Hi,
Today Jeremy asked me what cameras I recommend for him. I just told him, "Your LX3 is good enough, master photo composition than move on to DSLR." But due to continuous pestering, I gave in a give him a list of suggestions. I think of the benefit of others, let me post it here. (it would be very "Nikon" as I'm a nikon user.)
Camera:
Get the D5000 if you don't really have a budget.
Get the D40 if you want to spend more on other important stuff.
D5000:
US$849.95 with 18-55 kit lens
12MP
4 frames per second
1/200 sync flash
2.7 inch tilt LCD
11 AF points
HD movie recording
D40:
US$599 with 18-55 kit lens
6.1 MP
2.5 frames per second
1/500 sync flash!!!
2.5 inch LCD
3 AF points
i-TTL flash
Flash:
SB-400 (US$110)
Lens:
18mm-200mm (Nikon: US$800 Sigma:US$400)
50mm f/1.8 (Nikon: S$177)
Just a bit more (if you wanna cover ultra-wide and wanna splurge a bit more):
12-24 f/4(Nikon:US$915 Tokina: US$500) or Tokina 11-16f/2.8 (US$623)
These are about all you need unless you got special needs. I even covered wide-angle! Erm oh yah, fisheye lens. They are fun but not necessary. But however, I leave a last word like what I have always said, Its the person behind the camera and not the camera that affects the picture.
Tyy
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
To compromise my previous post
Hi,
Look at this pictures, they might not be good but if you didn't believe me in my previous post. Its ok, just guess this pictures' settings or camera or whatever related to all the tech stuff.
This pic courtesy to Richard my cousin shot on his Sony W910i handphone camera
Look at this pictures, they might not be good but if you didn't believe me in my previous post. Its ok, just guess this pictures' settings or camera or whatever related to all the tech stuff.
This pic courtesy to Richard my cousin shot on his Sony W910i handphone camera
See all these pictures? My DSLR? No, its not. Its my handphone camera and not the fancy 8 megapixels one, but the 2 megapixel K530i and W910i.
Theres no such things like...erm digital zooming, auto... as said in Digital Life. Its just a handphone camera!
For better pictures, go to this web. This guy shoots them with his iPhone camera and they are dam nice. Obviously nicer than mine. Perhaps even nicer than pictures I shoot on my DSLR!
(it may lag a bit)
Tyy
Photography is art not tech stuff
Hi,
Today I read Digital Life's toolbox section today and, its a...hmmm...a joke. Here's the heading"New to digital snaps? Start here" I laughed at it like...when did photography start with setting your camera???? And then, I felt sad for those who read and believed it. So I decided I should make this post. I'm gonna safe people from the despicable Digital Life and its writer.
(Not sure if it's writer's fault. It might be forced out of him, John Tan. If he is really a good photographer and qualified enough to have a column in Digital Life, he would jolly well know photography dosen't start with setting your camera)
In my eyes, photography is art. Its never about a camera, its settings blah, blah, blah or what-so-ever. Its about seeing, spoting then shooting. Camera can always come last. Settings can always come last. What is the most important is seeing.
So you might ask me, how to see. Its simple. Just see. As you are walking down that alley, look at the objects, look at the walls, the lighting, the sun or moon, look at everything and think about it. Think about its significance, think about its life, its purpose. Do this, do this everywhere. If you are not so free like me, do it when you are free. I do it during recess, on the bus home, walking home from the busstop... Never stop seeing.
When you have done it for a long time perhaps a few weeks or even months, start looking at things from different perspective. Look at it from the bottom, top, side or any possible direction. This could be done quite fast. After this, close one side of your eye and see. Find the best perspective with one eye closed (this is the only way a camera see. Humans have two eyes, one left one right, we see things in 3D. But cameras only have one lens, they don't see as humans do).
You will soon find yourself, overwhelmed by the amount of beautiful things around you that you have never realised.
Next, its is spotting. Spot compositions, spot the scenes you have thought over while you were seeing. Be inspired and have a vague imagination how you would like the scene to appear on a camera screen. Do it, do it for very long. Perhaps a few weeks. When you have mastered it, you are ready to pick up a camera.
