The Photography Thread

[Garf]

Malc - according to camerapricebuster, Argos might be a good bet - just need to check stock in your local stores.

A mate was looking at the Amazon deal yesterday as well - if he didn't buy then, he's going to be disappointed..

[Rossco]

Macro lenses have generally fixed focal lengths, known as a 'Prime' lens. Usually the quality of (for example) a fixed 100mm macro lens is going to be better than a zoom lens at 100mm - although at the top end of the market a zoom will be better than a mid-range prime.

It's difficult to say if they are generally more expensive as there is so much out there, but you are looking at a good few hundred quid to get a decent one. The Best Lens Of All Time Bar None, aka the Canon 2.8 100mm, is going for ?419.99 on onestop-digital. I've yet to use a lens that's better or, surprisingly, more versitile. The great thing about prime lenses is it forces you to think about composition since you have to 'zoom with your feet' - I find I tend to take better composed shots when using a prime.
All done with the Macro Lens Of Maximum Awesome:

I see, so when you have a macro lens like that, its not just used for close up objects but also portraits, landscapes etc like the shots you posted above! Are the best macro lenses prime ones then? If I wanted to spend say ?200 on one, would I be getting much for my money or would I need to shell out more to make it worthwhile over the stock lens that comes with my a200?

I really don't understand the naming of lenses, I don't understand what the part quoted in mm's actually means and can't seem to find a pattern between macro or zoom lenses with what numbers are quoted, so I have no idea what to look for! I wish there was some place I could see many examples of images from certain lenses to see what one I thought appealed to me the most.

Also, when looking at that Canon lens, anywhere I look it only comes in 58mm filter thread size, my camera is 55mm though. Surely I'm missing something though, as loads of cameras are 55mm, does the lens come in different sizes or what?

Did you take those 4 shots by the way? The one with the water drop is outstanding!

Also, Malc, I read around ALOT on the internet and the vast majority of people who had used both the Nikon D40 and the Sony a200 prefered the Sony. Seems such a better camera in all departments especially now since its actually cheaper than the Nikon! So I would read up about it if I were you and see what you think yourself.

Anyway, heres 4 more shots from today, spent about an hour outside shooting and an hour editing. 2 hours for 4 shots seems daft and I'm sure they aren't amazing, but I'm happy with them and I'm enjoying this alot now so thats all that matters I guess!

Sorry for all the questions in my posts, just totally new to this and theres a lot to understand!

[winky]

The Best Lens Of All Time Bar None, aka the Canon 2.8 100mm

should read:

The Best Macro Prime of All Time Bar None...

I see, so when you have a macro lens like that, its not just used for close up objects but also portraits, landscapes etc like the shots you posted above! Are the best macro lenses prime ones then?

Primes in general will always have better image quality than zooms. They are also cheaper, lighter and faster. With a macro lenses dont think in terms of zoom. Macro lenses allow you to focus closer to a subject: the closer you get to the subject the larger it will appear in the picture usually up to the limit of 1:1 magnifcation.

If I wanted to spend say ?200 on one, would I be getting much for my money or would I need to shell out more to make it worthwhile over the stock lens that comes with my a200?

Looking at the prices of the sony lenses ?200 probably isnt enough. If you want to take macro pictures it will be worth saving for the Sony lens. If your not sure what you will photograph give its some time to find out what you want to do. A macro lens will make a good portrait lens if you want to do head shots.

If the Sony lens is too expensive you could consider the Sigma 105mm f2.8 Sigma are a third party company who produce lenses for all cameras, and generally will be cheaper than the manufacturer equivalent. If you read down the page you will see that they produce a copy of this lens for Sony cameras.
I have owned a Canon mount Sigma and the Canon macro lens and even though the Canon is better there is very little between the lenses and not enough to justify the extra cost if you are on a tight budget.

I really don't understand the naming of lenses, I don't understand what the part quoted in mm's actually means and can't seem to find a pattern between macro or zoom lenses with what numbers are quoted, so I have no idea what to look for!

The only thing that really matters for macro is wether it can do 1:1 reproduction. 1:2 is not enough unless you are taking pictures of large insects or flowers

Lets look at the sony lens

Its 100mm f2.8. The 100mm is the focal length. Essentially the longer the focal length the further away you will be from the subject. In macro a 100mm focal length will generally be more useful for insects as you can stand further away to get the shot and hence are less likely to scare the beast. If photographing flowers this is less than a concern so you could consider the shorter focal length (50mm).

The f2.8 is the aperture. The smaller the number (f-number) means that you will get more light in and hence when taking a shot you can use slower shutter speeds. This is also good because the large apertures (low f-numbers) have a shallow depth of field which is how you achieve those pictures where the background is all creamy and smooth, much like your 2nd and 4th picture you posted.

This is a great shot. if you are doing black and white conversions have a look at filtered conversions. Picassa from google is a nice simple piece of editing software that can do this. In general these type of conversions will give greater contrast. You should try it out if you havent seen already.

Anyway, heres 4 more shots from today, spent about an hour outside shooting and an hour editing. 2 hours for 4 shots seems daft and I'm sure they aren't amazing, but I'm happy with them and I'm enjoying this alot now so thats all that matters I guess!

I have been trying photography for a year now and only came away with 2 shots that I was really estatic about so 2 hours for 4 pictures aint too bad

[PeteJ]

Yep, there are few lenses that only serve one purpose (I can only think of the Canon MPE-65, which Winky used on the previous page. There are probably more though).

