pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Suggestions ... or anyone selling a camera this tax season?  (Read 6593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 12, 2015, 00:34 »
0
We drove out for some family photos this evening for some shots. I got a few good ones but, tons of grain in some. Thinking I still want a new (or new to me) camera in a month or so. Anyone selling their old equipment or have suggestions for working with my crap camera.

http://drpgraphicdesign.com/winter-2015-family-photos/


« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2015, 00:44 »
+4
Looks like your point of focus is right where the magenta lace meets the pink lace under the buttons. Should have been on her eyes.

« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2015, 00:49 »
+1
Looks like your point of focus is right where the magenta lace meets the pink lace under the buttons. Should have been on her eyes.

lol. I was stuck to a tripod and caught that one just as she was running by. The group shots came out terrible (which is odd because our fall ones turned out pretty good). Basically just setting it up and using the timer :/

« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2015, 03:56 »
+2
What model camera do you have? What ISO were you shooting at?

Getting back to your original question... there are numerous causes of grain/noise... having to brighten the image in post because the original was under-exposed is one possible cause and given the snow in the background of your shot, I wonder if that's the problem here. Spot metering would have helped there.

Alternatively, if your camera is a few years old and you were shooting at a high-ish ISO, grain might be inevitable even if you get the exposure right in-camera. Is the problem so bad that using noise reduction in post doesn't fix it up to an acceptable level?

« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2015, 05:47 »
0
What model camera do you have? What ISO were you shooting at?

Getting back to your original question... there are numerous causes of grain/noise... having to brighten the image in post because the original was under-exposed is one possible cause and given the snow in the background of your shot, I wonder if that's the problem here. Spot metering would have helped there.

Alternatively, if your camera is a few years old and you were shooting at a high-ish ISO, grain might be inevitable even if you get the exposure right in-camera. Is the problem so bad that using noise reduction in post doesn't fix it up to an acceptable level?


I posted the link to the rest of the shots in my original post. I'd accidently left it on ISO 800 ... which worked for a minute and the light must have changed significantly at one point ... significantly enough that it made all of the difference anyway.


Most of the decent shots are somewhere around:


Guess maybe I just don't really know. I took two photography classes in college but, it's easily been a decade ago. Back then the teacher said that Digital photography wouldn't have an advantage on analog for another 20 years ... lol. (The cameras were like 5mp)

« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2015, 08:23 »
+1
Shots won't be helped by the ISO 800 with a small sensor like that camera has. Also snow and /or white clothing "fools" the camera into thinking the scene is brighter than it really is if metering is set on average. Use spot metering if available or centre weighted at least. Camera may have a "snow scene" program. Also select single focus point if possible. Thus allowing you to focus on the subject, lock focus and recompse.
Any reasonably modern DSLR will be better in terms of noise and image quality. There's a big choice, and little in real terms to choose between the main players.
You also might consider some of the later type "point and shoot" cameras which have larger sensors and are more "pocketable". Sony RX100 in it's various incarnations is one, but there are others. 

« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2015, 09:02 »
+1
The purple fringing in background is caused by the lens attached to that thing.  Certain DSLR lenses are even notorious for CA (chromatic aberration) as well, but never usually as bad as cell phone cameras/point and shoots. 

If you want to go Canon, you can grab a 40D body super cheap now, $200-300 or less.  Grab an 18-55 IS or 50mm f1.8 to start, and you'll be in business.  The quality difference will initially blow you away compared to your point and shoot.  But remember, buying a fancy stove never instantly makes you a great cook.  It takes practice practice practice.

« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2015, 14:00 »
0
Shots won't be helped by the ISO 800 with a small sensor like that camera has. Also snow and /or white clothing "fools" the camera into thinking the scene is brighter than it really is if metering is set on average. Use spot metering if available or centre weighted at least. Camera may have a "snow scene" program. Also select single focus point if possible. Thus allowing you to focus on the subject, lock focus and recompse.
Any reasonably modern DSLR will be better in terms of noise and image quality. There's a big choice, and little in real terms to choose between the main players.
You also might consider some of the later type "point and shoot" cameras which have larger sensors and are more "pocketable". Sony RX100 in it's various incarnations is one, but there are others.

Thanks, we have a decent little point and shoot around somewhere. I just prefer to have at least some control, even when that means it messes up the whole set ...

