Hey guys. theres been a thought in my mind lately as to what kind of camera i would need to take photos of high quality that people can use as stocks etc...and for me to enter photography competitions My dad atm has a really crappy camera. well the digital one he has is crap( fujifilm F420 ) not sure on the megapixles, as it doesnt say on the camera. it takes photos but i dont think it gives enough detail lol if you all get me and my GF has a 3.2 megapixel digital camera. Sony brand if im right. lol but what kind of cameras are actually worth getting to take decent photos of scenery / landscape shots that will still look good and not blur when take like the camera dad has would be greatful if any1 could assist me thanks guys -SiateK
DSLR- Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras are the best but are also extremely expensive. Really for good stock quality its the only way to go though. My mom has a pretty nice camera but it can't really get the effects DSLRs can like depth of field(natural blurring). Also if you plan on doing studio pictures you'd need good lighting, this can be made out of random stuff and a light bulb I'm sure though. And of course you probably need a good understanding of how to pick your shots, which is where the camera being digital really comes in handy. I could be wrong about all of this, I'm no photographer. This is just little things I've picked up here and there. Also I wouldn't do much editing(if any) to your photos in photoshop since they are going to be stocks. That way the people that use your stocks and do more of their own stuff.
yeah i was planning to keep them original....so i could also use them for photomanip's and Realism tags....if the right stuff is found. but i also want to use it for general photography....like when i go out....beach /friends/ parties and im not all that rich to afford the best camera in the world..was looking maybe a xmas present as that is close but i have no clue TBH thanks though.
Basic editing is fine, especially if you shoot RAW. You want to make sure that the contrast and exposure all looks right, and it's best of you do a little sharpening first. Do the stuff that photographers need to know and no more. Basic workflow: sharpen, curves, color correction. Mess around in Camera RAW until the image looks natural. Nothing else should really be done... You will need a dSLR for stock photography. Other cameras can give pr0fessional looks, but it's more luck than skill with those. A dSLR allows you to control every single factor in your picture (exposure, depth of field, capture of motion, surreal look, etc.), and a good photographer knows how to utilize that and create exactly what they want. You basically have two options: the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, or the Nikon D40(x). Those two models are entry level dSLR's and will cost about $500. The XTi has 10mp and the D40 has 6mp. The D40x has 12mp but also costs over $600. Both cameras are good, I use the D40, although I'm going to buy the D300 when I start making some money. From personal experience, I can tell you that the D40 and XTi are about equal in the field. I prefer the interface on the D40, but I think the XTi does a little better with noise (not very noticeable... it sacrifices some detail for less noise, while Nikon generally allows more noise for more detail). The memory cards are different: XTi uses compact flash, which is more expensive (and soon to be out of date, since Canon is switching to SD), while the D40 uses SD cards, which are cheaper and can hold more. In the Canon vs Nikon battle, I still don't know who is better. Nikon has better VR technology, but Canon lenses seem to be as good or better than Nikon if you buy the right ones. So... it's really just personal preference on which way you lean towards. I use Nikon because my dad had a 40 year old Nikkor lens, so that saved me about $500. Ambiguity, the main advantage of digital is that it's cheaper . That's why most people make the switch. And you can delete photos when you want. There's still plenty of photographers who prefer film, but that's because film has an extremely appealing look to it when printed and allows for more leeway with exposures (a badly exposed digital shot is garbage, whereas a badly exposed film shot can still be saved)
Wow saint. thanks a tonne. was going to ask for prices when i started reading. but that was filled in too lol. that helps me alot. ill see what happens. fill ya in if i do get something started. any1 else have anything to add ? -SiateK
I'm about to purchase a Nikon D40. Buy it the day after Thanksgiving, since there will be sales, if you can. I'm getting the body only and I'm going to buy an off brand lens, because I just don't want to pay nikon's nikkor prices.
