# 100% beginner!



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

I just joined, and I was kinda scared to find that I barely understood half of the BEGINNERS' thread topics. I'd probably get it if I knew all the crazy camera lingo, but I don't. I only just found out what DSLR is, but I don't know why it's the preferred type of camera.

Is anyone willing to explain, like...everything to me? I mean, just basics and stuff I need to know. I fancied myself a big shot photographer because my friends fawned over my cute little flower macro shots, but all I really do is point and shoot with a little imagination and sometimes it comes out pretty.

Anyway I'm definitely considoring photography more professionally because I know I could do so much more with a better camera. So I'm trying to camera shop, and if anyone has suggestions for someone of my 'level' and in the somewhat flexible budget of $425, I would be superduper grateful!


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 22, 2008)

Well the reason dslr is the preferred camera is you can change lenses, which allows you to change hwat you use for each situation, and also because of the rather large sensor, which allows for less noise at high iso's.  With 425 Id reccommend looking for a used d50 or d70s or d40, or the canon xti, xt and such.  Go to the store and play with the canons and nikon d40 (if they have it) to see what you like


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

I've been looking at Canon rebel XT and I like it alot. Just not sure if it's for me.
But if I got a DSLR, would I have to buy like 10 lenses that are only for one setting each? That seems expensive. Don't they come with like nighttime, closeup, or landscape settings automatically?


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

I don't have ten lenses.
I have different focal lengths for different _situations_. 4 lenses if you must know, and 2 of them cost me $40 each.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

And how many _focal lengths_ would you suggest I buy?


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 22, 2008)

Not really, they have lenses that are good for all three but they tend to be expensive, ie 17-55 2.8 at around 1000 dollars.  The best thing would probably be to get the kit lens, and the 50mm 1.8.  the 50mm is abotu 100 bucks, and the kit you can get with the camera.  You can use the 50 for low light situations, and the kit for the rest.


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> And how many _focal lengths_ would you suggest I buy?



As many as you _need _depending on what you take photos of.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

So if I wanted to buy the camera in, say, a couple of months, would I be able to take okay pictures while I'm saving for the lense kit? Or is it mandatory?


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

Well you need at least one lens to take any photos.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

This might sound stupid...
Doesn't the camera come with a lense? Atleast a generic one?


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

if you buy a camera "kit" that comes with one, yes.

if not, no.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

http://www.fotoconnection.com/p11462-canon-eos-350d-digital-rebel-xt-dslr-camera-body-silver.html

That one comes with a lens, right?


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

no, and that site's a scam.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> This might sound stupid...
> Doesn't the camera come with a lense? Atleast a generic one?


 
No, doesn't sound stupid, and the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Most all of the entry-level consumer DSLRs, Canon Reble series, Nikon 40, 50, 60, etc, can be bought as a kit which includes a basic lens.  These aren't great pieces of glass, but they will definitely get you started.  They're also genterally a good deal, as the cost of the body and lens combined is generally less than if purchased separately.

What sort(s) of photography do you think you might be interested in?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

Woah, really? Do you have any site suggestions? Amazon seems to be mostly used and it's hard to filter through all the junk...


----------



## AussieDee (Aug 22, 2008)

You can purchase cameras with "kit" lenses although they are not that great (from what I've heard) but will do the job and help you get started. Then once you master the "lingo" and figure out f-stop/aperture/DOF and all that.. then you can look into purchasing other lenses.


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

B&H.

Adorama.

Keh.

Freestyle Photo.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

tirediron said:


> What sort(s) of photography do you think you might be interested in?


 
Everything except nude portraits, haha. I just use what doesn't come out terribly. That's usually nature shots, but I'm not interested in one particular style. I just like to be different, I guess.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

reg said:


> no, and that site's a scam.


 
No s**t!  Wow, they want $320 for the camera body and $110 for a 1Gb SD card...  :thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 22, 2008)

I'd say go with bandh or adorama.  Bhphoto.com and adorama.com.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

reg said:


> B&H.
> 
> Adorama.
> 
> ...


 
Okay, thanks!


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Everything except nude portraits, haha. I just use what doesn't come out terribly. That's usually nature shots, but I'm not interested in one particular style. I just like to be different, I guess.



Nature as in landscape?

Wildlife?

What else?

