http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ve ... hotography
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

Search for more info:
http://www.google.com/search?q=megapixe ... soft:en-us

I found that taken a pic with available light looks better than useing the flash.
I have a olympus stylus 1000 10 megapixal

cheers mg4

The camera you need depends on your intended use of it. For pictures of your doll most any point and shoot will work fine. I started out with a Kodak easy share 12 mp and it worked fine for pictures of the dolls. I found it was not good enough to photograph birds and wild life, becuase they will not let you get close enough to take their picture. I now have a Canon T1i that came with a 18-55 mm lens and a 55-200mm lens. It is also 15mp and can shoot movies in 1080p. I can take more pictures now, becuase I don't have to be up by my subject anymore. Adding equipment does cost more. I have a friend that has lenses that cost more than my doll

I've checked out the canon 7D, and if I were going to get a camera, currently that's probably the one, specifically for the video aspect of it. Although to turn it into a "pro" camera, can easily rack you up another $6k to $8k buying rails, external microphones, lenses, viewfinders, etc. Far surpassing the $1500 or so of the camera body. However, that's still about 1/10th the cost of pro video cameras that it's being compared to.

And also once you consider the entire cost (if using it as a video camera) compared to the second generation Red One camera. I eould love to get my hands on one of those.


Tiy str hiubh yi jukk nr. Tiy nsjr nr di %}^$)@! gstf rbrtt yunr tiy dst ygsy!

Hi Everyone.



In lens terms my 500mm is a cheapy but it still cost more than my camera

Books will be a great help, you need to understand what you are doing; but nothing beats clicking the shutter and seeing the results for yourself and remember unlike film cameras all you are doing with a DSLR is using up the battery and that can be recharged

Vickylover.

For video, the potential negative to the 7D camera is that if you would like to do lots of editing, you really still are better off going with a camcorder that uses mini DVs. But most people go with HD video these days and don't bother.

Yii nas U'n ibkt nrbrguyubh tiyt fikk

Hmmm, not sure about that. With pure digital, you can copy the files on your HD and drag them staight onto a timeline (assuming your editing software supports your cameras codec). With minidv.. You have to take the extra painful step of capturing the video.

Bir kujr u gsbrb'y dsuf ygr dsnr ygubh sbiyy tiyt "g" vrgitr!

Nothing to do with being able to "do" the editing, but rather with quality. HD compression makes mini DV a better choice in terms of video quality if you do lots of editing.


Rcroy U brbrt gyvj "G" nrvsyar TII nsfr nr (@).
Gierbrt, ygsy ud bir ygr vibyrcy i nrsby.
U nudd tii

And filling up a flash card that can be uploaded into a computer, erased, and used again thus eleminating the need to buy film

Wanted to add, I'm totally fond of natural light as well.
Even having all the studo set up and being able to completely
contol the environment, I've found that I have leaned more and more towards natural light. More challenging... but so much more rewarding

U'n biy ij.
U nudd tii!

I prefer natural light as well, but it didn't work out at our new apartment



I couldn't get consistent color balance from the top of my photo to the bottom.



Using artificial, wider spectrum lights solved my problem.

Just when you thought this was going to be easy... here's something else to ponder. The basics of SLR technology hasn't changed much in 60 years.. until 2008 that is with the release of micro 4/3 format. One of the big draw backs to DSLR's is the size and weight of the cameras and some lenses. The micro 4/3 format solves this by removing the need for mirrors and also allows for smaller lenses. Another nice advantage is if you have standard DSLR 4/3 lenses you can get adapters for several brands to use them with the m43 format cameras. Since you're starting out though that's not a concern for you. Thing is though once you pick a camera you're locking into buying lenses compatible with that camera brand/type.

If you're looking for High image quality for portraits, ease of use, light weight and lense changeability, the m43 format camera is worth a look. Take a look at the Olympus ep-1 & 2 or Panasonic G1 or G2 which is soon to be released.

Hi Everyone.



I can't comment on the micro 4/3 format; I've never tried it. But the comment about being locked in is what I was trying to say in my first post. If you start with a leading brand you can always get different lens for your camera. You can start with the cheaper lens and buy an expensive one later on. You can also buy a better camera at a later date and all your old lens will still fit your new camera.

