Amature Photographer's come on in, camera suggestions

[Munchie]

My idol...John Jackson...uses a multitude of flashes for a lot of his shots. He uses up to 8 SBX00 for some shots. I am working my way up to be able to use my lighting in a manor that he can without having to use my tower lights and such for stuff I want. It would allow for me to be much more mobil!

[Samir]

Originally Posted by Munchie

Well I am definatly not a pro, but I guess I have equivialent equipment!lol

Yeah right! And I'm white! If your work looks as good as someone getting paid, then you're a pro--end of story.

Originally Posted by Munchie

My idol...John Jackson...uses a multitude of flashes for a lot of his shots. He uses up to 8 SBX00 for some shots. I am working my way up to be able to use my lighting in a manor that he can without having to use my tower lights and such for stuff I want. It would allow for me to be much more mobil!

Very interesting. Got any examples?

[GrantH]

John Jackson, or "Chicken", is known as Not Stock Photography.

http://www.notstockphotography.com/index.php?splash=1

[Munchie]

John Jackson uses a plethera of different lighting options, but his use of Flashes as primary and fill is exceptional.

[Samir]

Thank you for the link. Yeah, his lighting is extremely tricky. He's using just the right light in the right place. And his use of rain-threatening skies is daring too.

[Munchie]

Originally Posted by Samir

Yeah right! And I'm white! If your work looks as good as someone getting paid, then you're a pro--end of story.

Lol well in my opinion there are NOT MANY actual Pros in and around our area. There are some VERY GOOD Semi-Pro and Novice Shooters, but I feel like there is a HUGE threshold that has to be crossed in order to call yourself a Professional Photographer!lol I am simply a Novice with good equipment.lol To this date we still have not profitted from any of our Photography Earnings though. All the money we make goes right back into purchasing new equipment that we want/need! As well as me still paying myself back for the small 401K loan I took out to buy my D700!lol

[Samir]

Originally Posted by Munchie

Lol well in my opinion there are NOT MANY actual Pros in and around our area. There are some VERY GOOD Semi-Pro and Novice Shooters, but I feel like there is a HUGE threshold that has to be crossed in order to call yourself a Professional Photographer!lol I am simply a Novice with good equipment.lol To this date we still have not profitted from any of our Photography Earnings though. All the money we make goes right back into purchasing new equipment that we want/need! As well as me still paying myself back for the small 401K loan I took out to buy my D700!lol

Personally, I call that definition 'the working pro'--someone who's full-time at it, which I agree with you is very rare. And if you're putting money into equipment that would otherwise be profit, that's really a profit that you're reinvesting. Although I would have never had the guts to borrow against my 401k.

[Munchie]

Well it was a small loan and my 401K is invested pretty well.lol Plus I am paying myself back with interest so I will end with more than I borrowed anyway!

[dragginbody87]

Don't you pay a massive penalty for that?

[Samir]

Originally Posted by dragginbody87

Don't you pay a massive penalty for that?

If he withdrew it, then yes. But you can take a loan against a retirement investment as collateral. And that's sometimes not a bad idea.

If you have an investment gaining say 10% and your loan is 12%, the loan is really only costing you 2%, which may be worth it in the short run.

Now, you have to be very careful when doing this type of thing because if your collateral drops in value, then you have to cover the loan with additional collateral or make up the difference. So if the investment drops 10%, all of a sudden you have to cover 22%. It's how a lot of people have been wiped out in this economy.

[Munchie]

Because I have been with Huntsville Hospita for so long...I am fully vested. Therefore I am allowed to borrow up to 65% of my total 401k investment without any penalties.

[Samir]

Now that sweet. Do you have to pay interest or is it interest free?

[Munchie]

I pay Interest, but its to myself.

[Samir]

That's good stuff.

[Parkerman]

I know I'm late to the game on this, but entry level DSLR's are practically point and shoots. There would be no point in wasting money on a P&S camera to learn on, anything that can be learned on them can be learned on a DSLR.

All the entry level DSLR's have the preset settings that P&S's have, as well as being able to control things all manually. The only advantage a P&S would have would be its focal range... But I would much rather have the bokeh that a DSLR can generate over the extra focal range of a P&S.

So I definitely wouldn't waste money on a P&S, out grow it, and then buy a DSLR. That extra money could have went to some accessories for the DSLR when you better figure out what the end goals are.

The disadvantage of going with the entry level Nikon's, and this is what makes them cheaper, is that they lack an internal focusing motor. So if you want the camera to autofocus, you will have to have a lens with an internal focusing motor. Which majority of new lenses all have internal motors.

[Munchie]

Originally Posted by Parkerman

I know I'm late to the game on this, but entry level DSLR's are practically point and shoots. There would be no point in wasting money on a P&S camera to learn on, anything that can be learned on them can be learned on a DSLR.

All the entry level DSLR's have the preset settings that P&S's have, as well as being able to control things all manually. The only advantage a P&S would have would be its focal range... But I would much rather have the bokeh that a DSLR can generate over the extra focal range of a P&S.

So I definitely wouldn't waste money on a P&S, out grow it, and then buy a DSLR. That extra money could have went to some accessories for the DSLR when you better figure out what the end goals are.

The disadvantage of going with the entry level Nikon's, and this is what makes them cheaper, is that they lack an internal focusing motor. So if you want the camera to autofocus, you will have to have a lens with an internal focusing motor. Which majority of new lenses all have internal motors.

Bokeh can be achieved without a DSLR. This was taken with my Cell Phone!lol


Also Nikon does not put focusing motors in the entry level DSLR simply because of them putting them in the AFS Lenses. The only real draw back is that you can't use the older lenses with these cameras. Other than that there is no disadvantage. I have owned a D60 and it worked great. Never had any issues where I said "Man I wish I had a focusing motor in the body"lol
If I'm correct, and I may not be, but doesn't Canon do the opposite? Putting motors in bodies and not lenses? If this is so then its at the same principle of disadvantage. Nikon is a better entry level consumer simply because of ease of use. The interface is so much more user friendly. The entire camera can be controled with one hand if needed. I have played with a friends XS and T2 and they were so confusing.lol

[Parkerman]

Originally Posted by Munchie

Bokeh can be achieved without a DSLR. This was taken with my Cell Phone!lol


Also Nikon does not put focusing motors in the entry level DSLR simply because of them putting them in the AFS Lenses. The only real draw back is that you can't use the older lenses with these cameras. Other than that there is no disadvantage. I have owned a D60 and it worked great. Never had any issues where I said "Man I wish I had a focusing motor in the body"lol
If I'm correct, and I may not be, but doesn't Canon do the opposite? Putting motors in bodies and not lenses? If this is so then its at the same principle of disadvantage. Nikon is a better entry level consumer simply because of ease of use. The interface is so much more user friendly. The entire camera can be controled with one hand if needed. I have played with a friends XS and T2 and they were so confusing.lol

Heh, my iPhone can get bokeh too with macro shots.

My mentioning of the autofocus is because when people are on a budget, the older cheaper lenses look nice, but they don't have afs.

I agree, I've never cared much for canon mainly because I don't find them to be as user friendly.

[Samir]

Originally Posted by Munchie

Bokeh can be achieved without a DSLR. This was taken with my Cell Phone!lol


Also Nikon does not put focusing motors in the entry level DSLR simply because of them putting them in the AFS Lenses. The only real draw back is that you can't use the older lenses with these cameras. Other than that there is no disadvantage. I have owned a D60 and it worked great. Never had any issues where I said "Man I wish I had a focusing motor in the body"lol
If I'm correct, and I may not be, but doesn't Canon do the opposite? Putting motors in bodies and not lenses? If this is so then its at the same principle of disadvantage. Nikon is a better entry level consumer simply because of ease of use. The interface is so much more user friendly. The entire camera can be controled with one hand if needed. I have played with a friends XS and T2 and they were so confusing.lol

I remember this talk about the focusing motors a while back. I didn't realize they went through with it.

I have to disagree on the interface. Nikons are a pain for my hands and it's next to impossible to find anything I want, like metering modes, iso, etc. Canon's on the other hand, seen to fit my hands better and the interface is more intuitive to me. I'm sure this is related to a right brain/left brain thing, but both are very capable--just find the one that works for you. And that can mean going outside of these two to other brands--Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, even Pentax all also make great equipment.

Originally Posted by Parkerman

Heh, my iPhone can get bokeh too with macro shots.

