Photography help?

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum and new to photography. Well, new to good photography at least. My partner bought me a Canon S5IS years ago and we used to snap photos of holidays etc and it did the job fine. For some reason I was inspired to take better photos etc, not for professional use, but for a hobby and fun.

So, I went out and bought the Canon 650D with the twin lens kit. I've heard it's a good DSLR for beginners so thought it seemed great. I've been using it for a few weeks and I'm having great fun with it. I didn't realize how much cool stuff was in my hometown until I wandered it's streets with a camera.

I've noticed though the lenses that came with it don't allow for certain scenarios. For example, my partner asked me to take photos of an engagement ring from the 1940s... Even zooming in I couldn't get a clear close up. I've been told I need a macro lens for that.

I've shown some photos to friends and apparently some shots are great, but some they've said I need a more wide lense etc for this or that. I looked into more lenses but I'm confused... Sales reps run rings around me with this stuff, and we all know they don't care about the customer and only want the money so will say anything to get it (even tried selling an amateur like me a few $2000 lenses). I tried reading up on the details on some lenses and got confused with focal length and aperture and the way they interact etc.

Then you talk to a photographer and they say "you need a 40mm or a pancake" then another photographer says "you need a 70-300mm" for the same scenario.

So I thought I'd ask here, what do I need? My main shots are nature, flowers and the odd portrait. We also want something to take good clear photos of our child when they arrive. Mainly natural (such as colourful flowers or landscape shots of trees, parks etc or old buildings etc)

I've also been told to avoid sigma lenses and stick to canon, then others say the opposite :(

Can someone please help an absolute noob out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

I'm new to the forum and new to photography. Well, new to good photography at least. My partner bought me a Canon S5IS years ago and we used to snap photos of holidays etc and it did the job fine. For some reason I was inspired to take better photos etc, not for professional use, but for a hobby and fun.

---

Welcome to the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

I've noticed though the lenses that came with it don't allow for certain scenarios. For example, my partner asked me to take photos of an engagement ring from the 1940s... Even zooming in I couldn't get a clear close up. I've been told I need a macro lens for that.

---

Lenses have a Minimum Focus Distance. Macro lenses can focus at closer distances. You could use extension tubes with whatever lens you have to get closer to a subject or you could buy a macro lens. Many macro lenses are good for other uses other than macro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

I've shown some photos to friends and apparently some shots are great, but some they've said I need a more wide lense etc for this or that. I looked into more lenses but I'm confused... Sales reps run rings around me with this stuff, and we all know they don't care about the customer and only want the money so will say anything to get it (even tried selling an amateur like me a few $2000 lenses). I tried reading up on the details on some lenses and got confused with focal length and aperture and the way they interact etc.

Then you talk to a photographer and they say "you need a 40mm or a pancake" then another photographer says "you need a 70-300mm" for the same scenario.

So I thought I'd ask here, what do I need? My main shots are nature, flowers and the odd portrait. We also want something to take good clear photos of our child when they arrive. Mainly natural (such as colourful flowers or landscape shots of trees, parks etc or old buildings etc)

---

There are many choices for each of those subjects and many ways to choose. I do not think there is a right answer for your question, only preferences of different photographers. You can shoot flowers with any lens and will get different results with a telephoto than you will a wide lens. If you want close ups you would need a macro lens. If you want flowers in a landscape you might want wider lens. You could end up with five or six lenses to do all of the different things you mention.

Were you looking for a one size fits all answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

I've also been told to avoid sigma lenses and stick to canon, then others say the opposite :(

---

Salesman at the local camera store push sigma and other lenses. Not because the lenses are better than Canon, the store makes a higher profit margin. You will get the same answers here, some use sigma and some like to stick with Canon. I personally stick with Canon. There is no right answer to this only opinions.

1- Welcome to the forums.
2- Which two lenses did you get with your kit.?

I'm going to guess 18-55 IS II and 55-250mm IS

3- Take a deep breath and relax ;)

Odds are to start out you have most everything you need to get decent shots to share with you friends and family. It'll be using the right lens in the right situation.
Finding out which lens (I'm learning) is a very personal choice. What may work for me may be awkward for you so

Quote:

---

a photographer and they say "you need a 40mm or a pancake" then another photographer says "you need a 70-300mm" for the same scenario.