Now, then its the time you pick up a camera to shoot and record your compositions frame by frame.(refer to my post on picking a camera) You will soon realise that your pictures would stand out from your peers. From here on, embark on the exploration of the world, see the wonderful things and shoot it.
Tyy
Today I read Digital Life's toolbox section today and, its a...hmmm...a joke. Here's the heading"New to digital snaps? Start here" I laughed at it like...when did photography start with setting your camera???? And then, I felt sad for those who read and believed it. So I decided I should make this post. I'm gonna safe people from the despicable Digital Life and its writer.
(Not sure if it's writer's fault. It might be forced out of him, John Tan. If he is really a good photographer and qualified enough to have a column in Digital Life, he would jolly well know photography dosen't start with setting your camera)
In my eyes, photography is art. Its never about a camera, its settings blah, blah, blah or what-so-ever. Its about seeing, spoting then shooting. Camera can always come last. Settings can always come last. What is the most important is seeing.
So you might ask me, how to see. Its simple. Just see. As you are walking down that alley, look at the objects, look at the walls, the lighting, the sun or moon, look at everything and think about it. Think about its significance, think about its life, its purpose. Do this, do this everywhere. If you are not so free like me, do it when you are free. I do it during recess, on the bus home, walking home from the busstop... Never stop seeing.
When you have done it for a long time perhaps a few weeks or even months, start looking at things from different perspective. Look at it from the bottom, top, side or any possible direction. This could be done quite fast. After this, close one side of your eye and see. Find the best perspective with one eye closed (this is the only way a camera see. Humans have two eyes, one left one right, we see things in 3D. But cameras only have one lens, they don't see as humans do).
You will soon find yourself, overwhelmed by the amount of beautiful things around you that you have never realised.
Next, its is spotting. Spot compositions, spot the scenes you have thought over while you were seeing. Be inspired and have a vague imagination how you would like the scene to appear on a camera screen. Do it, do it for very long. Perhaps a few weeks. When you have mastered it, you are ready to pick up a camera.
Now, then its the time you pick up a camera to shoot and record your compositions frame by frame.(refer to my post on picking a camera) You will soon realise that your pictures would stand out from your peers. From here on, embark on the exploration of the world, see the wonderful things and shoot it.
Tyy
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Nikon D3x...Nikon D5000 Whats next?
Hi,
With all these new cameras with seemingly better and newer features, is it necessary to keep up with them? I don't think so and will not do so. A DSLR has numerous and lots of functions that one would take long to master. If you keep changing cameras, you would not spent enough time with your camera to be able to maximise your camera's potential. And hence, you would end up sticking to only those modes on your dial and not move to manual and set it yourself. I'm not saying that those scene selection thingy are not good but having master manual, you would be free to generate whatever type of pictures you like.
FYI: digital ages 25 times faster than humans. Means: 1 human year equals to 25 digital years!! How are you going to keep up with it??!!
Despite saying this, I feel like upgrading my D50 to D40 or D60. I don't mind megapixels. I just want a camera with a bigger screen. (:
So, most importatly, just choose a camera you are comfortable with and stick with it for at least the next 6 years unless it spoils. After that if you feel like spending more, invest in camera lens. They are what really affect your photos the second most. (first being the man behing the camera)And get it right, lenses are not part of the digital world. They are optical technology and their prices would not drop too much if it's good.
Now, there's just those lens that will just let you beat the rest. The fantastic 18mm-200mm and Tamron's 18mm-270mm/18mm-250mm. They are super versatile that covers wide-angle to telephoto.
Nikon has its own 18-200 VR
Canon has its own 18-200 IS
Tamron has its own 18-200, 18-250, 18-270
Sigma has it too 18-200
With all these kind of lens, there's not really and need for more lends unless you are going into photography seriously like me. Another additional lens you can get is the 50mm f/1.8 from nikon or canon. They are cheap and good. Don't bother getting third party for cheap lens. I bought the Nikon 50mmf/1.8 for $170 ++!!
But what if you wanna cover ultra-wide?
Get these:
Nikon 12-24 f/4
Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (rumoured to be sharper than nikon's DX wide angles!)
Tokina 10-24 f/4
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 10-20 f3.5
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
What if you intend to cover super telephoto like 800mm? 600mm?
