kotr
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by kotr on Nov 11, 2007 21:21:57 GMT -1
Here's a picture of nothing extraordinary. I was trying to figure out how I could achieve a degree of control over depth of field. It was taken with a Sony DSC-T1. It truly is a point and shoot. I really wish I had control over the aperture...  |
|
|
|
Post by mralgae on Nov 12, 2007 2:16:52 GMT -1
|
|
kotr
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by kotr on Nov 13, 2007 1:25:40 GMT -1
This sony? oh, it's a point and shoot. I carry it around with me everywhere I go because it's so small and portable. I'm saving up for a Nikon d80 as my first SLR type camera. This sony that I have is really pretty lousy. slow shutter speed, no aperture priority, no shutter priority. it's absolutely lousy as a camera. It seems to suffer from a lot of camera shake. It's 3 or 4 years old now, so I'm not really complaining. Thanks for that depth of field article though. It should prove an interesting read. Here's the camera model, if you're interested. www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct1.asp |
|
|
|
Post by jackpike on Nov 14, 2007 22:45:25 GMT -1
I had a Casio Exilim Zoom EX-Z75 digital camera, but it had a lens fault so i took it back to where bought it and got a refund because they didn't have any replacements to give me. I do fancy getting a SLR camera but they a big price tag. That Nikon d80 you are talking about I'd have to pay £500 for it here. but the misses is going out to Singapore in January, All electronic stuff is really cheap out there, so i have asked her to get me an SLR camera when she is out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by mralgae on Nov 15, 2007 0:42:57 GMT -1
i got the D40 at the beginning of summer and havent looked back. the only problem i made is that i should have got the bigger lens, it comes with 18-55mm, also the pixels are only 6.5 compeared to 10 on the D40x and the 80. the D40 is grand for the average user but for the real indepth and macro work othe lenses would be needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpike on Nov 15, 2007 19:15:35 GMT -1
So what lens would u recommend for taking pictures of fish then?
|
|
|
|
Post by mralgae on Nov 15, 2007 21:25:23 GMT -1
macro lens would be a better bet jp. but then also a tele lens zoomed in can work just as well. all of my latest pics are with the D40 18-55mm lens and works well in macro format. just an actual macro lens would allow even closer shots and less fuzz. as for a lager lens i would have gone for at least 200mm for the likes of out door work. but gain the pics posted in the non fish section here, the likes of the seagulls & seals are with the 18-55mm lens.
if you in the right place at the right time then anything is possiable.
|
|
kotr
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by kotr on Jan 6, 2008 3:24:54 GMT -1
If you have the moolah to splurge I hear the 18 -200mm VR f3.5 -5 lens from Nikon is a dream. at the 200 mm range it's almost a macro lens.
As for whether to pick up a macro lens, you may want to consider a maro adaptor of some kind. You gain the ability to convert your regular lenses to macro lenses, but you lose light.
|
|
|
|
Post by mralgae on Jan 6, 2008 5:55:19 GMT -1
If you have the moolah to splurge I hear the 18 -200mm VR f3.5 -5 lens from Nikon is a dream. at the 200 mm range it's almost a macro lens. As for whether to pick up a macro lens, you may want to consider a maro adaptor of some kind. You gain the ability to convert your regular lenses to macro lenses, but you lose light. hi kotr. havent done any snaps lately or taken it any further to be honest(short on cash LOL) but i know one of the lads got a bargain on ebay for a set of convertors for the nikon for €10 and work great for him. going to have to have a serious look for them soon so i can get some better shots. regards |
|