---

A good macro lens will help you take close ups of small items, but it is not essential.

Use your zoom but step back from your subject.

there is a ring sitting on the bookshelf next to me so I swapped a couple lenses to show you can get the same shot.

keep in mind I didn't set up lighting etc, just some really quick shots to show you.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-o...0/IMG_1004.jpg
18-55mm @ 55mm about 30cm (12") away from ring

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8...0/IMG_1020.jpg
55-250 @250 about 1m (1 yard) away

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-G...0/IMG_1010.jpg
55-250 @ 90mm with 25mm extension tube about 30cm (12") away from ring

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s...0/IMG_1016.jpg

original image cropped


So 4 different ways to achieve the same photo, none using a macro.

Shoot in the largest format available (RAW) and edit after if required.


your 18mm will be fairly wide for most situations.

Having both those lenses I find their limitations are indoor situations.. and once you borrow, or rent an L series lens you notice how nice your images can really be.

Anyway hope this made sense.

As for your next lens? with what you hope to shoot I suggest reading the reviews in the section http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ for Brian's Canon Lens Recommendations

sidenote:
another option which I chose when I started was magnification filters. I got a set of inexpensive filters by hoya, +1 +2 and +4 they work to achieve macro pictures, and stacked you get higher magnification.. and with extension tube even closer.
Good images.. but not true macro caliber.

Hi:) I wouldn't avoid Sigma and Tamron lenses all together. Yes, some have issues, but generally speaking they are a good value for us regular folks:) If you do want Canon lenses, I'd keep an eye on refurbished lenses at the Canon Store's website. Adorama also has a refreshed list of refurbs from time to time (use the link on this Site when making purchases to support TDP). There are all kinds of ways to turn a lens into a macro going from really cheap (think it's a cannon 550 filter) to a hundred or so (kenko extension tubes). An original Canon 100mm macro is nice, but the price starts going up to a few hundred for that. Keep asking questions and I'm sure others will answer.
Edit: Speaking of Adorama, Mark Wallace had just done a video on their Site about shooting in "P" mode. It talks a lot about the different looks you get with shutter speed and aperture. It would be worth a view if you get confused with it.

Hey all,

Thanks for your replies, greatly appreciated.

Yes, I got the 18-55 IS II and 55-250mm IS and they seem ok… although I've been told they're not? I think this is part of my problem. I'm happy with the results but pro photographers say theirs is better blah blah blah

I wasn't looking for a one size fits all answer, I'm aware I'll need more than one lens etc but I'm just trying to work out which ones to buy. I've been told so many different stories on what to buy and what to avoid… but they always conflict etc. I'm not after pro quality photos, but I would still like to have some level of quality. When it comes to flowers etc I'd like clarity and vibrant colours etc, mind you I bought Lightroom so that'd help somewhat (but I'd still like to use it as a last resort)

I see what you mean about indoor shots, I tried a few shots indoors and the results felt "cramped" etc, like I couldn't get far enough away from the subject.

Thanks for the ring photos also, it definitely puts it in perspective. I just got back from looking at lenses and had my camera bag on my shoulder and instantly the sales guy tried selling me the virtues on the 650D and said I should look into it… Pointed out I already had it and he then tried showing me their most expensive lenses. I don't have many friends into photography so it's hard going into a store and not being eaten alive.

See, I love the quality of the lenses I currently have, but I'm constantly getting told I need other lenses and to sell these on ebay etc etc and put the money towards another lens and all that. It all gets confusing to say the least.

I always shoot in RAW mode with no jpg. Problem is though people point ut distortion on lenses I have etc but I honestly don't see it. It looks VERY smooth to me, but people say it's grainy etc etc… Mind you, these are the same people who go "oh Canon are really bad, you should have gone Nikon" etc

I just want to learn and take good shots! *runs off in tears*

I'll check out the lens reviews also :)

Thanks for the help so far

To get a little better image quality you pay a premium. Where you pay a few hundred bucks for a cheaper kit lens you might pay in the thousands for the upgrade to a canon L lens. You might pay 3 times as much but the improvement will be fractional, definitely not 3x better. If you are happy with the quality your present lenses put out, why care what others think is better. You found what works for you.