I probably will be looking for camera. This one has quite a bit of grain even in auto.

« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2015, 14:51 »
+1
I think you're mistaking "point and shoot" for "automatic" somehow.
The Sony camera (and other makes) have full manual control, including focus if you want it. The 1" sensor isn't quite up to DSLR quality, but I have no problem getting shots from it accepted at Alamy, and they would have been acceptable at iStock in the old days of quality control possibly with a bit of NR.
If you're not a photographer who regularly needs to use long lenses something like that could well be an answer. Lot of stock folks use them at least some of the time now because you can pocket them.



« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2015, 00:07 »
0
I think you're mistaking "point and shoot" for "automatic" somehow.
The Sony camera (and other makes) have full manual control, including focus if you want it. The 1" sensor isn't quite up to DSLR quality, but I have no problem getting shots from it accepted at Alamy, and they would have been acceptable at iStock in the old days of quality control possibly with a bit of NR.
If you're not a photographer who regularly needs to use long lenses something like that could well be an answer. Lot of stock folks use them at least some of the time now because you can pocket them.
I could be stupid ;) That could be a good option. Mostly I just want something decent enough to take family photos and whatever without hating them. Well, and other stuff ... I'd like to take more nature shots as well and sometimes I need to run out and grab a photo for work and would just like something better.
I am about to sell a used 1D Mark III. It's been used pretty aggressively but works very well. Make me an offer.

-Mat
See and I guess I just don't know people have offered a Canon50D, another guy on msg offered a 1D Mark II, someone on facebook a D3100 with lens and then another on facebook has a D800, and you can get a t3i or similar on Ebay for right around $300 (used of course)  and I guess I don't know the pros and cons of each and what to value them at.

I definitely want to learn to be a better photographer but, I don't know that I need a super great camera body or whatever, just decent enough that I don't cringe when I get home to actually look at them ... and won't have too much to spend.
 

« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2015, 00:16 »
0
What model camera do you have? What ISO were you shooting at?

Getting back to your original question... there are numerous causes of grain/noise... having to brighten the image in post because the original was under-exposed is one possible cause and given the snow in the background of your shot, I wonder if that's the problem here. Spot metering would have helped there.

Alternatively, if your camera is a few years old and you were shooting at a high-ish ISO, grain might be inevitable even if you get the exposure right in-camera. Is the problem so bad that using noise reduction in post doesn't fix it up to an acceptable level?

Edit:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405181,00.asp A bunch were at 800 before I realized how terrible they were, I dropped to 400 for the rest. (probably should have went to 200 ;) )

No, not with many of them. I spent a good 10 minutes on each of the grainy ones just to get them to where they're at
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 00:52 by DallasP »

« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2015, 08:44 »
0
Some good cameras there. The full frame cameras tend to be bigger and heavier (some much bigger and heavier!) and more expensive. They need good glass to give the best results (think bigger, heavier, and yes, more expensive). The later "entry level cameras, like the D3100 (think I'm right on that), and the Canon t3i tend to be a bit light in construction. They still need decent glass to give good results.
There's no right choice as such. If I wasn't "a photographer" and didn't want or need interchangable lenses, and wasn't bothered about an optical viewfinder, there are all sorts of options these days. Hence the RX100. I became sick and tired of lugging a big bag of gear around all the time. Another option is something like the RX10. A "compact camera" with 24-200mm lens. Decent stills output, and apparently outstanding video output.

« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2015, 10:17 »
0
Some good cameras there. The full frame cameras tend to be bigger and heavier (some much bigger and heavier!) and more expensive. They need good glass to give the best results (think bigger, heavier, and yes, more expensive). The later "entry level cameras, like the D3100 (think I'm right on that), and the Canon t3i tend to be a bit light in construction. They still need decent glass to give good results.
There's no right choice as such. If I wasn't "a photographer" and didn't want or need interchangable lenses, and wasn't bothered about an optical viewfinder, there are all sorts of options these days. Hence the RX100. I became sick and tired of lugging a big bag of gear around all the time. Another option is something like the RX10. A "compact camera" with 24-200mm lens. Decent stills output, and apparently outstanding video output.