Then I suggest you get these lens. I don't really use up till this range because I simply they shoot them. However, one quote from a famous photographer is that real skill is about getting close to the animal you are shooting and not use a long lens and shoot from far away.
Anyway, if the original camera lens are too expensive for you, you should try the third party lenses. They are just find. I'm using lots of third parties. I use Sigma 18-200, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and they are just fine! Next, I'm eyeing the Tokina 12-24 f/4!! It should be great!
bye,
Tyy
With all these new cameras with seemingly better and newer features, is it necessary to keep up with them? I don't think so and will not do so. A DSLR has numerous and lots of functions that one would take long to master. If you keep changing cameras, you would not spent enough time with your camera to be able to maximise your camera's potential. And hence, you would end up sticking to only those modes on your dial and not move to manual and set it yourself. I'm not saying that those scene selection thingy are not good but having master manual, you would be free to generate whatever type of pictures you like.
FYI: digital ages 25 times faster than humans. Means: 1 human year equals to 25 digital years!! How are you going to keep up with it??!!
Despite saying this, I feel like upgrading my D50 to D40 or D60. I don't mind megapixels. I just want a camera with a bigger screen. (:
So, most importatly, just choose a camera you are comfortable with and stick with it for at least the next 6 years unless it spoils. After that if you feel like spending more, invest in camera lens. They are what really affect your photos the second most. (first being the man behing the camera)And get it right, lenses are not part of the digital world. They are optical technology and their prices would not drop too much if it's good.
Now, there's just those lens that will just let you beat the rest. The fantastic 18mm-200mm and Tamron's 18mm-270mm/18mm-250mm. They are super versatile that covers wide-angle to telephoto.
Nikon has its own 18-200 VR
Canon has its own 18-200 IS
Tamron has its own 18-200, 18-250, 18-270
Sigma has it too 18-200
With all these kind of lens, there's not really and need for more lends unless you are going into photography seriously like me. Another additional lens you can get is the 50mm f/1.8 from nikon or canon. They are cheap and good. Don't bother getting third party for cheap lens. I bought the Nikon 50mmf/1.8 for $170 ++!!
But what if you wanna cover ultra-wide?
Get these:
Nikon 12-24 f/4
Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (rumoured to be sharper than nikon's DX wide angles!)
Tokina 10-24 f/4
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 10-20 f3.5
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
What if you intend to cover super telephoto like 800mm? 600mm?
Then I suggest you get these lens. I don't really use up till this range because I simply they shoot them. However, one quote from a famous photographer is that real skill is about getting close to the animal you are shooting and not use a long lens and shoot from far away.
Anyway, if the original camera lens are too expensive for you, you should try the third party lenses. They are just find. I'm using lots of third parties. I use Sigma 18-200, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and they are just fine! Next, I'm eyeing the Tokina 12-24 f/4!! It should be great!
bye,
Tyy
Didn't know I have followers!
Hi,
OMG! I didn't know I have 1 follower thats not someone I know untill today!! I must blog more often so as to not disappoint him. Haha. I will be coming up with a post soon. But probably after my tests!
bye,
Tyy
OMG! I didn't know I have 1 follower thats not someone I know untill today!! I must blog more often so as to not disappoint him. Haha. I will be coming up with a post soon. But probably after my tests!
bye,
Tyy
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Canon Ixus 110 IS
Hi,
Should have posted this long long ago
But anyway, my sister got her cam few weeks ago and yeah you should have guessed, I chosed it. Its a fantastic camera, great ergonomics, great optical quality and colour and great specs but the price is slightly higher at S$549.
Take a look at this picture shot by this cam:
Canon Ixus 110 IS at 1/1 sec, ISO 80 , f/3.2, 7mm on compact zoom,
Nice rite? The colour is nice. I set the camera at slow syncro.
Nice rite? The colour is nice. I set the camera at slow syncro.
Although theres a little vibration visible cause my hands not so steady and its at 1sec!! I shot this at night btw at quite dim light.
Sometimes I really prefer compacts for its size and having something light will really let you compose better. But for sheer quality landscape shots, go on guy get that DSLR!! The optical quality between a compact and a DSLR is really, really visible.
Anyway, this compact is better as compared to sony (crap I shouldn't defame! Sorry to sony users).