The one lens that I would point you toward, because flowers, image quality and color seem to be a reoccurring theme is the canon 100mm L IS macro lens. It will do several of the things you mentioned very well and is an extremely sharp lens. It would be an excellent lens as your first L lens and a start to expanding your kit.

Sweet, thanks, I'll check the lens out :)

I've been looking at that site Adorama and I'm damn well impressed. In Aus for example we pay $795 (a little over $800us) for the Canon 18-135 lens... That Adorama site has it for under $300au... holy cow. With shipping I'd be paying $340 or so... That's under half what we pay here :/ I was thinking of selling my 18-55 and getting that one... Worth it, or are they completely separate lenses? (from what I've read they're the same, but one has deeper zoom, but I'm a noob and probably wrong)

I might hit that site up for an L lens also, see what they have :)

Squidy,

Welcome, I would rate myself as a nearly blind enthusiast (just kidding... no really I have 20/20 vision) , that once worked in a high end camera store that had the absolute best at hand.... in 1978. What the 650 can do (I have the 600) just keeps me giggling and smiling w/ how far the photographic world has come. I bought my 600 about a year ago.

The 650d is an amazing piece of technology. The lenses in the kit are plenty enough for "take good shots." The software that comes bundled w/ the camera and updates available at canon website is likely "enough" for "want to learn and take good shots." I think the user "Fast Glass" says it really well, "amateurs worry about equipment, pros worry about getting paid, masters worry about light - I (we) just take pictures" or words to that effect.

You comment about learning is spot on - There are plenty of dials, buttons and settings enough to worry about, add in all the tweaks you can do in DPP, and taking good pictures, if not amazing pictures are well within the grasp of your current set up. My opinion - The single best way to learn is to take pictures, fiddle with a setting and take the picture again, have some organization to it - i.e. practice. A single digital picture is effectively free, it is not likely you will burn out the shutter on the 650d anytime soon. Learning what light does, what to expect, how to manage it is really important - i.e. exposure.

Focus, the posts here are great tips on macro and close focusing. Even though the camera/lens/software is amazing, focus is still one of those "got to haves" in the picture. Only the smallest tweaks in focus (some say none) can be made in the software.

In DPP is a setting that will correct many of the distortions caused by each specific canon lens (it is in the "tool palette" "lens" tab that is either under the "view" menu heading or its own button when in an edit window) - I know of no lens that is perfect. You can play around with an awful lot of settings, etc that really show the latitude and flexibility of the camera you have. Take three pictures of the same subject with 2 stops/steps above/below what the camera tells is the correct exposure and load them into DPP and play, knowing which way the exposure goes is a good thing. Move all the sliders around and see what happens - some are kind of funny effects in my opinion.

The 650 has an equal/better sensor to the 7d - arguably a "pro" level camera - you have enough hardware to take "great" shots, in a few short moments of practice you will certainly "get it" and have yet more fun.

Again, welcome to forum and many happy clicks to you.

Mike

DPP?

See, I'm pretty sure that's the problem I'm having, becoming too influenced by what the "pros" are telling me. As for exposure and lighting I'm learning about it, but it's taking a while. But, regardless of that it's fun anyhow :)

As for the take multiple photos that's what I've started doing today. I realised all the settings appear in Lightroom for each shot so I've changed settinga and taken more photos etc so I can scroll through and see what the settings were and what the differences are. As I said, it's a learning experience, but damn it's fun :)

Another note: rental lenses are available- you can try out a couple suggestions before spending large sums.

With your camera you should have got some bundled software from canon.
I'll be on one of the CD's in the box
DPP = Digital Photo Professional
other software likely on the same CD will be EOS utility, Picture Style Editor and Zoom Browser EX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

DPP?

See, I'm pretty sure that's the problem I'm having, becoming too influenced by what the "pros" are telling me. As for exposure and lighting I'm learning about it, but it's taking a while. But, regardless of that it's fun anyhow :)

---

DPP = Digital Photo Professional

Digital Photo Professional comes on the disk that you receive when you purchase a retail Canon SLR. And no matter which Canon SLR you buy, you can always upgrade to the newest DPP (available from the Canon website) for additional features and bug fixes.

