is becaus it's how we see through our eyes (?), but I would get a 17-50mm f2.8, with this lens you don't have to worry about the crop and still fantastic lens!
 
I understand what you guys are saying, but I personally don't see anything wrong with having a super-cheap 18-55mm kit lens at the beginning for playing around with wide angles and a fast 50mm 1.8 for moving subjects and low-light work. They have a combined price of about GBP150.00 and you get to work out what kind of area of photography you enjoy most. Heck, you can even add a cheap as chips 55-200 telephoto to that for another GBP150. IMO being more restricted by what you can do with the slower lenses really encourages to think about your shots and composition more, which can only be a good thing for your development. When you've found your niche you can invest more money in better glass that is more suited to your particular interest.

I'll echo Paul's advice about getting a tripod. They're a must have. Try and one with a ball-head as they are much easier and less frustrating to operate. I saw a decent one for HKD1000 a couple of days ago (about GBP80).
 
Just chiming in here - haven't shot cars in a while, but all I have is a 50mm f/1.8.

The 70-200 is probably the most used lens for professional car photographers, FWIW.
 
exigeracer
Just chiming in here - haven't shot cars in a while, but all I have is a 50mm f/1.8.

The 70-200 is probably the most used lens for professional car photographers, FWIW.
Click to expand...

And I would venture a 24-70mm as well...?
 
At uni this afternoon, either a Mercedes 190E Evolution 1 or a normal 2.5-16 modified to look like an Evolution.
Photo16151.jpg

Photo16171.jpg
 
Well, not that I can really see it in that photo, but cheap lenses tend to deform around the edges when wider angle. And also, shutter speed is the main thing that adds cost. In that shot, shooting something stationary in good light, a cheap lens doesn't make much difference. Search for 50 f1.8, then 50 f1.4, then 50 f1.2, and you'll see the prices go from $150 to $1500.
 
Jai
I wonder, how do you tell the difference between this (Taken on a £30 Camera) and something costing over £1000?

-snip-
Click to expand...

Well, this issue is debatable. If you give a pro photographer a £30 camera, it's almost guaranteed that the final image taken (of anything) will be better than an image taken by a ... shall we say a n00b with a Canon 1DS Mark III.

That's due to the experience the pro has, and the composition, and the techniques he knows blah blah blah blah...

On the technical side, however, there are many differences, albeit maybe a little difficult to discern. There is a lot more 'flexibility' with a reflex camera. Even though you can buy cameras to the likes of the Canon Powershot G12, which has quite a few similar features to entry level DSLRs, that would be a different price bracket to a £30 camera.

If we do take a £30 camera, you'll find that pretty much the only functionality it has is changing modes (you'll be lucky if it comes with more than 2 :P), and taking pictures. Nope, sadly no transformers option here.

So, with a camera as discussed, a pro/amateur will only have the most basic functionalities, limiting his/her creativity, therefore making a picture look dull and 'normal.' Furthermore, for the camera to actually be profitable to the company who makes it, the parts will have to be relatively cheap, correlating with them being relatively low quality and cheaply made. This means that the sensor used will be most likely 'old', and , well, bad. The camera will most likely automatically choose the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture for you, and, as all things electronic goes, it might not be fully accurate (especially since the metering system will be useless, and the AF system will be 🤬).

Now, with a DSLR (especially £1000 ones - body only - ), come with state of the art technology. Someone who really knows their equipment will be able to fully take advantage of all said camera, and compose some brilliant pictures. The quality will be extremely crisp (OK, lots of variables here, but whatever), and you'll be able to crop the photo to an amazingly detailed shot and still retain most of the quality (this is more due to MP size though). With one of these you'll be able to achieve professional shots you see in advertising everywhere, something you won't be able to get with a cheap point-and shoot.

So, basically, with a cheapo camera, you'll get basic shots, ok quality (although you can get superb composition), and with a pro camera, you'll have a LOT more flexibility, which has its advantages :P.



-- Sorry for the long post, just trying to help (: . Oh, I'm not an expert on this by any means, so process the information at your own risk.
 
Jai
I wonder, how do you tell the difference between this (Taken on a £30 Camera) and something costing over £1000?
Click to expand...

You ask the wrong question. What do you want with a camera? What kind of photos are you going to make? What kind of result do you want?

It's like cars. If you're not interested in driving a car, and just want to get from A to B with a car, you don't buy a supercar.

Try this with a el cheapo camera:

Erasmusbrug by Carlos van Wijk, on Flickr

Guml8all
On the technical side, however, there are many differences, albeit maybe a little difficult to discern. There is a lot more 'flexibility' with a reflex camera. Even though you can buy cameras to the likes of the Canon Powershot G12, which has quite a few similar features to entry level DSLRs, that would be a different price bracket to a £30 camera.
Click to expand...

Flexibility is everything with these types of camera's. I've had some el cheapo digital camera's, felt like it was taking ages to take a photo. I used the thing where it was made for: you see something you like, you want a picture of it, take your camera out your pocket and do it.... But in most times the subject was on 4 wheels and the camera was too slow, so I didn't had a picture of it. :ouch:

And don't forget about all the types of lenses and filters you can use.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the info guys. A Canon 7D may actually be too advanced for me. I have also been comparing shots from a £400 DSLR to the 7D, and there isn't much difference to be found. I understand that the lens is the important part, would the final quality be the same if you took a picture with a good lens on a £400 body and then take another with that same good lens on the 7D? (At the same, standard position)

What I am basically looking for, is something to last me up until I get myself a job, which should be 3 years. Ideally, I'd like to spend as little as possible. But a good camera clearly doesn't come cheap. I have seen some poor work done on the more expensive camera's while browsing Flickr.. And some fantastic images produced by cheaper camera's with really good lenses.. I am heading to Monaco, and apparently now Paris this year. And need to make a decision on the best option. I imagine it is only right to set up a tri-pod at private shoots? As, I don't think doing it on the street is the most civil option.. What would you guys choose on a budget of £1500? I have asked this question on another forum, soaking in opinions and benefiting from them..
 
Jai
Thanks for all the info guys. A Canon 7D may actually be too advanced for me. I have also been comparing shots from a £400 DSLR to the 7D, and there isn't much difference to be found. I understand that the lens is the important part, would the final quality be the same if you took a picture with a good lens on a £400 body and then take another with that same good lens on the 7D? (At the same, standard position)

What I am basically looking for, is something to last me up until I get myself a job, which should be 3 years. Ideally, I'd like to spend as little as possible. But a good camera clearly doesn't come cheap. I have seen some poor work done on the more expensive camera's while browsing Flickr.. And some fantastic images produced by cheaper camera's with really good lenses.. I am heading to Monaco, and apparently now Paris this year. And need to make a decision on the best option. I imagine it is only right to set up a tri-pod at private shoots? As, I don't think doing it on the street is the most civil option.. What would you guys choose on a budget of £1500? I have asked this question on another forum, soaking in opinions and benefiting from them..
Click to expand...

Have you thought about saving your money for now and just buying a Canon S100 which is a great little point and shoot camera with loads of manual settings which are brilliant for getting familiar with some of the main areas of DSLR photography such as aperture, exposure and shutter speed. It also has the ability to shoot in RAW, which in my opinion is one of the most important factors in digital photography as there are so many variables you can edit in post-pro if you want to. It has a much bigger sensor than many other P&S cameras and can be used to good effect in low light thanks to its impressive maximum aperture of F/2.0. Here are some examples of shots taken with the S100.... Having a camera like the S100 means it's also discrete and easily pocketable, which is a massive bonus as sometimes you might not feel like carrying a big DSLR around and that's when you miss your shots. To get a good photo, the first thing is that you have to have a camera with you! Also, the S100 takes 1080p video... bonus!

It is worth noting that in a couple of years time you'll be able to get some of the desirable full-frame DSLRs (Nikon D700, Canon 5D Mk2) for a lot less money than they are now and by that time, after honing your skills on something like a S100, you'll be ready to jump into DSLR photography with more confidence knowing exactly what you want out of your equipment.

Just a thought! :)
 
Last edited:
I started off with a Canon Powershot A630. I used it for years before I moved up to DSLR. It worked out fine for me, but I had problems with the focus of it in quick spots. I'm sure they're better now and focus is quicker in the newer models.

From a few weeks ago.

Explorer Police cars

IMG_0189.jpg


Nice MK1

IMG_0191.jpg


New Lincoln

IMG_0192.jpg


New Taurus

IMG_0193.jpg


And new Escape

IMG_0194.jpg
 
Was followed by a yellow camerro SS (I think!) AKA bumblebee from transformers! :sly: second time I've seen it in the last week but still haven't been able to get a picture for you guys! Oh and the last 3 letters of the number plate... B-E-E!
 
ND4SPD
Nismo, your new Taurus is actually the new Fusion.
Click to expand...

I thought it was 2013 Taurus. The only difference I see now is the tail lights. I'm getting a little tired of manufacturers making all their cars look almost the same.

2013-Taurus.jpg
 

Latest Posts

Back