My mentioning of the autofocus is because when people are on a budget, the older cheaper lenses look nice, but they don't have afs.

If you're using macro, any camera can do it if it's got macro capability, lol.

See, that's my point on budget. Why spend so much just to have a dslr you may grow in to after you've already invested the money? It's still like buying a real sports car when you have no driving experience. Seems like a waste to me.

I have to say I bit the bullet back in the day and got the highest end camera I could with what I had--the Olympus e-20n. Comparable Canon/Nikon offerings were $1000 more and only really added the capability for removable lenses. By the time I grew into my Olympus, I was already $1000 ahead on stepping into something else.

If I had it to do over again, I'd do it exactly like I'm recommending--a P&S to learn shutter, aperture, iso on as well as the lack of bokeh. Then depending on what you are shooting, how much you want to invest, etc., step up to the dslr that works for you and sell the P&S for probably as much as you paid for it if you got it used.

[Parkerman]

Originally Posted by Samir

I remember this talk about the focusing motors a while back. I didn't realize they went through with it.

I have to disagree on the interface. Nikons are a pain for my hands and it's next to impossible to find anything I want, like metering modes, iso, etc. Canon's on the other hand, seen to fit my hands better and the interface is more intuitive to me. I'm sure this is related to a right brain/left brain thing, but both are very capable--just find the one that works for you. And that can mean going outside of these two to other brands--Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, even Pentax all also make great equipment.
If you're using macro, any camera can do it if it's got macro capability, lol.

See, that's my point on budget. Why spend so much just to have a dslr you may grow in to after you've already invested the money? It's still like buying a real sports car when you have no driving experience. Seems like a waste to me.

I have to say I bit the bullet back in the day and got the highest end camera I could with what I had--the Olympus e-20n. Comparable Canon/Nikon offerings were $1000 more and only really added the capability for removable lenses. By the time I grew into my Olympus, I was already $1000 ahead on stepping into something else.

If I had it to do over again, I'd do it exactly like I'm recommending--a P&S to learn shutter, aperture, iso on as well as the lack of bokeh. Then depending on what you are shooting, how much you want to invest, etc., step up to the dslr that works for you and sell the P&S for probably as much as you paid for it if you got it used.

You make it out as though DSLR's are expensive, you can buy a used one for $300 if you look around. I sold my old D40 for 300, along with a remote and the 55-200vr. I think I threw in an SD card too... Can't remember.

In the very beginning of my photography.. I did buy an advanced P&S for $210, 3 months later I spent $400 on a DSLR. That P&S is laying around somewhere in a closet... It was a waste of money. I would have rather that money gone towards my first lens.




Also, Next time I see you, I'm going to have to show you my Nikon, and how everything you need is exactly at your fingertips. [Granted it's far from an entry level]

[Samir]

Originally Posted by Parkerman

You make it out as though DSLR's are expensive, you can buy a used one for $300 if you look around. I sold my old D40 for 300, along with a remote and the 55-200vr. I think I threw in an SD card too... Can't remember.

In the very beginning of my photography.. I did buy an advanced P&S for $210, 3 months later I spent $400 on a DSLR. That P&S is laying around somewhere in a closet... It was a waste of money. I would have rather that money gone towards my first lens.




Also, Next time I see you, I'm going to have to show you my Nikon, and how everything you need is exactly at your fingertips. [Granted it's far from an entry level]

$300 was a great deal for sure, but $300 is a lot more than $130, which you can spend on a 'learning' P&S if you're looking hard enough. You're one of the few that jumped in very soon after you started and knew what you wanted. You probably could still sell that P&S and get something towards another lens. What's the model number of the old camera?

I've used several Nikon rigs over the years from the D3000-5000s to the Fuji D200 equivalent. Still backward for me compared to the Canon 50D I rented for my first trip to Indy and the Rebel t2i I use for TopEnd.tv. Just personal preference. I prefer PCs to Macs too, and buttons versus a touchscreen on my phone. I'm different like that.

One of the features I really like on my Olympus was dual dials that allowed me to change shutter/aperture very quickly in manual mode. That was great for setting the exposure as you're framing the shot. Nikons have dual dials too, but I like the Canon setup that uses one dial and a thumbwheel. Seems to work even better for me.