Whenever I do a photo job that involves processing lots (and lots) of pictures, I use DPP. In my mind, it does everything I need a batch post processing software to do. I can adjust exposure, sharpness, noise, color, contrast (shadows and highlights independently), and apply lens corrections and add ratings. I can copy settings from one picture and apply those settings to every picture, or I can simply adjust the settings of all the pictures at the same time (assuming I want the settings to be the same). And best of all--it's free.

After using DPP to convert the RAW files to jpegs, I then choose some select images to further post process in Photoshop. Truth is, for most of the fine tuning I do in Photoshop, I could alternately use GIMP (free download).

A lot of the "pros" use Lightroom, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've used it, but I never found the additional features of Lightroom to be worth while for me. And if "pros" don't use DPP, then I'm fine being called something else. ;-)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7275/7...27297cf4_n.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/6...c2db4605_n.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5330/6...2ff04250_n.jpg http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/6...2e51e6a2_n.jpg

Great!! -

Happy practice - one suggestion is to play w/ the f-stop values to see how the depth of field(focus) changes the look of a photograph, how a low f-stop will cause the object of the photo to visually separate from the background (portraits etc) and a larger f-stop brings everything into clearer definition (landscapes, etc).

Everyone on this board is very helpful and always willing to chime in and usually play very nice the greater sandbox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

DPP?

See, I'm pretty sure that's the problem I'm having, becoming too influenced by what the "pros" are telling me. As for exposure and lighting I'm learning about it, but it's taking a while. But, regardless of that it's fun anyhow :)

As for the take multiple photos that's what I've started doing today. I realised all the settings appear in Lightroom for each shot so I've changed settinga and taken more photos etc so I can scroll through and see what the settings were and what the differences are. As I said, it's a learning experience, but damn it's fun :)

---

I have a 18-55mm IS that I'm happy with as well. It *could* be faster, I mean, it could have a wider aperture, allowing use is lower light or for thin depth of field, but aside from that it's great. A lot of the older photographers started when the 18-55mm non-IS was the kit lens, and it was not a good lens. The new one is actually quite nice.

What am I comparing to, though, that's the big question. Am I saying my 18-55mm is good compared to an old point and shoot, or a fancy $2000 lens?

I can only compare to lenses I have. I've got the 50mm f/1.8, the 85mm f/1.8, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L, the original 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS, and I had the 24-105mm f/4L for 2 years. The kit lens is not as sharp as the primes (50mm and 85mm), or the 70-300mm L, but it's not that far off either. It has good image quality, the IS works great (it even auto-detects and switches to panning mode IS), and it has a very low minimum focus distance, good for flowers, etc. I found it sharper than the 24-105mm L. Between the kit lens and the 85mm, I didn't need the 24-105mm L, which is why it's now been sold.

The other end of the spectrum is the old 75-300mm, Canon's first IS lens. It's soft, and gets softer as you zoom. My Rebel T1i would give a focus lock beep despite the softness, but my 7D won't. The images past 150mm or so aren't usable, even scaled down. These are the sorts of lenses you really do need to avoid. Between Bryan's reviews and learning to use his ISO chart shots, you should be good.

Oh, and as for the price difference you're seeing with the 18-135mm, there are TWO 18-135mm lenses. Make sure you're comparing prices of the same lens. The newer one will say "STM", and is supposed to be nice and sharp. The previous one wasn't that sharp, and I suggest avoiding it.

Welcome,
lots of great advice already. I think the most important one came from Kombi - take a deep breath and relax.
I too started with the same lenses and a 600D. That gives you a lot of room to explore and experiment and learn. Then you will find out if at all and what other lens you want to buy next, either because there is something that your current lenses don't do at all (like Macro photography), or because you feel the image quality, maximum aperture, or focus speed is limiting you.
I for example found that the image quality and focal length of the 55-255 was not really excellent when shooting birds. But I also found out that, while it was a lot of fun exploring that area, I haven't done much of it lately - so I did not go and buy a better tele zoom (yet :-) ). What I'm trying to say is, you yourself will find out what other lens you want most. Just go out and take a lot of pictures and don't be afraid to delete most of the pictures. Try different things, like Mike said, play with different f values, and keep asking questions.

Enjoy!