We haven't seen Stacy post on this one yet. It would be nice to get a professional's veiw on the subject. How about it, please Stacy

Vickylover.

Hi All

First one can make a good photo even with a phone, making a great photo is a matter of composition another camera makes you not a better photographer. However another camera can give you some more convenience to use and raise the quality of your images.


Vickylover wrote:



I will not say that those are not good camera's but they are certainly not better than APSC format cameras which are most DSLR's.
There are 3 sensor sizes in use in consumer DSLR's, to be:

1: 3/4 format
When using this format, a 50 mm lens works like a 100 mm lens compaired to 35 mm film, the factor is 2.

2: APSC format, Nikon calls it DX, the Nikon sensor is a little bigger.
THe factor for APSC format is 1.6, thus when using a 50 mm lens it becomes an 80 mm lens compaired to 35 mm film, for DX the factor is 1.5 thus when using a 50 mm lens it becomes a 75 mm lens compaired to 35 mm film.

3: Full frame format, this are the most expensive camera's I consider them semi pro e.g. Nikon D700 / Canon 5D, and pro (not consumer any more) like Nikon 3D(x) and Canon ID. The factor for full frame is 1 when using a 50 mm lens it stays a 50 mm lens thus this camera works like 35 mm film SLR.

Whats in sensor size?
The bigger the sensor the bigger the whole camera will be, compacts have very small sensors and full frames the largest (35 mm) sensor of all. The 3/4 has the advantage of being a very small DSLR, the APSC is between the 3/4 and the fullframe regarding size and the fullframe is the biggest camera.

Why to tow a big full frame with you if there are small 3/4 size?
Well the bigger the sensor the less noise you have on the image. Bigger sensors result in sharper images. So pro's often use full frame, and sometimes they use even bigger sensors (Hasselblad 60 mm, very expensive).

In my opinion its not a good idea to start out with a 3/4 sensor format or with a fullframe format camera, I think a Nikon or Canon with the APSC format is a good choise, its affordable, bit bigger sensor than the 3/4th so theoretically less noice than 3/4th but don't buy the Nikon 3000 that thing seems to suck with noise, for the other Nikons you can't go wrong. Regarding lenses I see vickylover writing about a expensive 500 mm lens. IMO not needed to start too, keep it simple. Buy, beside the 18 - 55 mm zoom (best is to choose for the standard lens VR for Nikon and IS for Canon which means image stabilisation/vibration reduction) these camera's come with, a good 50 mm f1.8 or 50 mm f1.4 lens, these are affordable, and work like a 80 mm portrait lens on your APSC camera, and you have also some wide in the standard lens. You have to walk backward and forward to make photo's cause a 50 mm lens is a prime, but you save out a lot money a light sensitive zoom is soon 1500 US$. (You can always decide buy that expensive light sensitive 24-70 mm zoom later). All camera's are good today but I have to agree with Vickylover, buy a leading brand, the best buy is IMO a Nikon or a Canon these brands have a very very long tradition in building camera's and can build the best and there is a ton information and lenses available about these, and the lenses are more affordable than the 3/4th sensor format lenses.

As far I know from past Stacy always adviced to start out with a Rebel XTi not a bad choice, today this is the Canon 550D a great camera with very little noise (also 450D/500D are available for lower price). IMO get a 50 mm prime on it those are light sensitive, and right for indoor use with daylight and one has a nice set.
On the other hand in my opinion the Nikon gear is great too, I own a D90, and its a fine easy to use camera with a lot nice features as Active Daylighting (correct highlights automatically).
Bottom end if Stacy puts her today opinion again would be nice, maybe she did find out something new....

Mytime & Helen & Carmen

Hi mytime.

I found your post very intresting; I didn't know about the different sensor sizes and formats. Most of the rest I agree with and is much the same as I was trying to say.

However the quote about the micro 4/3 format is not mine it was posted by Byteus. I didn't recommend the 500mm as a lens to start with it was just a comment on the price of lenses. My collection of lenses has been built up over many years; the 500mm was one of the later additions.

I decided to go with Nikon many years ago. I started with a F65 film camera with a 28-55mm zoom then added other lenses over the years. My entry into the digital world came when Nikon released the D90; the remaining D80's were sold off cheap so I bought one of those, it takes all the lenses off the F65.

Please don't take this the wrong way I just needed to put the facts straight.

Vickylover.