A good guide on what everything means is here - http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
Again it's Canon biased but generally they are all much the same. Ignore the stuff on EF-S and L series as that is specific to Canon.

I'll just steal a part to explain what the numbers on a lens mean...

CANON LENS 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6. Ø58mm

The 28-80 is the focal length. I you think that your eyes (roughly) see at 100mm, then anything less than that (below 100) will be able to see a wider picture and anything above that will be more narrow\ zoomed in.

3.5-5.6 is the apature of the lens, which is how much light is let into the camera when the shutter is fired. As a general rule, the lower the number the lens can do, the better it is.

A Prime lens will only have one number, such as 2.8, however as above a zoom lens will display the apature as a range (apart from the ultra-expensive stuff). For the above lens, if its at 28mm zoom then the best apature it can do is 3.5. As you start zooming the lens that apature is going to fall off, and finally at 80mm the best apature it can do is 5.6.

The above lens at 3.5 will be able to focus on a subject in the foreground, while bluring the background.
At 5.6 more of the picture will be in focus.

The maximum apature (ie how high the number can go) I don't think is displayed anywhere apart from in the technical specs of the kit. The higher the number the more focus you're going to get, but also the more light that is required.

Finally, the 58 is the filter ring size. When you say your camera is 55mm, you probably mean your current lens has a filter size of 55mm. It helps to keep the filter size the same so you don't have to keep buying filters (they aren't cheap on the bigger lenses) but that can't always be helped.

To get examples of pics taken on specific lenses, I tend to use Flickr which usually has groups dedicated to lenses, or do a search on Tags and hope for the best.

Yeah they are my shots, thanks for the comment

BTW all of the shots you've just posted are excellent. I love the simplicity of the second one.

edit - or as above

[Magnakai]

Great advice, but one correction Pete - your eyes see at around 35-70mm. 50mm is generally considered the normal human field of vision. To get that on a crop sensor camera, you need a lens of approximately 30mm.

Also, here's a photo of my friend John:

[Garf]

Also, Malc, I read around ALOT on the internet and the vast majority of people who had used both the Nikon D40 and the Sony a200 prefered the Sony. Seems such a better camera in all departments especially now since its actually cheaper than the Nikon! So I would read up about it if I were you and see what you think yourself.

Malc, if you are going to take Rossco's advice, I'd get in quick - Sony have just refreshed their entry level DSLR's, and the prices have gone through the roof - the Alpha 200 replacement (the 230) has a RRP of a whopping ?530 !! I'm sure prices will be cheaper once the cameras hit the shops in June, but still quite a hike..

They've also introduced a two tone body which I'm not convinced about myself, although it's not so bad on the 230.

[funkydan]

Here are some shots from Friday night in The White Hart, White Chapel, London. I went along to photograph my mates band, Broken Stars, and ended up shooting the two support acts as well; the first of which, the beautiful and enchanting 'Copperhead Lucy', can be seen below:





I love her expression on this next shot, I just wish it wasn't slightly blurry (i.e. DON'T view it large! ):



The rest of the (quite similar) set are here, and more photos from the night to follow.

[Malc]

I think i'll buy the Sony A200 that you recommended Rossco. I take it you're all happy with yours? No problems or issues? I've heard about the viewfinder being quite dark...

I had a look at some reviews and it seems very good. Especially that image stabalizer thingy.

[Garf]

I think i'll buy the Sony A200 that you recommended Rossco. I take it you're all happy with yours? No problems or issues? I've heard about the viewfinder being quite dark...

I had a look at some reviews and it seems very good. Especially that image stabalizer thingy.

Nice one - enjoy your purchase..

As I said before, you can't really go wrong with any of the latest DSLR's - they will all give very good results.

[Malc]

Just before I was going to purchase the Sony a200, I noticed that it didn't include a live view. Will this be a big problem for someone like me? (complete amateur)

[funkydan]

I was pretty much a complete amateur when I started photography, and I did not miss the Live View at all. I actually prefer using the viewfinder now and will automatically put any camera up to my eye first, as I just assume that all cameras have one, which of course nowadays, they don't (mainly the compacts though). I imagine you'll get used to using the viewfinder very quickly!

[Malc]

Cheers Dan. I got to hold one up to my eye and it feels more natural than holding the camera out in front of you. So like you said, I'm sure it will be fine without a live view.

However, I went into my local PC World so I could get a feel for the camera, and the viewfinder was very dark. All the other cameras were nice and bright when looking down their viewfinders, but I found the Sony a200 was hard to see. Should this be brighter if you power up the camera or something? Maybe Rossco could comment on this.

[spagmasterswift]

Was the lens cap on?

[Malc]

Don't think so. I could still see through the viewfinder, but it was too dark to see clearly.

Unless it had a cap that was clear to the point of almost being invisible...

[rickt]

After reading this thread and some other online review sites I decided to order a Sony A200 over the weekend. The cheapest places I saw it were Argos and Amazon for £259 I chose amazon as it also offered a 1/2 price camera bag.
The camera has arrived but the memory cards I ordered have not arrived yet (so annoying to have the camera here and not be able to use it).
I read on a few sites that the new model has a smaller body and a few other small changes so I am glad to have the A200 rather than the A230.