Moar details plzkthx, this really makes a difference in what lenses you need.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

So, I buy a DSLR camera, and the lenses are like mini-upgrades? If so, that's perfect. I've been through 3 digital cameras this year, because I end up wanting bigger and better.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Everything except nude portraits, haha. I just use what doesn't come out terribly. That's usually nature shots, but I'm not interested in one particular style. I just like to be different, I guess.


 Like reg said, this is the important bit!


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

reg said:


> Nature as in landscape?
> 
> Wildlife?
> 
> ...


 
Oh, sorry. Um, macro nature. Bug, flowers, etc. I LOVE LOVE LOVE macro photos.


----------



## TSelman (Aug 22, 2008)

Newegg is a nice site.

If it says "Body", then there is no lens.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> So, I buy a DSLR camera, and the lenses are like mini-upgrades? If so, that's perfect. I've been through 3 digital cameras this year, because I end up wanting bigger and better.


 
Sort of; think of it as having a set of tools - that new lens is like getting a new wrench; it allows you to do something you couldn't be for, or allows you to do something better than you could before.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

TSelman said:


> If it says "Body", then there is no lens.


 
Oh, thanks.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Oh, sorry. Um, macro nature. Bug, flowers, etc. I LOVE LOVE LOVE macro photos.


 
They're a lot of fun; you'll wind up spending some serious $$ if you get really into it, but you can get started cheaply... what is the budget anyway?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Sort of; think of it as having a set of tools - that new lens is like getting a new wrench; it allows you to do something you couldn't be for, or allows you to do something better than you could before.


 
So what's a general price range for a macro lens?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

The budget for the camera (with a basic lens, I guess) is around $425. I'm not sure what my budget for a lens should be...


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

Depends on how much you're willing to learn manual focus and whatnot.

Old macro lenses go for a song on ebay, but they're full manual and you need a little adapter to put them on a DSLR (a couple exceptions but whatever).


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

I don't mind the hassle if it's cheap.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

I'm going to shop around for a while.
Thanks for the help!


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Oh, sorry. Um, macro nature. Bug, flowers, etc. I LOVE LOVE LOVE macro photos.


 

Macro photography is fun. Ive been getting some decent macro photos of scorpions and toads and stuff out here in Iraq. Ive been doing it all with a kit lens, but it works fairly well in my unprofessional opinion.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> So what's a general price range for a macro lens?


 
Ehh... anywhere from dirt-cheap for used manual ones on eBay to $800+ for a top-of-the-line 105mm.  For you, I'd suggest starting out with a set of close-up lenses which are simply optical elements that attach like filters to the front of your existing lens and allow you to get much closer to your subject.  The quality isn't stellar, but it's not bad.  They will run you $25 - 100 depending on size and quality.


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

And I would suggest extension tubes since they have no optical elements AND are only bout $14 shipped.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

A couple more questions. 
Is there a brand in particular that works well with macro?
Am I better off buying lenses new or used?
Is it cheaper to buy a set of lenses?


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 22, 2008)

All the brands are good for macro, used lenses are better deals and 90% of the time just as good, and lenses dont really come in sets.  Though you might be able to find on on ebay.


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 22, 2008)

Oh yeah, take a browse through this: http://www.shortcourses.com/use/index.html Should help get you familiar with some of the terminology amongst other things.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> All the brands are good for macro, used lenses are better deals and 90% of the time just as good, and lenses dont really come in sets. Though you might be able to find on on ebay.


 
Mmkay, thanks.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

LeroyLion said:


> Oh yeah, take a browse through this: http://www.shortcourses.com/use/index.html Should help get you familiar with some of the terminology amongst other things.


 
THANK YOU! It's really embarassing when I talk to photographers and I have no idea what they're saying.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

reg said:


> And I would suggest extension tubes since they have no optical elements AND are only bout $14 shipped.


 
Where can you get a full set of extension tubes, even manual for $14????


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

What are extension tubes...?


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

Full set? I don't even use the tubes so I couldn't say what a full set is but:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Macro-Extension...ryZ30059QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> What are extension tubes...?


