The Photography Thread

[MartyG]

As many as it takes - it's not like film where the cost of processing applies.

[Magnakai]

I like that third shot demon9k.

What mode were you using? I'd try using aperture priority, which is labelled as Av on the 400D. This lets you control how wide the lens opens. This affects many things about your shot. A lower number equals a wider aperture, which lets more light in and lets you use a faster exposure, useful if you want to freeze action or avoid camera shake in low light. A higher aperture will sharpen up the contents of your image, increasing the depth of field that is in focus.

A photograph like this will have been taken with a low/wide aperture, which blurs the background and separates the subject nicely. Another way to increase the separation is to increase the zoom range.

For landscape photography like this, I'd recommend putting the aperture down to something like 11 and focusing as far away as possible. This will ensure that everything is sharp and has a lot of detail, which is really what you want in landscapes. The downside is that you'll be letting a lot less light in, and so you need to make sure you don't get any camera shake, which will blur the photo and ruin any detail whatsoever.

Anyway, go out and take tons and tons of shots. Don't worry about cheating or whatever. Pros normally take tons of shots for every one that you see, and they've been doing photography for far longer than you. Just take lots of photographs. If they're not what you wanted, look at them and try to figure out what you've been doing wrong.

Good luck and have fun!

[RobRoy]

Havent posted in a while but here are some newish images

Firth of Forth


Birdie


Surveying the Land


Football

[spagmasterswift]

The Olympus is meant to be a really decent camera, and I've heard that their lenses are very good too. Thing is, Canon and Nikon really are the gorillas in field of cameras, so I'd usually recommend going for one of them.

Personally I'd go for this deal: http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/15970...-55-lens-kit-/

A Canon 400D and kit lens for just over ?300. I have one, and I think it's brilliant. Though I'm not a fan of the kit lens, I have seen some very good results from it.

My Sony Cyber-shot finally gave up the ghost yesterday giving me the chance to look at getting a more exciting camera and I've been thinking about going for a Canon...would most of you guys recommend the 400D - I want something I can add lenses to as I go, but not too complicated and daunting for a beginner to get to grips with? Plan on joinging a local photography club later in the year too...something I've wanted to get into for ages but never had the money for it before. Some amazing places around my area for interesting shots, can't wait to get out there and play around. Any buying advice massively appreciated!

[funkydan]

Sweet - my club photos are finally up on the Club Class website (Club Class were the organisers) - result! Mine are the first ones you look at, all the way down to the first DJ photo!

Happy Dan

[Ginger Tosser]

Any buying advice massively appreciated!

Don't buy the memory cards from the store selling the camera. They'll shaft you!

The 400D like all the other entry level DSLRs is decent. You'll hear a lot of comments about the kit lens being crap, but to be honest for what it costs it's worth having just to get you going. Plenty of people stick with the kit lens (on all brands) and just buy something a little bigger to compliment it.

Checkout Camerapricebuster for up to date deals. Tesco Direct seem to be the cheapest for the 400d at the moment (just think of those clubcard points!).

[Magnakai]

Spags, I'd definitely recommend the 400D. The kit lens is good, and that package is a ridiculous bargain. I think the body will last you a long time, and you'll be able to choose from an enormous range of lenses.

[Ish]

Sweet - my club photos are finally up on the Club Class website (Club Class were the organisers) - result! Mine are the first ones you look at, all the way down to the first DJ photo!

Happy Dan

Nice - good to see you using your camera to help schmooze with the ladies

[fuse]

Finally finished sorting through/uploading my pictures from holiday (again), this time from Reykjavik. Full set here, image spam follows;













Toyota should get me to do their car adverts, I reckon. Also had a chance to play with the 50mm again, got some more favourable results this time

[demon9k]

I like that third shot demon9k.

What mode were you using? I'd try using aperture priority, which is labelled as Av on the 400D. This lets you control how wide the lens opens. This affects many things about your shot. A lower number equals a wider aperture, which lets more light in and lets you use a faster exposure, useful if you want to freeze action or avoid camera shake in low light. A higher aperture will sharpen up the contents of your image, increasing the depth of field that is in focus.

A photograph like this will have been taken with a low/wide aperture, which blurs the background and separates the subject nicely. Another way to increase the separation is to increase the zoom range.

For landscape photography like this, I'd recommend putting the aperture down to something like 11 and focusing as far away as possible. This will ensure that everything is sharp and has a lot of detail, which is really what you want in landscapes. The downside is that you'll be letting a lot less light in, and so you need to make sure you don't get any camera shake, which will blur the photo and ruin any detail whatsoever.

Anyway, go out and take tons and tons of shots. Don't worry about cheating or whatever. Pros normally take tons of shots for every one that you see, and they've been doing photography for far longer than you. Just take lots of photographs. If they're not what you wanted, look at them and try to figure out what you've been doing wrong.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers mate, that one was my favourite of the day for sure.

I was using the default mode and the landscape mode. I'll give the Av mode a go this coming weekend. I read up a lot on all the settings before I got the camera but I've forgotten it all again. Will read up before the weekend but thanks for the tips, really helpful.