Whats good:
4x optical zoom and 16x digital zoom
wide angle 28mm
Good ergonomics, you can do all the settings with one hand and leave your other hand free yays!!
Good screen colour
Fast intelligent auto
Image stabiliser
12.2 megapixel (though not important)
HD movie recording
Super fast start up!
Whats bad:
The screen is too small
Bad grip!! lumix and the powershot e1 beats it!! I almost dropped it...
Harsh flash...Just like in any other compacts thats why i paste a small translucent tape
High price
Conclusion:
If you don't mind the price and want something compact and nice. Get it. Wait for my next compact review. Its probably a Lumix T-series or canon ixus .
Tyy
Thursday, April 9, 2009
How to choose a compact camera
Hi,
Just a little follow up from my previous post. No point telling you people how not important megapixels are and don't recommend or tech you how to choose a compact.
Before buying a camera, ask yourself some questions:
What are you going to shoot? (moving or still objects/people ; night or day shots)
What is the general purpose of the camera you are buying? (shooting you and your friends?)
Whats your budget?
If in the first question, you chose moving shots or night shots, then just forget about compacts and go straight to DSLRs. If budget matters, get the cheap and good nikon d40 or canon 1000d.
But, if you are not shooting any fast moving stuff like cars and sport or you are not shooting pure dark shots and you are just buying a camera to record memories of time you spent together with friends and family, I suggest you get a compact. Compacts nowadays have better and better features. They have auto scene recognition, face detection and so on.
Embarrassingly, I have to say that sometimes the photos I make on the DSLRs are worse than those made by compacts.
Enough of the blabbering. And if you are buying a compact, here are some questions:
Is it just for basic shots?(or you are serious about making great photographs with your compact)
Do you know how to make critical camera adjustments?(or you will just use the auto all the way)
Will you use the camera for travelling?(or will you get a DSLR when you go overseas)
Do you want a fashionable one?(or cameras like the nikon L-series and canon A-series)
Again, whats your budget?
I will recommend cameras question by question.
If your camera is just for basic shots and you do not know how to make critical adjustments, I recommend lumix's simple compacts. FS7 or FS8. My dad is using one from the same category from lumix and it produced great results. (the lens it uses is leica lens. A very, very good lens brand)
But if you know how to set critical camera adjustments you might want to consider canon compacts. Their ergonomics for compacts are dam good. You can handle and adjust the camera settings all using only your right hand. I have used an ixus before. And I believe the new ones are as good or better. I dare not recommend other brands because I have not used them before. Feel free to check out the other brands.
Next, if you will use your compact camera for travelling, I suggest you get one with good optical zoom. I emphasise on optical zoom. Avoid digital zoom if possible. Currently, major camera brands are coming up with compacts with 12x optical zoom. I'm not sure about the quality but I hope it will be good.
Taking photographs is not about the deisign of your camera. But for those who are fashion forward and image comcious.(why? its photography!) I recommend cameras like the canon ixus series and the less common leica compact, C-series. The leica compacts are really rare on the streets. Untill now, I have only seen 1 singaporean use a leica film camera. I have not seen anyone using a leica compact! And, don't worry about quality(but better check it yourself), they are actually lumixsss but more elegant.(Surprisingly, the price is lower than I think! Go check it out guys)
Once again budget. If you have a tight budget, get the canon A-series. If you can splurge on a compact camera, go ahead guy, get the canon G10 or lumix LX3. They produce great results.
I hope this post can help you choose your compacts better.
Tyy
Just a little follow up from my previous post. No point telling you people how not important megapixels are and don't recommend or tech you how to choose a compact.
Before buying a camera, ask yourself some questions:
What are you going to shoot? (moving or still objects/people ; night or day shots)
What is the general purpose of the camera you are buying? (shooting you and your friends?)
Whats your budget?
If in the first question, you chose moving shots or night shots, then just forget about compacts and go straight to DSLRs. If budget matters, get the cheap and good nikon d40 or canon 1000d.
But, if you are not shooting any fast moving stuff like cars and sport or you are not shooting pure dark shots and you are just buying a camera to record memories of time you spent together with friends and family, I suggest you get a compact. Compacts nowadays have better and better features. They have auto scene recognition, face detection and so on.
