Dubstepforum.com

fooishbar wrote:

Ashley wrote:

fooishbar wrote:some of the coolest photos i've ever seen came from disposable cameras.

Screenshot or it didn't happen.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/disposable/pool/

meh, with a lot of photoshopping, I was hoping for something more like:



--

Also I am looking at buying a new camera - looking for one that is stupidly good when it comes to using ISO 800+

Ashley wrote:meh, with a lot of photoshopping, I was hoping for something more like:

yeah, mint. that was just what i could find in 30sec.

Ashley wrote:Also I am looking at buying a new camera - looking for one that is stupidly good when it comes to using ISO 800+

from what i hear the new powershots are pretty nice. eos 400d is good in b&w at iso 1600 with high contrast (that's what i use standardly), but 50d goes up to 3200, and enhances to 12800. nice.

Yeah, but the 50d is another kettle of fish. We're talking affordable starter cameras here, and the 450d is that and MUCH more. It's a fucking amazing bit of kit, shame mine got nicked at Leeds Fest and I'm using my housemates 400d until I get a new one (which should be this week, yay).

what do you lot think a bout the sony alpha 100/200.. I here good things about it and it's cheaper than both canon and nikon..

Ashley wrote:

fooishbar wrote:

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

some of the coolest photos i've ever seen came from disposable cameras.

Screenshot or it didn't happen.

ditto!

Schamotnik wrote:what do you lot think a bout the sony alpha 100/200.. I here good things about it and it's cheaper than both canon and nikon..

Sony cameras are garbage don't believe the hype just because of the name... And if it breaks, you'll be waiting about a year for it come back to you if you send it out on repair, plus the store or wherever will charge you extra.

Nikon finest lens's plus the company is over 90 years old..

D40 is good, but what i'm hearing is the d60 much better since the d40/d40x are almost sold out in north america. Also, the grip and the whole size of the d40 is really small, and bugged me whenever id be doing continuous portrait shots, and 3 points of focus is ok if your not serious about what your going to be taking shots of. The d60 and all the new cam's are coming in from nikon, have new processors, and gizmo's.

Further on have been looking at a few cameras, thinking about buying an Olympus Camedia E-10.

do you think this will be a good buy? I am looking at paying £120 for it
anybody suggest another camera for around that price they think would be a better buy?

eLBe wrote:Further on have been looking at a few cameras, thinking about buying an Olympus Camedia E-10.

do you think this will be a good buy? I am looking at paying £120 for it
anybody suggest another camera for around that price they think would be a better buy?

family photos with that lolol..

Sort of thing that would come from the future looking for Sarah Connor

i need a slr camera that is cheap. what should i look for?

ended up buying a sony dsc h-10 last week.. not a slr camera but it's all I could afford and I really need a camera.. I'm quite happy with the quality of the pictures so far..

I used to work for a company which designed and built CMOS image sensors for camera modules to go into phones. While dslrs are obviously higher quality, the same principles apply.

Something to consider:
Take two sensor devices of the same PHYSICAL size (say, an inch on each side), both manufactured using the same CMOS process, but one with a higher pixel count. Which will look better? The one with the higher pixel count will undeniably have greater resolution, but each of its pixels will be smaller than those in the other device. This means that each pixel will be less sensitive to light, and will suffer from a greater amount of shot noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise ).

Moral of the story:
A camera using a sensor with nice chunky pixels manufactured in a good CMOS process will produce far better images than a camera using a higher resolution sensor with crappy tiny pixels.

Schamotnik wrote:ended up buying a sony dsc h-10 last week.. not a slr camera but it's all I could afford and I really need a camera.. I'm quite happy with the quality of the pictures so far..

H-10 already?

I got the H9!!

I don't take photos anymore but I used too... you can check my gallery here:

http://www.raposart.pt.vu

Does anyone have any recommendations for where to learn more about digital photography? Like an online course or blog or something?

Tips + Tricks and that.

IMO the lens that you buy is a lot more important. There's a lot of crap lenses out there that would affect your pictures much more than if you have fewer megapixels. MP is just a marketing tool (in effect), so that people can easily 'compare' cameras by saying that camera A has more megapixels than camera b. My advice would be get 2-3 decent fixed focal length lenses

HEY ARSEHOLES!

I actually work in a camera shop, as both a salesman and a Web Admin for our website.

If you need any photographic gear at ALL (Either Used or New), give me a bell or drop me an e-mail. Since most of you are my close, personal friends, and I've been on this forum for a good number of years, I'll sort you out some crazy prices that'll make you shit yourself with excitement. We also take in any old or crappy cameras you have for part-exchange. Check it:

http://digitalcameraexchange.co.uk/

I've personally got a Nikon D70, Fuji S5 (Plus grip) with a 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and a 28-70mm 2.8 from Tokina.
I used to do alot of photography, mostly of bands, but not really any more.

simian wrote:Something to consider:
Take two sensor devices of the same PHYSICAL size (say, an inch on each side), both manufactured using the same CMOS process, but one with a higher pixel count. Which will look better? The one with the higher pixel count will undeniably have greater resolution, but each of its pixels will be smaller than those in the other device. This means that each pixel will be less sensitive to light, and will suffer from a greater amount of shot noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise ).

Moral of the story:
A camera using a sensor with nice chunky pixels manufactured in a good CMOS process will produce far better images than a camera using a higher resolution sensor with crappy tiny pixels.

thanks, that's what i was trying to explain before.

I am stuck between these three cameras, any suggestions?


Canon EOS 400D

Nikon D40x

Pentax K100D Super

leaning toward the pentax atm

eLBe wrote:I am stuck between these three cameras, any suggestions?


Canon EOS 400D

Nikon D40x

Pentax K100D Super

leaning toward the pentax atm

The Canon feels very cheap and horrible in my hands and the D40X only allows motorized lenses to be put on it. My vote goes to the Pentax K100D Super. Although, what's wrong with a Sony A200? Cheap, and probably better (in my opinion) than those you listed there...