Arnt

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for such great advice. It's very helpful to know that already my questions are being taken seriously and great advice is flowing. The reason I say this is I was actually worried posting on this board in case I got torn to pieces. I've browsed some FB photography groups etc and the amount of hatred aimed at younger, or newer, photographers is just disturbing. To find this board when everyone is so helpful is just a breath of fresh air, I can see myself staying here for quite a while :)

Weird, my camera didn't actually come with any CDs but seemed to come with everything else on the list. Thank heavens I bought Lightroom then because Canon don't offer DPP for download on their site, only updates.

The idea about rental lenses is a good one, however in Sydney we don't usually have that kind of thing. Stores usually just sell then you have 7 days to return it if you're not happy... which sucks. My friend was in Japan recently and he walked into a store and they let him attach a lens to his camera and wander round taking photos. Crazy.

I bought a DVD recently and the guy who talks in it seems to know what he's talking about but he says stuff like "try a different F setting" but doesn't tell what it does etc. I'm currently reading up on different functions etc. I know how to point and shoot, but where's the fun in that?? It's like another friend who is "pro" (I use the term incredibly loosely) keeps telling me I shouldn't manually focus. Why not?? I feel much more in control, and actually take better images, when I focus myself. I always find I get sharper images when I'm focusing as opposed to the lens doing it... And you know what? I'm happy with the results so I'm going to keep doing it.

I understand image quality as a loose term and I can see some of my shots have quality to them, but the focal length choices and shutter speeds, aperture etc is what does my head in to be honest.

The f is the aperture, the opening in the lens that determines how much light is let through. Small value means a big wide open aperture, a high value means a small narrow one. Set you camera to Av mode to try it out. See how at wide open apertures the background becomes unsharp when you focus on something in the foreground (actually a desired effect for eg portraits). For landscapes, you typically want a smaller aperture (high value, f 11 or so) so that foreground and background are sharp. The camera will adjust shutter speed automatically.
You can also check out the tips on this site

Arnt

Here's an example of what changing aperture (different f value) will do in terms of Depth Of Field (how much is in focus).
http://www.jennibidner.com/-/jennibidner/gallery.asp?LID=&cat=70116&pID=4&row=15&photoID=26 60780&searchTerm=

Another comparison image, with a description of aperture:
http://theawesomephotographer.com/what-is-aperture/

While your friend says you should change your f value, that's only one variable you can adjust to change how you photos look. Changing the aperture can adjust the depth of field.

Depth of Field is controlled by 3 things.
1. Focal length (18mm, 55mm, 250mm, etc.)
2. Focus distance (focus on something 12" away, 5 feet away, 50 feet away, etc.)
3. Aperture (f/1.4, f/5.6, f/22, etc.)

DOF is thinner the longer the focal length, the shorter the focus distance, and the wider the aperture (250mm @ 12", f/1.4)
DOF is larger the shorter the focal length, the longer the focus distance, and the narrower the aperture (18mm, @ 50 feet, f/22)

However, each of the three things above control more than just the depth of field. Focal length for example. Obviously if you zoom in from 18mm to 250mm the image will change, but what happens if you back up such that at 250mm you had the same framing as you did at 18mm? This page, http://www.expertphotography.com/4-s...-focal-lengths, shows how 3 soup cans and their background can appear very differently, adjusting focal length, and focus distance. Telephoto lenses appear to compress depth. A soccer field can appear to be as narrow as a sidewalk when you're at 400mm.

The best way to learn is to play around. Take several photos of the same thing with different settings apertures. Try the focal length variation with same framing experiment with something in your neighborhood.

Use your telephoto lens, but focus on something really close. Try both a wide and a narrow aperture. How did the aperture affect the DOF up close? Then shoot something far away, with both apertures. Did the aperture change the image the same way, or by the same amount?

When you've got a feel for aperture, then play with shutter speed. Typical slow-shutter speed shots are waterfalls, fountains, fireworks, reflections on a lake or river, the shore at a beach, or even clouds. How does the shutter speed affect the look of the image? To force a long shutter speed with correct exposure, choose a low ISO (100), and use Av mode with a narrow aperture (f/22). The camera will decrease the shutter speed to gather enough light.