 
Essentially hollow metal tubes which fit between  your lens and the camera body to allow the lens to focus very closely.  They're a little more annoying to use, and the less expensive ones won't allow you to do auto-focus/auto-metering (not a huge deal in macro anyway), but they do have the advantage of not having any glass in them, so can't distort the image.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

reg said:


> Full set? I don't even use the tubes so I couldn't say what a full set is but:
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Macro-Extension...ryZ30059QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> 
> ?


 
eBay's blocked at work, but I can guess which one's you're talking about.  The tubes normally come in a set of three, just like the close up "lenses" I mentioned above.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

Oh, that's interesting. Do the cheap ones help more than hurt, though?


----------



## reg (Aug 22, 2008)

whatever said:
			
		

> "This ring set consists of 5 rings. It perfectly couples with spot metering and AE mechanisms. The ring that attaches to the camera has male thread while that attaches to the lens has female bayonet mount type. For the other 3 rings, the male thread matches with the female one so there are altogether 7 combinations to obtain various magnifications. The lengths of the three rings are 9mm, 16mm and 30mm respectively. All measurements are from the image plane marked on the camera body to the object. "


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

Is that description for the extension tube on ebay?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

Okay, that's definitely   not what I thought it was.  Those actually sound like they'd work well, and you can't beat that price.  I'll have to have a look when I get home.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

Off-topic, but what are "stock" photos?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

eBay description said:
			
		

> This ring set consists of 5 rings. It perfectly couples with spot metering and AE mechanisms. *The ring that attaches to the camera has male thread*while that attaches to the lens has female bayonet mount type. For the other 3 rings, the male thread matches with the female one so there are altogether 7 combinations to obtain various magnifications. The lengths of the three rings are 9mm, 16mm and 30mm respectively. All measurements are from the image plane marked on the camera body to the object. "


 
WTF???  Threads???


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Off-topic, but what are "stock" photos?


 Stockpiles of images managed by a company who will sell them/arrange their use by commerical clients who need a specific type of image, but don't want to have to arrange for a photographer.  Essentially a commerical image library.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Stockpiles of images managed by a company who will sell them/arrange their use by commerical clients who need a specific type of image, but don't want to have to arrange for a photographer. Essentially a commerical image library.


 
Ahh, thanks.


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 22, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> THANK YOU! It's really embarassing when I talk to photographers and I have no idea what they're saying.


 

Hey, no problem. Hope it helps.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 22, 2008)

http://www.adorama.com/INKD50R.html
I can't tell whether this one is just a body or not.
Wouldn't it be listed with "body" somewhere in the title, if it was?
Yet I don't see anything about an included lens.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> http://www.adorama.com/INKD50R.html
> I can't tell whether this one is just a body or not.
> Wouldn't it be listed with "body" somewhere in the title, if it was?
> Yet I don't see anything about an included lens.


 


			
				Adorma website said:
			
		

> *Item Includes*
> 
> *D50 Body* - EN-EL3 Rechargeable Li-on Battery - MH-18a Quick Charger - Video Cable - UCE4 USB Cable - Strap -Body Cap - DK-5 Eyepiece Cap - DK-20 Rubber Eye Cup - Accessory Shoe Cover - Nikon PictureProject Software CD-ROM - 90 Day Nikon U.S.A. Warranty
> 14 Day Money Back Guarantee (see FAQ Section for details)



Body only


----------



## Crazydad (Aug 23, 2008)

Looks like that one does not have a lens. It would mention it in the "item includes" section if it had one. edit: tirediron beat me to it

This one includes the basic kit lens which is a decent lens to start with. You can get pretty close (not quite true macro) shots and wide angle. The D40 is a great beginner camera in your budget that you can grow with.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html?searchinfo=d40&item_no=1


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

tirediron said:


> [/color][/size]
> Body only


 
That's embarassing! It was right in front of me. :blushing:


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Crazydad said:


> This one includes the basic kit lens which is a decent lens to start with. You can get pretty close (not quite true macro) shots and wide angle. The D40 is a great beginner camera in your budget that you can grow with.
> 
> http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html?searchinfo=d40&item_no=1


 
Great! Thanks. I'll keep this one in mind, then.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

For about $200 you can pick up Nikon's 18-70mm (The kit lens that came with the D70, D70s and others). 

http://www.adorama.com/Search-Results.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=nikon 18-70

This is generally regarded as one of the best kit lenses to have shipped with any DSLR - I still use the one I got with my first D70 when it was first released.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

It's going to take me 6 months to save the money just for the camera,
I don't think I can afford $200 lenses just yet. 
But once I get a camera, I'll keep an eye out for that lense.
What's so great about it?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> It's going to take me 6 months to save the money just for the camera,
> I don't think I can afford $200 lenses just yet.
> But once I get a camera, I'll keep an eye out for that lense.
> What's so great about it?