If you're buying a different brand lens, don't get anything other than Sigma unless you read extremely good reviews that say they work for the Nikon Dx line. The rest might not work properly (no AF, no meter, no aperture control), could potentially damage your body, not fit, or will just be crappy quality. I don't even truly trust Sigma, but they don't seem to be bad. I just have this thing about mixing brands. -From Sigma website. Nikkor is expensive because they're higher quality. Especially their older lenses. The newer ones have better image stabilization than any other brand I've used. Generally, Nikon sacrifices on AF for cheaper lenses. My telephoto and kit lenses tend to seek more than find, but the quality isn't half bad, and I operate completely manual anyway. I'd rather lose AF than anything else. @Siatek: I'm thinking of writing an in-depth tutorial on the basic functions of an SLR (digital in particular). If I ever get it done (I'm more nit picky about grammar than anything) I'll send you a message, if you're interested . It would be exclusive to whatever sites I'm on. I know there's plenty out there, but I think GR needs its own . I just haven't decided how I want to format it... If you buy it on Black Friday *shudder*, make sure to put it on hold the day before if you can. They probably won't have too many in stock, and businesses don't like to hold things more than a day. Ask an employee how long they'll hold it for. Also, the verdict is in: Nikon beats Canon at image quality with a high ISO (Nikon D300: ISO 1600, Canon 40D: ISO 800 for good quality). That seemed to be the only real difference in Consumer Reports.
I just recently bought a Nikon D90 and I love it. Though the kit lens is less than satisfactory (noise in blurring is a problem) half the time, the body is just a dream. With the limited budget I have right now I should have gone for the D40x with a better lens. I will be able to buy a nice lens soon, but that will have to wait till after Christmas. I would personally go with what Saint is saying. The D40x with a kit lens or a better one if you can afford it. It does require a lot of trial and error and testing to get good though. I found this site very helpful in learning the basics of DSLR photography. Even though it is a Canon site, it applies to Nikon cameras as well, though some terminology may be different: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/
thank you all very much. and i dont know if im buying it online or not cos A) im not in america, and thats where most online buying/selling sites are from and i dont feel like shipping ill see what one of our major electronic stores have in store. but yes that tutorial sounds sweet. would love to read it thanks again so much to all of you. didnt expect the feedback to be so.....whats the word....in depth <3 u all -SiateK
I only hang around to talk about cameras, lol. I'm studying digital photography right now and learned most of this over the last few months . Hopefully I'll be able to wedge myself in this oh so competitive industry when I get my degree. It's good to buy them locally . It's becoming a good deed to support local camera shops, lol. Everyone shops on amazon now so shops are going out of business... I'm sure that Portland wouldn't have any if we didn't have a large base of photographers. I would have bought my latest thing locally, but no one sold the heavy duty model . Anyways, if worst comes to worst, these guys are apparently pretty highly rated. Reviews for the store. I'll try and write the tutorial. It'll take a while, I like to proof read things too much and work entirely too hard on what I set my mind to. And I have a portion of my final project due on Thursday, and I'm doing a demo for my class on Tuesday that I haven't finished preparing... Too much going on this week :/
lol no problem man. take your time im not in a hurry to get a camera. all in good time...i actually need a job lol 1st and foremost
I wasn't saying don't do any editing, I was saying do very little. I know, that's why I said this... Digital lets you take many shots, look at them all, choose the best ones, delete the horrible ones(or just "ok" ones), which would free up space for the new ones, which would save you money from getting a lot of bad shot developed(if you don't know how to do it yourself that is). I just didn't feel like typing all of that. Don't really know why your trying to explaining stuff to me though, I'm not the one asking. I guess thanks for the info anyway though =).
I was explaining it to everyone, since your statement rose some questions, and I was bored. What can I say: sometimes boredom results in an odd sort of productivity. As for the editing, you said "if any" and there's always something that needs to be done. Never call an image done if you haven't at least sharpened/reduced noise. I was making sure people knew that so we don't get a bunch of crummy shots (reminds me of American Idol, for some reason) Just elaborating on that statement. And you still have to buy the film, so even if you can develop your own shots, it'll cost you quite a bit for the film to shoot them, and you have to buy the chemicals to develop them . Which is why I decided to learn digital first... I would be broke otherwise, and my mom would be short with me for spending all her money on so many rolls of film... Alas, I will still have to delve into film after I get my degree, as all photographers need a basic knowledge of it. Hopefully by that point I'll be good enough that I won't waste too much film. Anyways, I like to explain the little things when there are people around who don't know the basics. Don't ask me why. That's why I stick around, aside from talking about cameras. So, really I was explaining it at you to Siatek, if that makes any sense. Just a heads-up: I type a lot more when I'm tired. I don't know why. I talk more too. Yet I make less sense. Seems counter-productive.
You were saying things like your main concern wast just to correct me, not give your advice to everyone(that's what it looked like to me anyway). That's why I said that.
Well, that's not how I intended it. I've just been really tired lately and relying on sugar and caffeine, so things haven't necessarily been coming out like I want all the time.