I can definitely see the benefits of having a smaller camera, something that I could pretty much keep in my pocket or vehicle all of the time ... but, I also kind of want the versatility of being able to grab a longer lens and shoot the kids' school programs and stuff without having to elbow other parents out of the way. The little buggers are growing right up and the only photos of some things are terrible. Do you think a http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8925877&CatId=3631 would be too much camera for my needs? I could probably convince the wife that that isn't too much money ... otherwise I might have to buy a used D3100. I was kind of leaning toward Canon (as I understand it Canon lenses are more interchangeable? )

« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2015, 10:30 »
0
I started out with a Canon 350D. They're a sound entry level camera. The 18-55 lens is apparently quite good. I'd look at the "recommended" bundle offered under there with the 75-300 and some other stuff for another $50. That lens doesn't get bad reviews for a bargain lens.

« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2015, 11:35 »
0
My recommendation is to stick to the XXD series to start, just because you are getting a solidly built camera body made of magnesium that also fits larger hands a lot better than the Rebel series.  The rebels are plastic, but also solidly built.. but no review wheel controls on back, which was also deal breaker for me.  With the XXD series around the same prices as the rebels, used... it all comes down to personal preference.  Nikons are just as competent.  I just went Canon because I could swap lenses with my friends. 

« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2015, 14:35 »
0
My recommendation is to stick to the XXD series to start, just because you are getting a solidly built camera body made of magnesium that also fits larger hands a lot better than the Rebel series.  The rebels are plastic, but also solidly built.. but no review wheel controls on back, which was also deal breaker for me.  With the XXD series around the same prices as the rebels, used... it all comes down to personal preference.  Nikons are just as competent.  I just went Canon because I could swap lenses with my friends.

Thank you! He says it has the 28-135 3.5-5.6 VR lens and he's thinking around $500 :/

« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2015, 21:05 »
0
My recommendation is to stick to the XXD series to start, just because you are getting a solidly built camera body made of magnesium that also fits larger hands a lot better than the Rebel series.  The rebels are plastic, but also solidly built.. but no review wheel controls on back, which was also deal breaker for me.  With the XXD series around the same prices as the rebels, used... it all comes down to personal preference.  Nikons are just as competent.  I just went Canon because I could swap lenses with my friends.


Thank you! He says it has the 28-135 3.5-5.6 VR lens and he's thinking around $500 :/


Double posting again ... The Nikon 3200 seems like a significantly better camera than the T5 ... ? (comparing on http://snapsort.com/)

« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2015, 07:13 »
+1
You'll drive yourself mad with reviews and specs! I doubt if there's much to choose "real world" image wise.
http://www.dpreview.com/ have probably some of the best "Hands on" reviews, with sample images.
At the end of the day though pretty well any modern DSLR will give you decent images. What other features you want, and the depth of your pockets will decide your final choice. Remember that the quality of the lenses used often makes more difference than the body used.
Also remember there are makes other than Canon and Nikon. I use a Pentax DSLR. There are also a lot of people out there on the internet seemingly trying to justify their own choices. 

« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2015, 14:29 »
0
You'll drive yourself mad with reviews and specs! I doubt if there's much to choose "real world" image wise.
http://www.dpreview.com/ have probably some of the best "Hands on" reviews, with sample images.
At the end of the day though pretty well any modern DSLR will give you decent images. What other features you want, and the depth of your pockets will decide your final choice. Remember that the quality of the lenses used often makes more difference than the body used.
Also remember there are makes other than Canon and Nikon. I use a Pentax DSLR. There are also a lot of people out there on the internet seemingly trying to justify their own choices. 


Thanks Diffydave. I'm sold on the 3200 kit (and I think I got the wife sold on it too)

« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2015, 20:35 »
0
I would get the Fuji xt1 if I were starting again. Fuji's best lenses are top notch and not very expensive compared to Nikon or Canon.

« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2015, 10:57 »
0
I would get the Fuji xt1 if I were starting again. Fuji's best lenses are top notch and not very expensive compared to Nikon or Canon.

Hell, I didn't even think about Fuji. I had a fuji in college that I thoroughly enjoyed. The xt1 seems quite a bit out of my price range :/


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3013 Views
Last post December 15, 2008, 18:54
by Whiz
17 Replies
5362 Views
Last post January 09, 2009, 02:02
by leaf
2 Replies
2714 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 14:06
by willie
2 Replies
2847 Views
Last post May 30, 2016, 22:33
by k_t_g
14 Replies
5851 Views
Last post June 22, 2021, 11:18
by shutterview

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle