This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
it does, but it's not as smooth as the functionality shown in the recent commercial for the ipad. That said, it provides tools to easily select someone's face or head and paste it into another picture. I've done this many times with Elements 8.
Just realized there is a function called Photomerge Group Shot which should make this easier - I haven't tried it yet.
Thanks. It has not always been a problem with my kids...they used to sit ok for pictures or I did more candids of them.
I have the Pentax KX & really happy with it. A little upset that there is no 50mm 1.8 ..Only option at 50m is a 1.4wife gave me the 35mm 2.4 for Christmas
How much is the 1.4? I wouldn't be upset it's a better lens. I have had to go down to 1.4 quite a bit to get the shot I want but I have a Nikon D80 and shooting over ISO800 gets a little sketchy.
Having access to the range of Nikon lenses would be the most critical thing to me, that and the Nikon is even cheaper would seal the deal.
the 1.4 is $350. I think thats inline with Nik/Can
Either a camera that can shoot high ISO without a lot of noise or a tripod. How do you feel about using a tripod?
Ultimately as long as I can get the shot I don't care. The problem I foresee with the tripod is the smaller volume of shots being able to be taken (and yes I'm nitpicking, but it's true). But you're right, I'd rather be able to get some shots than none at all or poorly exposed ones at that. But the tripod won't negate the subject movement, only hand shake from my understanding, correct?Any thoughts as to minimum ISO to be able to capture shots in that type of venue? Is 3200 enough?
Subject movement can still be a problem, yes. When you said you were shooting inside a church, I kind of assumed you would be taking pictures of a lot of stationary objects but if you are shooting people, that's different. I think shooting excessive movement is going to be tough for you inside no matter what. Because of the light situation, you aren't going to be able to shoot at fast shutter speeds.Minimum ISO is going to be a little bit of a guess. 3200 is pretty high though, so yeah I think that will be good enough, especially if you have a 2.8 aperture on the lens, but you still aren't going to be at a real fast shutter speed. However make sure the camera you are using can shoot good pictures at 3200 ISO, just because it can go that high, doesn't mean the pictures are going to be good. If you have a lot of noise at 3200 ISO, you are probably not going to be satisfied with the shot. It takes a pretty high end camera to be able to shoot at that high an ISO. I can't go higher than 800 ISO with my Nikon D80 before noise becomes a problem.
That bag might be fine, lowealpine doesn't make bags for specific models that I know of, so I would assume it's versatile, unless you are saying its made for a point and shoot only.If when you get your camera, you don't like it, check out this vendor. apecase
Does it come with another lens? You're going to want something wider than 50. And the 50-200 and 75-300 seem to have a lot of overlap to me. Any reason you're buying both of them?
It will come with the 18-55 kit lens.
OK, cool. Personally, I'd skip the Sigma and just go with the 75-300. I shoot everything with either an 18-55, 70-300 or 35 prime. Never missed not having anything from 55-70.
Only reason for the Sigma was Image Stabilization.
I thought just about every long lens came with IS/VR. Canon sells a 75-300 without IS? That surprises me.
No IS with the Canon 75-300. They do make one for twice the price.
Personally, I'd spend the extra money on the Canon with IS. I originally had the Nikon 70-300 prior to VR and wasn't steady enough to shoot anything close to 300 without a tripod. Now I can do it pretty easily with VR (assuming good lighting). It all depends on what/how you plan on shooting. I'd get very little use out of a non IS/VR long zoom lens.
Definately check B+H photo and adorama.
I would forget getting the Canon 75-300 as they are not very good. I would instead recommend getting the Canon 55-250 IS to pair with your Canon 18-55 IS. You wouldn't need the Sigma either. The Canon 55-250 is a very good bang for your buck telephoto lens and is best used outdoors.scottybo said:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htmor
Thanks. I think I was getting a raw deal so I balked, but am antsy at this point; might just go to Best Buy tonight and get THIS, but no idea about the lens. Thoughts?Thoughts JTC?
That lens is the same crap that came with the D90, always try to get BODY ONLY unless you know what kind of lens you are getting.Go to Adorama, search for D7000 body, sort by price low-to-high and save a few hundred bucks. You'll regret getting that kit from BB since you'll never use the lens once you get something better.
I have the 70-300 VR and love it.I'll probably be getting the 18-200 once we start doing more with our little boy and I want to make sure I can get all the shots I want without having to worry about changing lenses.
Crap is a bit harsh. Looks like you can get the body for around $1200, so he'd be paying $300 for that lens. I had an 18-135 that came with my camera and for sure it's not my favorite lens but I can't say don't get any use out of it.So anyway, SLBD, this is where it gets kind of tough to say.
I'd add that prime lens force you to be a better photographer. What I mean is that, when you have a zoom, it's easy to sit in one place and just use the zoom to adjust your picture. When you have a prime, you start to move around more and, with this, you start to see things differently in terms of lighting and composition. I was initially reluctant to get one because I thought it would reduce flexibility. While it is less flexible, I've learned more about picture taking because of it. At least this was my experience. That said, if this is your first SLR though, I'd start with a zoom lens.
SLR/DSLR just means that you can change lenses. Looks like that Fuji is a really good camera from the review you posted. I'm sure it takes awesome pictures, but like you said, you have a fixed lens so you don't have a lot of versatility with the lens.
this looks real slick, full size sensor but the lens is fixed & not interchangeable . I'd rather have an EVIL camera
I would third this sentiment. I shot for several years with nothing but zoom lenses. Finally bought a 35mm 1.8 last year and absolutely love the pics I get with it. But it's just not always a practical lens to use, especially outdoors. Sometimes you just can't get close enough to your subject. But having used the 35 prime for a while, I can see myself investing in a 50 prime soon and maybe a 24 down the road.
To me, this has a pretty limited market/application. I could see this being a good option in certain situations, but I couldn't see myself ever purchasing it. Just depends on what you are shooting and where. For a kids birthday party or other indoor even where you are free to move around and get close to your subject it would be fine. For travel or most outdoor photography I'd be afraid of missing too many shots because I couldn't get either close enough or far away enough from what I'm shooting.Seems like more of a "look at me, I've got a retro-style camera" than anything truly practical.
I'm a big fan of the move toward APS-C sensors in cameras the size of Point-and-Shoots. I think that's what people are talking about whey they say "will be all the rage".You might check out the NEX-5(which is SUPPOSED to have quite a few lenses coming out in the next year or so). Scroll to the middle of the page...
I love my 18-200
Adorama is heavily back/ordered on both D7000 kits & body-only - and is guesstimating a 2-3 month wait for this item
Sonny - Have you looked at the Canon 60D? I don't mean to start a Canon/Nikon war as both make excellent cameras, but if you don't have any investment into Nikon lens system then you should take a look at the Canon 60D. Popular Photography mag did a test between the two and they opt for the Canon. They claim the Canon has higher resolution, one stop better noise control and focuses slightly faster. Just thought I'd throw that option out there as it appears the Nikon D7000 is not going to be available for a couple of months.
Wow, I'm really surprised by the bolded part. I thought that the conventional wisdom has been for the past several years that image quality typically goes to Canon but speed of focus and the sensitivity of the sensor went to Nikon.One other factor that I think is positive in favor of Canon are the specials when it comes to lenses. I see good deals on Canon lenses more often than on Nikon.Steelfan7 said:
Contrarian review (didn't really search much, googled: canon vs. nikon glass 2011).http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/10/29/can...00-mini-review/Steelfan7 said:
I haven't and I am going to the shop now, found a local guy with the D7000. I may take a look at the Canon but I have little time to do so.The guy suggested I get a 300 lens (for surfing shots). I really have no idea what lens I'll be buying, even after reading the info here. Kind of confusing in the end, with all the options/pros/cons. Anybody have any last minute advice?
Also, appreciate ALL the help in here, really, I'll be stoked either way I'm sure. Thanks.
Unless you are shooting tripod all the time, you're not going to like that lens without the IS.
