CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLinks ads? Register and log in!

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > Photography Techniques and Equipment
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Photography Techniques and Equipment This forum is for the discussion of technical details of how to take good pictures as well as discuss the equipment used in that pursuit.

DSLR vs point & shoot?
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2012, 07:08 PM   #21
Joejr14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexadeci View Post
I'm after the following kind of usages. Taking pictures of the corn snake is the first: small subject, fast mover, ne'er-sit-still, close up macro type shots. I'd like to nurse my passing interest in entomology into a hobby, but would rather not deal with the corpses, so photos would be ideal: similar needs to the corn snake pictures, but smaller subjects and even more desire for detail. Someone mentioned bird watching, which was a great reminder. I've all but given up on photographing the local wildlife, particularly the avian, but the local hawks and falcons are so awesome: rather different set of needs than the first two, being much more distant subjects, but still the more detail the better. Fourth, astronomical photos would be awesome: I know it might be a bit of a stretch, but that's what this part of life is for.
The MFD on the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens is 0.9'...from the plane of the sensor. That's maybe 6" from the front of the lens. It's not a macro lens, but it's damn close. It doesn't offer true 1:1 reproduction, but it's also a $200 lens. You can also add extension tubes or close up filters for some extra 'oomph'.

Delving into avian photography is going to be considerably more expensive, even if you go off-brand. The more reach the better, but 300mm is generally accepted as the lowest you can go. Anything more than 300mm is better, but it comes with much higher costs.

There are options for $700-$1200 that'll get you to 500mm, but those are all in zooms. Image quality most always suffers with zooms over prime lenses, but again, it's a cost/benefits analysis.

Sigma/Tamron make zooms that'll get you plenty of reach and not break the bank. Sigma offers the 'Bigma' 50-500mm zoom for around $1200, Tamron offers a 200-500mm zoom for around $900, and you can get a 300mm Nikon prime for around $1200. Slap a TC on it (like I did for a while) and it turns into a 420mm f/5.6 lens that'll get you fantastic image quality with plenty of reach.

When you've then decided that 420mm is nice, but the min aperture of 5.6 is limiting your low light shots and you'd rather have a 500mm f/4, feel free to upgrade at a cost of several thousand dollars...
 
Old 08-14-2012, 07:14 PM   #22
Joejr14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokopelli View Post
Bridge cameras rock... I'd probably take one right now if I could make that choice again.
They do very well on automatic settings, something which can't really be said about DSLR's...

It takes quite a bit of time and effort, for me, to score a picture like this:


with my DSLR... and that's after 2+ years of training(granted, I'm far from being a top photography student).

Are they really that different? does the difference worth the extra time and the rather large cost-gap?(Lenses cost tons, external flash is not very cheap either).

I think that the difference is not that cost-effective, I really do... only if you're a true photography enthusiast.
Yes, they are really that different. There's a huge difference, actually. The DSLR picture is sharper, has better colors, and has better background bokeh.

Btw, it shouldn't take you any time to get pictureS exceeding the quality of the one you posted. The problem is you're hand-holding your camera and attempting to get sharp in focus pictures of a moving object at 1/160 of a second. Good luck with that one.

Jack up your ISO from 200 to 500 and crank up your shutter speed to 1/400 of a second or higher and you'll have much sharper pictures and a much higher keeper rate.

Psst, a Nikon SB-400 external flash will only set you back ~$120. That's cheap!
 
Old 08-14-2012, 07:21 PM   #23
Joejr14
And finally one final point...

It's not totally about the gear. I can set someone who's never taken a picture before with $10k worth of equipment, manually set exposure and all the specs and tech, and tell them to go take a picture...

And I'll bet it looks nothing like the one that I took.

On the flip side, I can hand someone who's had experience with a lower level DSLR my setup and they'll instantly take better pictures than what they were previously taking because equipment DOES matter to some degree.

OP, you referenced avian photography....