Embarrassingly, I have to say that sometimes the photos I make on the DSLRs are worse than those made by compacts.
Enough of the blabbering. And if you are buying a compact, here are some questions:
Is it just for basic shots?(or you are serious about making great photographs with your compact)
Do you know how to make critical camera adjustments?(or you will just use the auto all the way)
Will you use the camera for travelling?(or will you get a DSLR when you go overseas)
Do you want a fashionable one?(or cameras like the nikon L-series and canon A-series)
Again, whats your budget?
I will recommend cameras question by question.
If your camera is just for basic shots and you do not know how to make critical adjustments, I recommend lumix's simple compacts. FS7 or FS8. My dad is using one from the same category from lumix and it produced great results. (the lens it uses is leica lens. A very, very good lens brand)
But if you know how to set critical camera adjustments you might want to consider canon compacts. Their ergonomics for compacts are dam good. You can handle and adjust the camera settings all using only your right hand. I have used an ixus before. And I believe the new ones are as good or better. I dare not recommend other brands because I have not used them before. Feel free to check out the other brands.
Next, if you will use your compact camera for travelling, I suggest you get one with good optical zoom. I emphasise on optical zoom. Avoid digital zoom if possible. Currently, major camera brands are coming up with compacts with 12x optical zoom. I'm not sure about the quality but I hope it will be good.
Taking photographs is not about the deisign of your camera. But for those who are fashion forward and image comcious.(why? its photography!) I recommend cameras like the canon ixus series and the less common leica compact, C-series. The leica compacts are really rare on the streets. Untill now, I have only seen 1 singaporean use a leica film camera. I have not seen anyone using a leica compact! And, don't worry about quality(but better check it yourself), they are actually lumixsss but more elegant.(Surprisingly, the price is lower than I think! Go check it out guys)
Once again budget. If you have a tight budget, get the canon A-series. If you can splurge on a compact camera, go ahead guy, get the canon G10 or lumix LX3. They produce great results.
I hope this post can help you choose your compacts better.
Tyy
Why megapixels don't matter
Hi,
Sorry people, I haven't been posting for a long time because I don't know what to post. But after some observation, I realised that a potential post could be one about megapixels.
Nowadays. I realise those advetisers and camera makers keep coming up with cameras with higher megapixel and then advertise it till the camera is like some god and then sell it for a high price. Although people who know their stuff will not be decieved, the majority of the population is still blinded by megapixels and just go on with their buy.
To educate those who think megapixels are important:
Look at this image above, this are the sensor sizes of various DSLRs and compact cameras. Sorry for pro-compact people, but the average size of the CCD sensor of compact cameras are in the last line as you can see. So minute.
So what if you give a sensor that is so small 14 megapixels? What can you get? And again, so what if the sensor has little megapixels? Their quality would turn out about the same. Hence, why bother so much about the megapixels a compact camera have?
A picture I found online taken by the nikon d1H, a 2.7 megapixel pro camera in 2001
(http://www.lonestardigital.com/D1H/D1H_Dsc_0979_600x393.jpg)
Sorry people, I haven't been posting for a long time because I don't know what to post. But after some observation, I realised that a potential post could be one about megapixels.
Nowadays. I realise those advetisers and camera makers keep coming up with cameras with higher megapixel and then advertise it till the camera is like some god and then sell it for a high price. Although people who know their stuff will not be decieved, the majority of the population is still blinded by megapixels and just go on with their buy.
To educate those who think megapixels are important:
Look at this image above, this are the sensor sizes of various DSLRs and compact cameras. Sorry for pro-compact people, but the average size of the CCD sensor of compact cameras are in the last line as you can see. So minute.
So what if you give a sensor that is so small 14 megapixels? What can you get? And again, so what if the sensor has little megapixels? Their quality would turn out about the same. Hence, why bother so much about the megapixels a compact camera have?
A picture I found online taken by the nikon d1H, a 2.7 megapixel pro camera in 2001
(http://www.lonestardigital.com/D1H/D1H_Dsc_0979_600x393.jpg)
Does it look like a 2.7 megapixel photo? Can a 14.7 megapixel compact camera do this?
This post should answer your doubts towards megapixels.
Tyy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)