 
It's got an ideal focal range for everyday use, it's well built (with a metal lens mount vice the plastic many of them have, and it's much sharper thoughout the range than a lot of kit lenses.  

Remember that the camera body is just a means to record the image; the lens is what makes it.  If you're going to scrimp, scrimp on the body *NOT* the glass!


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Wait, so the quality of the body doesn't matter?
Or what if I got a pretty good body, and a pretty good lense. Will those photos be equal to a bad body and great lense? Or vice versa?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Wait, so the quality of the body doesn't matter?
> Or what if I got a pretty good body, and a pretty good lense. Will those photos be equal to a bad body and great lense? Or vice versa?


 
All of the consumer-level bodies are very similar in terms of the picture quality they will produce.  Some have better performance at higher ISOs, some have more features, but generally the actual picture they will produce under average conditions will be very, very similar.

A good lens and cheap body will beat a great body and crap lens any day.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 23, 2008)

EDIT: deleted


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

tirediron said:


> All of the consumer-level bodies are very similar in terms of the picture quality they will produce. Some have better performance at higher ISOs, some have more features, but generally the actual picture they will produce under average conditions will be very, very similar.
> 
> A good lens and cheap body will beat a great body and crap lens any day.


 
All right, so should I buy a cheap body that comes with a kit lens, or is it not worth the extra cost?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3810976&CatId=7
I can't find 'DSLR' anywhere, but near the bottom there's some talk about lenses. Is this a good starter camera? I'd prefer a canon or nikon but kodak doesn't seem so bad.

And what about the website? I've gotten my last two cameras there, but I'm not sure if they're the best for the kind of camera I'm looking for now.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Oh, and what do filters do? Are any worth getting?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=167431&om_keycode=66
Good deal? It comes with a kit lens, and it's about $470 when it's in your cart.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony.../ccd/productDetail.do?cc_fm=Similar+Items+Mod
Or this one? More megapixels, and I like the look of it better, but there doesn't seem to be many options/details.


----------



## STICKMAN (Aug 23, 2008)

Go buy a NIkon D40 kit, which will have the 18-55mm lens with it. this is a good way to start and a great camera for the price... If you have a extra 150.00 u can add on a 55-200 lens as an additon to the kit.


Keep in mind megapixels dont mean crap, more of them is not a reason to buy a camera. you will be fine with 6mp range for certain.

here is where i bought mine

this is for the body and 18-55 http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541536652.htm?bct=t1134

and here is body 18-55 and 55-200 (do your self a favor and spend $50 more dollors and get the vr on the 55-200 its well worth it. http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1160.htm?bct=t13031003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcislr-digital-cameras


THis is a link to another thread on the photo forum i had responded to recently, it brakes down my entire D40 purchase through the ritz with prices, hope it helps..

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134643


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html?searchinfo=d40&item_no=1
It looks like this D4O is about $30 cheaper than the ritzcamera one.
But yeah, this camera is probably at the top of my wishlist now. I keep hearing so much about it.
And what is that lens that you mentioned good for?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

If I may, what I'd suggest you do, since it appears that you haven't fully settled on one particular camera yet, is go around to your local cameras stores, pick up the different bodies, try them out, have the salesmen explain the featuers of each one and then think about a decision. While economics is a big factor, it's not the only one, and you may find that you want to wait a little while longer to save for a totally different camera, because after playing with it, "It's the one".

A 55-200mm zoom is a telephoto zoom, essentially for magnifying the scene or bringing things from fara away "in close"

Filters are used to add effects to an image, help resolve exposure issues, and add artistic touchs. There are too many to discuss, but once you've settled on a camera, they're something to consider.


----------



## Parkerman (Aug 23, 2008)

Also, an option for macro photography on a budget would be turning the lens around with an adapter. I haven't tried this, But I have seen some good results from it. 

The D40 does a decent job on macro shots with the kit lens.. It has a decent focus range on it. I took this shot with it.. but its also at like a 100% crop.. the image couldn't really be made any larger.

http://tonyparker.smugmug.com/photos/347707341_pYgra-M.jpg

I won't link it as an image so that it won't clutter up the thread.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> Also, an option for macro photography on a budget would be turning the lens around with an adapter. I haven't tried this, But I have seen some good results from it.
> 
> The D40 does a decent job on macro shots with the kit lens.. It has a decent focus range on it. I took this shot with it.. but its also at like a 100% crop.. the image couldn't really be made any larger.
> 
> ...


 
Wow!! That's with just the kit lens? That's really impressive.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> Also, an option for macro photography on a budget would be turning the lens around with an adapter. I


 
I don't recommend this method; it is economical, but it has a couple of disadvantages. You have NO auto functions whatsoever, and there's a very real danger of damage to the rear element of the lens, or any of the contacts/connections on the back, as well as a much greater chance for dust and dirt to get into the lens.  There's also the fact that the filter threads at the front of the lens (by which these adaptors attach) are meant to support a filter or two, NOT the weight of the lens.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

tirediron said:


> If I may, what I'd suggest you do, since it appears that you haven't fully settled on one particular camera yet, is go around to your local cameras stores, pick up the different bodies, try them out, have the salesmen explain the featuers of each one and then think about a decision. While economics is a big factor, it's not the only one, and you may find that you want to wait a little while longer to save for a totally different camera, because after playing with it, "It's the one".
> 
> A 55-200mm zoom is a telephoto zoom, essentially for magnifying the scene or bringing things from fara away "in close"
> 
> Filters are used to add effects to an image, help resolve exposure issues, and add artistic touchs. There are too many to discuss, but once you've settled on a camera, they're something to consider.


 
Thanks for the info. I'm going to actual stores today so I can get a better look at some of the cameras I was considering. And my budget is very flexible. I don't mind saving for a couple more months if I really want the camera...

That lens sounds nice, but ultimately not for me. Obviously I'll take pictures of SOME faraway things, but if my main interest is macro, then I'll already be close to it.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> if my main interest is macro, then I'll already be close to it.


 
  Very well put.  Good luck with the shopping.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Thanks so much for your help!


----------



## STICKMAN (Aug 23, 2008)

Good luck today with your search, getting out there and handling each is a great thing to do. Then go home and sleep on it.... Hopefully we will be adding another happy nikon owner to this great site.:smileys:


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Yes, hopefully.
I only got to see a few cameras today, and I didn't find the nikon I liked online. I'll try another day.
I wonder if I'd be allowed to take pictures with a camera in the store? To see how they turn out, I mean. I'd hate to spend so much money without trying it myself first.


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Yes if its a camera store they will let you take pictures with the camera, the best thing to do is to take pics with each, on your own memory card, then bring them home and compare on the computer.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Oh, that's a great idea! I'll definitely try that next time.


----------



## reg (Aug 23, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> EDIT: deleted



or you could just delete the actual post like everybody else


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

And also, if im not mistaken, the erganomics of the d60, (which they will probably have) should be pretty darn close to the d40, someone who's used both can confirm or deny though.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Are the d60 and d40 similar in price?


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Not really, the d60 is the new version of the d40/40x at bh its 620 with kit lens.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Orly? Is it worth the upgrade? =/


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Not really.  I actually prefer the d40 over the d40x and d60 due to the faster flash shutter speed sync rate.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Oh, that's good. I think I'm sticking with the d40 for now. I just want to research and test it out before I make a decision, though.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

...I think I'm the youngest person on this website. 
But I know if I went to a specifically teen-targeted photography forum, it'd be all
"omg i luv dat foto wif da convers an da hart on da grownd!!"


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Very good decision to research, youd be amazed how many people just dump hundreds on a camera without doing any research.   Just an odd question real quick, do you have small hands?  (XD that sounds so dirty)


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Eh don't feel bad i'm only 19   This is an excellent forum.  The reason I asked about the small hands thing is the d40 is pretty small.  Until you go feel the d60 I figured id just give you a heads up that it is a pretty tiny camera.  Some people really like that about it and some dont.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

Yeah, I'm impulsive about clothes and music, so it's really weird for me to take this all slow and actually research it. I guess I really like photography. 
And I think so? I mean, they're not big. I'm short, and they don't look disproportionate. I don't think. =|
Why?


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Reason posted just above yours. lol.  What cameras did you get your hands on at the store?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> Eh don't feel bad i'm only 19  This is an excellent forum. The reason I asked about the small hands thing is the d40 is pretty small. Until you go feel the d60 I figured id just give you a heads up that it is a pretty tiny camera. Some people really like that about it and some dont.


 
I figured with the lack of chatspeak the average user is around 35. Good to know I'm not alone.
But I'm still younger than you. :mrgreen:


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> Reason posted just above yours. lol. What cameras did you get your hands on at the store?


 
I didn't catch the names, but I tried a couple of canons, a sony, and I think a nikon...I didn't like any of them enough to ask the model name.


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

The average age is up there id say, but there are some of us still in college and such.  May I ask what you didn't like about them?


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

I'm not worried about it being too small. My last two cameras were stupid little $90 digital things. I imagine they can't be smaller than that? I guess the worst that could happen is it kind of annoys me for a while, like all new cameras do, and then I get used to it. But I could always find some review or something where someone HOLDS the camera. Then I'd get an idea.


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 23, 2008)

Lol yeah its not THAT small, definatly bigger then those lol.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> The average age is up there id say, but there are some of us still in college and such. May I ask what you didn't like about them?


 
I'm going to sound like a picky snob, but they just didn't feel RIGHT. I didn't get like excited, and they didn't seem to suit what I'd use them for. When I'm spending that much money, I find the pettiest complaints about practically everything. :blushing:


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> Lol yeah its not THAT small, definatly bigger then those lol.


 
So yeah, being my first slr I'm more worried about it being too big than anything. I'm not used to the bulk and weight of that type of camera, so macros will probably be kind of difficult in the beginning, I'd imagine.


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 23, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> ...I think I'm the youngest person on this website.
> But I know if I went to a specifically teen-targeted photography forum, it'd be all
> "omg i luv dat foto wif da convers an da hart on da grownd!!"


 

LOL     Sad thing is, thats not too far from the truth.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

LeroyLion said:


> LOL  Sad thing is, thats not too far from the truth.


 
Haha, I know.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2007/10/dslrroundup.jpg

Mkay, if that photo is accurate, then that definitely won't be too small for my hands.
I use a polaroid i633 right now, and it looks bigger in my hands than the d40 looks in that guys hands.


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 23, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2007/10/dslrroundup.jpg
> 
> Mkay, if that photo is accurate, then that definitely won't be too small for my hands.
> I use a polaroid i633 right now, and it looks bigger in my hands than the d40 looks in that guys hands.


 

My commander uses a D40 and has let me mess around with it before. Now, Im 6' 3" so you can imagine I have huge hands. To be honest, the size of the D40 did not bother me. But, its likely one of those 'depends on the user' sort of things. Best way to figure it out is to get one in your hands. Its a popular camera so there shouldnt be any problems finding one.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

I have a tiny cellphone, and a tiny ipod, and neither bother me at all. Seriously, at this point, I'm way more concerned about holding the freaking thing up and keeping my hands steady...THAT'S why I want to hold one in person.


----------



## Parkerman (Aug 23, 2008)

A D40 is small compared to the D80, D300, D700, and D3. Its big compared to a large point and shoot camera.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 23, 2008)

I'm using a pretty small point and shoot right now.


----------



## dklod (Aug 23, 2008)

transferring from P&S, not all DSLR's have whats called live view which allows you to use the LCD to frame your shots like you can with your P&S. The view finder (the glass eye piece you look through to see what you are going to shoot) must be used. 

From one laymen to another, people have mentioned ISO and noise. Higher ISO's increases the sensitivity of the sensor allowing you to increase your shutter speed in low light, but its comes at a price, noise. This is when the image is speckled with unwanted dots and distortion which can be removed to a degree with software, but from reviews, the D40 is very good at high ISO's.


----------



## reg (Aug 24, 2008)

dklod said:


> the D40 is very good at high ISO's.




:er:


----------



## Parkerman (Aug 24, 2008)

dklod said:


> transferring from P&S, not all DSLR's have whats called live view which allows you to use the LCD to frame your shots like you can with your P&S. The view finder (the glass eye piece you look through to see what you are going to shoot) must be used.
> 
> From one laymen to another, people have mentioned ISO and noise. Higher ISO's increases the sensitivity of the sensor allowing you to increase your shutter speed in low light, but its comes at a price, noise. This is when the image is speckled with unwanted dots and distortion which can be removed to a degree with software, but from reviews, the D40 is very good at high ISO's.





the D40 handles noise alright.. Nothing like a D300 or 5D. It can go up top 3200iso.. but that's just to noisy for the camera.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 24, 2008)

dklod said:


> transferring from P&S, not all DSLR's have whats called live view which allows you to use the LCD to frame your shots like you can with your P&S. The view finder (the glass eye piece you look through to see what you are going to shoot) must be used.
> 
> From one laymen to another, people have mentioned ISO and noise. Higher ISO's increases the sensitivity of the sensor allowing you to increase your shutter speed in low light, but its comes at a price, noise. This is when the image is speckled with unwanted dots and distortion which can be removed to a degree with software, but from reviews, the D40 is very good at high ISO's.


 
Yeah, I know about the view finder. I don't think that'll bother me so much.

And, I barely understood your second paragraph.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 24, 2008)

What's noise? Like grainy pictures? =/


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 24, 2008)

Nevermind. I know what noise is.
What's ISO?


----------



## anubis404 (Aug 24, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> I've been looking at Canon rebel XT and I like it alot. Just not sure if it's for me.
> But if I got a DSLR, would I have to buy like 10 lenses that are only for one setting each? That seems expensive. Don't they come with like nighttime, closeup, or landscape settings automatically?




The bodies and autofocus motors do "nighttime" and "close-up". The lenses are mostly for zoom, depth of fields, and focal length. An 18-55mm is a good lens to have that will pretty much cover everything (except long zooms) without breaking the bank. I've survived with only this lens and taken some great pics so far.

Another good all purpose lens is the 50mm f1.8. Only about $100, these lenses have a very low f stop, which means more light can be let in, and you will get a shallower depth of field. This means you will get a more blurred background, and you will be able to use faster shutter speeds to capture fast moving objects at lower light.

This lens does not zoom, however as a rule of thumb, 50mm is about as zoomed as the eye.

The 18-55mm "kit" lens can do close up too. Unless you're really picky and skilled, you don't really need a macro lens to do macro shots. Some of mine with the kit lens:


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 24, 2008)

I've taken macros like that with my point and shoot, but I guess your's were just with a kit lens. I'm not planning on buying any other lenses or filters or anything for a couple months after I get the camera...but I'll want them eventually, I'm sure.


----------



## hankejp (Aug 24, 2008)

Greetings everyone.  I too am quite the beginner when it comes to "nice" cameras.  I usually just used the P.O.S $50 cameras.  I want to get more into photography.  Is it a consensus that the Nikon D40 is a good camera for its price.  I am going to be purchasing a camera possibly this Friday.  My budget is going to be $500.  The common price that I've seen for the D40 around my part is about $500.  I looked at the D40 today and it felt pretty good.  

Thanks


----------



## dklod (Aug 24, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> the D40 handles noise alright.. Nothing like a D300 or 5D. It can go up top 3200iso.. but that's just to noisy for the camera.


 
Sure they do, but her budget is not going to get her a 5D.


----------



## dklod (Aug 24, 2008)

mermaidear said:


> Nevermind. I know what noise is.
> What's ISO?


 
Its the sensors light sensetivity. If you are in shade, indoors, or anywhere where the lighting is poor, increasing the ISO will brighten the shot without slowing your shutter speed too much or using a flash. Most P&S cameras have this option, but results are usually very poor. The "effect" is like "cracking" open the blinds or curtains during the day to let the extra light brighten things up.


----------



## mermaidear (Aug 24, 2008)

dklod said:


> Its the sensors light sensetivity. If you are in shade, indoors, or anywhere where the lighting is poor, increasing the ISO will brighten the shot without slowing your shutter speed too much or using a flash. Most P&S cameras have this option, but results are usually very poor. The "effect" is like "cracking" open the blinds or curtains during the day to let the extra light brighten things up.


 
Ohhh. Thanks.


----------