Was reading this blog for info: http://www.berniecode.com/writing/ph...phy/beginners/

I found it to be pretty helpful.

Can't wait for the weekend (I know its only just ended)

New camera + New car + Scottish B roads = fun fun fun!

[spagmasterswift]

Spags, I'd definitely recommend the 400D. The kit lens is good, and that package is a ridiculous bargain. I think the body will last you a long time, and you'll be able to choose from an enormous range of lenses.

Great stuff!!

The 400D like all the other entry level DSLRs is decent. You'll hear a lot of comments about the kit lens being crap, but to be honest for what it costs it's worth having just to get you going. Plenty of people stick with the kit lens (on all brands) and just buy something a little bigger to compliment it.

Thanks Ginger, was in Jesops this afternoon looking at the 400D and they had a 18-55mm lens (which I presume is the 'kit lens'), is that quite a small focal length? What normal lenses do you guys use? Anybody point me in the direction of a goods site that shows the differences between different lense sizes - or is literally the length/area that will be in focus? Sorry to sound like a massive camera nub - but thats exactly what I am!! LOL!1

Really interested in getting the 400D and slowly building up some kit for it over time - and getting a basic lense to start off with is proper Thanks again for the info!

[Magnakai]

The 18-55 is the kit lens. That's quite a good focal range for normal use. All of these shots were taken with it. One thing to remember is that the 400D (and almost every digital camera) has a sensor smaller than a piece of 35mm film, which means that your lens is a bit more zoomed in than the number on it. On the 400D, you need to multiply the lens length by 1.6 to get the real length. So the 18mm end becomes 28mm and the 55mm end becomes 88mm. 28mm is fairly wide, good for landscapes or city shots like this. 88mm is a good portrait length, separating the subject from the background, like this.

You probably won't need anything longer than that unless you're into something like wildlife or sports photography where you can't get close to the subject. Similarly, you won't need anything wider unless you're doing architectural shots or really get into wide open landscapes.

My main lens is a 28mm f/1.8, which equates to about 45mm. The f1.8 bit measures how wide the lens can open. Fixed focal length, or "prime" lenses typically let more light in than zoom lenses and can offer slightly higher quality for the price because they have much simpler construction. Of course, you lose flexibility, but I'm happier running around than zooming. I also carry around a 50mm f/1.8, which is excellent for a bit more reach.

The main reasons to buy a more expensive lens are a wider aperture, better quality glass and a longer reach. A wider aperture (the lower the f/ bit, the wider the aperture) the more light you let in. This means that in low light situations you'll be able to pull off cleaner shots. This is because it's very hard to avoid getting camera shake on your images at photos below 1/60th of a second, or 1/the focal length of your lens if it's longer. So a 200mm lens would need a minimum speed of 1/200 to avoid your images getting blurry from camera shake. Another benefit of a wider aperture is that you can achieve a shallow depth of field. This means that you an have a more selective area of focus in your images. This comes in real handy for portraits or more artistic shots, as it enables you to separate your subject from the background, like this, this or this.

I hope that's given you a bit of help. Please feel free to ask all the questions you want, no matter how stupid they sound! We all have to start somewhere.

[Magnakai]

Nice results there, RobRoy. I especially like the third one with the statue, it has a lot of character in it. The others, while well composed and sharp, are lacking a bit of interest. On your Flickr page there's one with a small boy marked Hiding. That's an ace shot, really lively.

Fuse, you've been busy. Amazing mountains behind the town in the first shot. Is everything in Iceland pale and stark? Your band shots came out well too. I like the touch of motion in the first and third ones, and the spot of light he's standing in in the third one is pretty nice too.

[Ginger Tosser]

18-55mm lens (which I presume is the 'kit lens'), is that quite a small focal length?

That's about normal for kit lenses. My walk around lens is my 24-105, but on a 400D the crop factor (smaller sensor) would make the wide end (24mm) 38mm, you gain at the other end though as the long end would be equivalent to 168mm. (the 18-55 works out to be around 28-90 which was a fairly standard focal length with film cameras).

What normal lenses do you guys use?

This is where the slippery slope starts! Though you don't need many, maybe the standard kit and a zoom. However if you want to do Macro, you could try a Zoom with a macro feature but you'd get much better results with a dedicated Macro lens. Then if you want a zoom lens........

My selection:

EF15mm f/2.8 Fish-Eye - EF17-40mm f/4 L - EF24-105mm f/4 L - EF50mm f/1.4 - EF100mm f2.8 Macro - EF70-200mm f/4 L - EF300mm f/4 L IS

Plus I've got the 1.4EX extender for use with the 70-200 and 300.

Nice shots Robroy and Fuse Reykjavik looks really cold (and nice!)

[RobRoy]

Nice results there, RobRoy. I especially like the third one with the statue, it has a lot of character in it. The others, while well composed and sharp, are lacking a bit of interest. On your Flickr page there's one with a small boy marked Hiding. That's an ace shot, really lively.

thanks, the one of the boy is my son. cheeky chappie