 
Old 08-14-2012, 09:28 PM   #24
HeavenHell
Well said. The camera is just a tool not unlike a musical instrument. A good musician can make even the oldest equipment sound good but give a Stradivarius to a beginning music student and maybe it just sounds ok. Real nice photos. Too bad the focus on the eagle was a bit off. I mean the beak looks a bit sharper than the eyes.
 
Old 08-15-2012, 01:07 AM   #25
Hexadeci
I hate when I'm half way through a post and accidentally browse back and loose it. O well, probably save yall some verbiage.

I suppose maybe I'm aiming high in what I'd like to achieve: that the optimism of a scientist showing. I don't want to give the impression I'm underestimating the effort it'll take me, but it's the conceit of an engineer. I imagine it's rather liking going from Windows all your life to Linux. Different experience? Absolutely. Complex? I hope so! Harder? In all the best ways. ;]

I have a better idea now of what I'm after. I think I'm looking for a beginner's DSLR. I want something I can learn and develop (o, bad pun) my skills with.

Investing in classes and training is all well and good, but I think I can make a good start with free sources like google, manuals, forums. Pay for information I can find for free? I'm not made of money. If I exhaust those and still need more, then I'll see.

Problem with point and shoot is all the fun technical details about what you're doing to manipulate light is hidden away and simplified to the point you can't get at it if you want to. Increase the ISO is about all I can do with my old hand-me down p&s (and have done, at least since those first pictures a year ago. I have abominably low memory capacity to contend with however. I get ~20 shots on highest setting.). I don't think I can do anything about the shutter speed (I'll have to google it later). Unless there's a way to hack it?
 
Old 08-15-2012, 01:21 AM   #26
Kokopelli
Joejr14 - being to the point and being... well, unpleasant, don't have to go hand in hand.

I appreciate the input- will try to do as you said(though thankfully the snakes are quite still when I take the shot), too bad about the tone you choose to use... the attitude doesn't make your words less or more true, and it's a shame because your words do have value.

You represent one end of the spectrum, I represent another- thankfully not everyone in the universe thinks that the D3000 sucks(even if you feel that it so terribly does). That's what was out at the time here(Israel) and at a cost I could afford... sorry you disapprove.

As for the flash- that's exactly what I have... and yes it's cheap, and it's also very limited. It's tiny, it can't be mounted nor activated by remote control... I'm also quite sure that it's considerably weaker- the light doesn't reach as far as it does with higher end flashes.

You take allot of things for granted in your post... I'm not a git(well, I guess it depends on whom you ask :P ) and fact of the matter is, even though I did try- the learning curve wasn't(isn't) that easy for me... I also have distinctly different priorities...

Not everyone will get the hang of it as well as you did... maybe everyone CAN, according to you, or possibly most... but not everyone will- because it'll end up not being their highest priority... because they are too busy, because some technical aspect of everything just doesn't work out...

As for lenses... well, yes you can mount all Nikon lenses, but you lose the auto-focus and have to do so manually... it's not a huge deal, but it is -some-. I also don't consider paying X money and receiving the same amount back later an investment... that's wise consuming, but not an investment, not really.

You're a photography enthusiast... it's pretty clear. Not everyone who wishes to take decent shots of their snakes are photography enthusiasts... it's not obvious that they want to spend so much energy and time on it... IF you want to take photography seriously, everything you said applies... but I don't think it applies to everyone. Some people think that if they'll invest more money, their pictures will be better- without realizing that only the potential for better pictures is gained... the rest comes with learning.

Your answer applies to SOME people, but not everyone... and the OP doesn't strike me as a photography fanatic since... well, the question is posted in a Cornsnakes forum... and I get a vibe of "oooo and I can do this, and also that"(no disrespect intended).

We're talking about a gap of... 400-800$ easy, for just a body and kit lens... that's a fair amount of money and not everyone can afford to spend that and more... it's a very personnal descision whether or not the difference in quality(which can seem minor to some, and in the case of my pictures, to me as well) is worth that extra investment.
 