Thanks heaps for the help everyone, and sorry for such a delayed response, I've been out enjoying taking photos :)

Another quick question, I've had people say to me my camera is "crop sensor" so it's junk by default and they're telling me to get a full camera... The hell does that mean? I want to do flowers, wildlife and landscape and they've said it's junk for landscape and wildlife... It looks OK so far?

You need to get new friends:) The sensor that captures the image is smaller than a 35mm camera making it more affordable to by. I guess to be technical, the 35mm ("full frame") is actually a crop compared to a medium format (crazy expensive) . And the medium format is a crop too when compared to it's big brother. I've never had a problem shooting landscapes with a crop. It's more important to use the right lens for the job, and Canon has a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

Thanks heaps for the help everyone, and sorry for such a delayed response, I've been out enjoying taking photos :)

Another quick question, I've had people say to me my camera is "crop sensor" so it's junk by default and they're telling me to get a full camera... The hell does that mean? I want to do flowers, wildlife and landscape and they've said it's junk for landscape and wildlife... It looks OK so far?

---

1st. Glad you are taking photo's.

Jan could probably offer the number of "full frame" vs. crop sensor winners from the assignment thread - it is the photographER that makes the difference.

To be technical: And there are plenty on this forum that are way more technical than me.....

A crop sensor is smaller than a full 24x36mm sized sensor - that is the size of the "traditional" 35mm film camera. They are smaller so each pixel compared to a similar resolution "full frame" has to be smaller. This means less light falls onto each sensor and the signal has to be amplified a bit more for identical conditions. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean all that much for most of the time - in low light yep there is a difference. HOWEVER, if one back off 1 stop on the shutter speed... information and signal are now equal or better to the "crop sensor." Again, in very low light and long shutter speeds the information going to the larger "full frame" pixel is indeed better with less electronic noise as their is less electronic signal amplification. There is also typically a little more dynamic range and shadow detail, but you have to look REALLY CLOSE to find these differences. For most landscapes, tripods shots and most any typical enlargement, these are not concerns.

FYI if you ever get to Washington DC cruise through the national geographic exhibition at natural history just in case you ever wonder how big you can take your image. They have worked really hard, but wow what a set of amazing photos.

Now there is a benefit to a "crop sensor" that is for the same resolution you are shooting through the middle of the lens (usually better optics) and with a bit more of a telephoto effect for the same focal length lens. a 50mm lens on a crop sensor has the same view as a 80mm on a full frame (1.6x) and should have a better optical environment.

The "crop" in crop sensor comes from the effect of "cropping out" parts of the top/bottom/sides compared to a full frame. As soon as the "full frame" picture is "cropped" vs. a "crop sensor" that is used full size.... image quality starts to go to the "crop sensor." You will see narrative about getting a bit more "reach" w/ a crop sensor vs. full frame for a given lens.


Three basic points.
1) ( a little negative) Photo is like boats - there is always someone who can spend more money to take a picture or float on the water. For those w/ a "full frame" camera that think a "crop sensor" is automatically junk, perhaps you should ask them why they don't shoot Leica medium format or Hassleblad/Phase One. They will only set you back a minimum 20k for the body alone. You will really get amazed at the lens costs..... Anything other than a Leica S2 is "junk"..... Leica does make a 18 megapixel full frame "range finder" style i.e. not a single lens relfex - only $7k for the body. Perhaps they are worried of their own skill and are trying to make themselves feel better.

What you use and is it "worth it" to get the next "upgrade" all depends on your needs, wants, and checkbook - it has little to do with anyone else. The dismal science (economics) has whole books devoted to "decision process and utility".

2) Canon has in effect arguably 4 "current" senors on the "pro to prosumer" market. The 1dx 18 megapixel "full frame", The 5dIII 22 megapixel, the 5dII 21 megapixel sensor though still be sold though I doubt it is still being manufactured, and the APS-C sized sensor that is now in the 7d, 60d, t4i,T3i. I just checked and the 7d at Adorama is $1,499 for the body only, the 7d is considered a "pro" level body oriented - not exclusive - to the sports world - your camera as the same sensor. Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Sigma (they has something different) all have "full frame" and crop sensors.

3) I very much like my T3i crop sensor - light weight, fits my hands/shooting style just fine, etc. I did rent the 5dIII for my long weekend in the mountains and it sure is a nice camera, etc, etc, though I can afford it I am not in a mad dash to buy it - the "utility" just isn't there for me... And yes I am a pixel peeper and shot identical shots with both T3i and 5DIII.

You can take amazing photographs. I worked in a high camera store in the late 70s early 80s, and dare I say 3/4 of my entire gadget bag is inside the T3i. All the optics are better now vs. then. The creative possibilities are 10x what they once were.

I look to photo like my golf game... I do it for fun, yes there are people who do it for money and do it "better" and I truly enjoy to watch the master at their art, I still do it just for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

Thanks heaps for the help everyone, and sorry for such a delayed response, I've been out enjoying taking photos :)

Another quick question, I've had people say to me my camera is "crop sensor" so it's junk by default and they're telling me to get a full camera... The hell does that mean? I want to do flowers, wildlife and landscape and they've said it's junk for landscape and wildlife... It looks OK so far?

---

You only have to look at the picture on the right side of the page on this link, a crop sensor only uses the center part of the lens where a full frame uses the whole lens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

Landscape, yes a full frame camera would do a better job. But a crop sensor is a long way from being junk.

Wildlife, it depends on what full frame body you are comparing. A 7D which is a crop body will rule over a 5D II a FF camera. If you spend $3,000 + US you could get a 5D III and it would rule over the 7D only because of its AF system. Crop bodies are excellent for wildlife, not by any stretch junk.

"The hell does that mean?", it sounds like this kind of statement "my equipment is better than your equipment", or "my house is bigger than your house" or "my car is bigger than your car" and the obvious one "I spent almost $7000 on just my camera and it is better than yours".

Hi all,

I'm stuck at work so can't reply directly to everyone, but thanks heaps for the extra information. And yeah, it's exactly as I though, the standard "my xylophone is bigger than yours!" thing.

I was just confused because I know what shots I need/want to take, but I'm now being told that I got the wrong camera etc. Mind you, one of these guys spent over $20k on lenses etc and his shots look even worse than mine.

You know what annoys me though? I take photos right, then I edit them a tad (exposure and the like) so I'm not a pro at exposure yet... But the guys and girls giving me sh*t? They'll take a photo "oh, the sky doesn't look good" so they'll remove the sky and photoshop in a sky from another photo... Don't like that telegraph pole? remove it. To me that's not photography. To me photography is capturing a moment in time and getting a result you're happy with, whether it be your child or animals, or a great sunset or a landscape etc. I know some editing has to be done but... removing skies and objects etc? Is that even normal? I read something in a magazine and they were going on about the same concept and... I dunno, I just want to take accurate shots. The closest I ever want to come to "cheating" is maybe trying out an ND filter on a waterfall/fountain or something with a longer exposure.

As far as I see it, if I can do it with my camera, it's photography... The very second I ned to remove skies etc etc... I dunno, it just doesn't feel real?

I think the moderators may reword your "mine is bigger" statement since it is a family oriented website. But it seems to be the case.

But, your next comments about photo shopping vs do it with the camera fall in the same category as the "mine is bigger" statement. It can be construed as "my way is better than your way". But this is a two edged sword that cuts both ways. There are those that will photoshop any thing that they feel takes away from the photo, there are others that try and get it exactly right at the camera. I see nothing wrong with either method, if it is the style that a person chooses then so be it.

Beat them to the editing bit :D

Yeah you're right I guess, I just thought it was odd that people would swap out skies etc. I mean, editing is one thing, but taking a photo and removing half of the photo... I'd call it editing not photography, but I'm a noob in this stuff so *shrug*, whatever gets a good result I guess

A little perspective on the sky thing. You may have a vision of a certain mountain or place that you want to photograph. But to get that perfect beautifull shot it takes time and dedication to get the right sky for the right picture. There is more to it than just light and hitting it at the right time of day, a landscape filled with basic blue sky above your favorite mountain range can be a beautiful shot but a storm with multiple layers of clouds can make it exceptional. Unfortunately if you are an amateur like many of us, you're favorite subjects are limited to your vacation or time off. You will not have the time to invest to get the perfect sky. You have to be lucky with your limited time to get the sky and light you want. I am sure that many people resort to the option of pasting in a few clouds. Personally I would rather invest the time and do it the old fashion way, but I really do understand the swapping out skies although I never have.

Yeah, that's a very good point