cameras:digital vs. regular

[oldscoolelement]

ok, im getting a camera fro christmas, recomend one and why its good, for a price range of 350$, new or used (used will obviously be an average used price). i also wanna know the pro's and cons of each type. im using it for skatebaord photog. as well as nature and wildlife photog.

i know that digital is more money, but you dont gotta pay for film, or developing, just need a printer and special paper, and you can use the comp. to edit photos, and with a memory card instead of film, you can store more photos, but i also know that not alot of digitial cam's have changable lenses for better zoom.

the regualr cams are cheaper and have changable lenses, but film, developing, etc is $$. thats what i already know, if theres anything else, let me know. peaxe

[robiskewl]

i would reccomend a regular camera, because most digicams don't really have a changeable shutter speed, which you need if you're gunna do skatephotos depending on how the fast the person is skating.
my sister has a good camera, but i cant remember the name off the top of my head, when i find it out or remember i'll tell ya.

[oldscoolelement]

im thinking about a nikon n75, with two macro lenses, 20-80mm, and the other 70-300mm. cant whait, you can get super up close with the macro feature

[mikejl29]

The Nikon N75 is an alright camera to learn on but you will quickly outgrow it's features. For skating it will be alright for stuff without flash and flash at night but if you want daylight flash with fill you will need something of a higher quality. If it comes with the 28-80 and 70-300 G mount lenses that I got with my F55... they aren't macro lenses, trust me. They are also really slow lenses that lack a lot of contrast. The fastest f-stop you can get is f/3.3 when using the 28-80 lens on the 28mm end.

I purchased a Nikon F4s for $400 US from a guy at Sports Illustrated who went completly to digital SLRs. If you have $6000 to get setup with the Nikon D2h and the 10.5mm fisheye... go for it. The Nikon F4s is a good camera with a 1/250 flash sync and a motor drive of 5.7 FPS. Its got loads of great features but is a bit on the expensive side for you. You could look into the Nikon F3HP, Nikon N90s, Canon A2, Canon EOS 5, or Canon EOS 3.

Skateboardphotography.com has a great website for choosing the basic setup.. heres the article: http://www.skateboardphotography.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=3

[oldscoolelement]

it comes with sigma macro lenses.

[muzz16]

i think u'd be better off buying a fully manual camera and then buying a big book to learn what all the doohickeys do on it. i wouldnt go digital, purely because u'd end up buying a lower end consumer digital camera not a digital slr... look into buying either a nikon FM2 or F3HP...FM2 has the 1/250th sync so thats probably worth looking into over the F3 which is only really good with flashes at night (day shots come out blurry)

[mikejl29]

Yeah... go fully manual and then buy National Geographics Field Guide: Secrets to Making Great Pictures. Either get the Nikon FM2n or the FM3a.

[oldscoolelement]

if those, with 2 macro lenses, are more than 350-400$, i cant get it.

[mikejl29]

why do you feel its absolutely necessary to get macro lenses. I rarely shoot any macro photography, nor do I feel compelled to. You could probably buy one of those bodies with a nice 50mm f/1.8 and learn loads of the basics. I am going to tell you something that I wish I had learned a LONG time ago. "Buy glass from the manufacturer of your camera" and "Photography is expensive... get a job."

[oldscoolelement]

cuz im not just shooting skate photography, im doing nature and shit too, and from what ive read (and seen) the macro allows you to get REALLY into whatever your shooting. im not paying for this eiather, my dad is, so the price range is 400$ and under. and why should i only buy lenses that are made by the same co. as the camera itself?

[mikejl29]

Well I suppose if your doing nature photography with macro lenses, you are probably going to notice some significant loss of quality when you enlarge past 8x10 in a print. You might also lose some colour and contrast depending what lens it is.

[muzz16]

u should aim for that in the future neway.... first you need your body, a lower end body isnt gonna capture anything nicely you're probably better off forking out the whole 400 on a good body and a single lens rather than buy a crap body and 2 or 3 lenses the better body will allow better x sync and would have a better v/f just research into what camera would suit your specific needs... then find out its far too much money and go to the next best thing like all of us.

[oldscoolelement]

well what good is the body with no lense?
and i tried researching, i dont understand hardly any of the shit, its like "f/2.35-5.6m" and shit

[mikejl29]

well the lens you were looking at was probably something like this:
Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3~5.6 G

Thats just an example. The first name is Nikon, obviously the lens manufacturer. Second section "28-80mm" is the focal distance of the lens. This lens is sort of a wide angle to mid-range zoom lens. The second part "f/3.3~5.6" is the F-stop range on the lens. The litte ~ in the way means that the lens has a variable f-stop at various focal lengths. In this case... when the lens is at 28... the maximum F stop will be f/3.3 and at 80mm, the maximum f stop will be 5.6. That should explain that much.

I would suggest you get a decent fully manual Nikon body with a 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 lens and you learn about photography on that. I only suggest the Nikon system because the older lenses are compatible with the newer bodies and Nikon has never really changed the mount on their lenses. The older manual body will serve you as a backup if you choose to upgrade your gear and then you can take the 50mm lens and put it on your new body.

[oldscoolelement]

whats the f stop>?

i looked at prices, and the n65 was the only one in my price range, for justy the body. i would have no lense. is the n65 that much better?

[muzz16]

the n65 is 260 odd quid so that makes it like rougly 380 dollars yes? hmm have you tried going second hand? thats probably the best route..

the f-stop is the apeture, inside every lens is an iris which dictates how much light is let through to the back of the camera it also kind of dictates the whole DOF (depth of field) theory now the f-stop dictates the width of the hole (apeture) the lower the number the wider the hole

I think its that way round, ask mike

[mikejl29]

Yeah.. I could have told you that you are going to have to go used. You definitley should. The gear will be 1/2 the price in mint condition. That's the way I'm going with all my gear now.

f1.4 = REALLY BIG OPENING... but shallow depth of field (Background is out of focus)

f22 - REALLY SMALL OPENING... large depth of field (Foreground and Background are both in sharp focus)

[oldscoolelement]

show me what to get and where for 400$ or less

[muzz16]

ok i'll have a gander for u but im not promising nething

[mikejl29]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2964637631&category=48556
Theres a Nikon n90s for $295US. That leaves you $105 to pick up a cheap used Nikon 50mm f1.8 Ai or Ais. You aren't going to get much better than that.

[crypticpoet]

I wouldn't go for an SLR...

http://www.fujifilm.com.au/digital/cameras/camera.asp?id=43

There's the camera I'm looking at right now. It all depends on your style; but if you ask me, digital costs less in the scheme of things.

[Freaky Styley]

two year old christmas thread....nice.


Closed.

[Ramp]