Old 08-15-2012, 01:22 AM   #27
Kokopelli
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexadeci View Post
Problem with point and shoot is all the fun technical details about what you're doing to manipulate light is hidden away and simplified to the point you can't get at it if you want to. Increase the ISO is about all I can do with my old hand-me down p&s (and have done, at least since those first pictures a year ago. I have abominably low memory capacity to contend with however. I get ~20 shots on highest setting.). I don't think I can do anything about the shutter speed (I'll have to google it later). Unless there's a way to hack it?
Hence why some of us suggested bridge cameras, or super zooms where you do have some level of control over some of the parameters.
 
Old 08-15-2012, 01:41 AM   #28
Hexadeci
I uploaded an album of a couple examples of my latest attempts with my Sony dsc-p92 point & drool-I-mean-shoot. I know the resizing isn't great for pictures, but there's not much harm to do to these. While I'm researching/shopping, I appreciate any advice to improve with what I have.

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1684

A couple days ago I found a dying swallow tail butterfly in my backyard. One of those excellent species I could never manage to catch for my collection in high school, and would have managed to make me sad about killing. I let it live of course, but not without trying to get a decent picture of a convenient opportunity, beautifully melancholy as it was.

Out of about a hundred shots, these were the best. Get in focus was really hard: it was dying, but not dead. Crawling and fluttering. I had the light of the setting sun for a while, and flash washed out horribly.
 
Old 08-15-2012, 02:43 AM   #29
diamondlil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexadeci View Post
I uploaded an album of a couple examples of my latest attempts with my Sony dsc-p92 point & drool-I-mean-shoot. I know the resizing isn't great for pictures, but there's not much harm to do to these. While I'm researching/shopping, I appreciate any advice to improve with what I have.

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1684

A couple days ago I found a dying swallow tail butterfly in my backyard. One of those excellent species I could never manage to catch for my collection in high school, and would have managed to make me sad about killing. I let it live of course, but not without trying to get a decent picture of a convenient opportunity, beautifully melancholy as it was.

Out of about a hundred shots, these were the best. Get in focus was really hard: it was dying, but not dead. Crawling and fluttering. I had the light of the setting sun for a while, and flash washed out horribly.
Use a home-made flash diffuser, it really helps. In a pinch just put tissue paper over the pop-up flash! http://www.diyphotography.net/diy-bu...lash-diffuser/
 
Old 08-25-2012, 10:55 AM   #30
proileri
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexadeci View Post
So, what are the advantages/disadvantages of DSLR vs point&shoot cameras? On first glance, it seems like pretty much DSLR is more complicated, but offers a wider range of control.

What features do people find useful, indispensable, or obnoxious in a camera (particularly for snake picturing)?
What DSLRs offer is two things: size and flexibility. When it comes to optics, larger performs better - cramming that sensor and lens into a small space comes with a price in terms of image quality. The flexibility comes in the form of more complex manual settings and being able to tailor your setup any possible way: lenses ranging from compact to massive and with features you want, external flashes, studio lighting control devices..

Indoor, you might get away with a small pocket cam - you can compensate using different lighting setups etc. somewhat. With stationary "studio" photography, learning to use camera settings, flash units and/or stationary lights is the primary thing - not having a good camera or expensive lens.

If you want to shoot things outdoors, all animals are somewhat shy and quick. For snapping a few shots on a sunny day, pocket models might be ok. However, to do actual outdoor photography, you need a DSLR to get decent image quality at high ISO setting, and you also need a good lens to get that low-F value (gathers more light = is physically bigger, in general) at longer ranges (see lens F-values). These are for getting that nice, fast shutter speed and/or longer range, so the animals don't look all blurry.

When buying a new camera, if you want to learn how to take a good pic, there's absolutely no sense in choosing a pocket model. DSLRs aren't very expensive nowadays, and basic lenses aren't expensive either, especially if you look for 2nd hand stuff. Point'n'shoots are good only for carrying around when a DSLR feels too big, they offer no other benefit.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:10 PM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.04874396 seconds with 9 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo