Tekforums
Chat => Photography => Topic started by: Binary Shadow on May 04, 2006, 00:05:46 AM
-
Snellgrove popped round this evening with his 350D and monster lens... and i now have a strange desire to part with masses of cash...
id like a 350D with the stock lens but obviously a better lens would be on the cards, not quite as mental as snellys tho jeez it weighs a ton lol
luckily im skint so cant but damn its on my birthday list for sure.. what a piece of kit (insert drool smiley ere)
-
careful binary, that way lies large amounts of spending!
I could just about convince myself I prefered film SLRs until my Dad got a *ist DL2 and I had a play. Oh woe is my bank balance.
When you save up the cash, try and get a twin lens kit. Lenses are always cheaper if you get them with the camera. For example I got 18-55 and 50-200 lenses with my *ist, this covers most situations and so will give you time to save up your pennys again before you need to buy more glass.
-
the kit lens its pretty poor compared to other lenss on the 350D but its a good start for a n00b like me.
I got some pretty... poor... results with my 35mm SLR.. was an old camera and was many many years ago now.
Full manual tho and i was rubbish lol
-
the kit lens with 350Ds (the nifty 50) is actually renowned for being the best (most useful and best bang for buck) lens on the canon, great results and useful for most "snapshot" situations and portraits. sure its a fixed focal length so theres no zoom, but its one of the best lenses out there.
I am looking at a EOS 500 thats on ebay at the mo :D lol a traditional 35mm SLR... dont know weather to buy it or not! :|
-
I have seen snellgroves [and other peoples] pictures taken with that camera and i loved them, but i dont have the ability yet to take images which would really utilise the camera to its maximum... i mean i have a £200 fuji digital camera and i dont fully know how to use it yet...
-
I still havent found anything that my Panasonic DMC-FZ20 cant do as good as an SLR with its 36-432 equivalent zoom. Very low light photography is an issue because of noise but thats the same with most cameras.
OTOH I have taken photies that I would never have been able to do with an SLR.
-
Some slrs now have IS too. and the cannon CCD is increadable in low light/higher ASAs
-
I have seen snellgroves [and other peoples] pictures taken with that camera and i loved them, but i dont have the ability yet to take images which would really utilise the camera to its maximum... i mean i have a £200 fuji digital camera and i dont fully know how to use it yet...
lol same here mate :D but I want longer exposure times to do night photography. 2 seconds exposure just doesnt cut it. I want 10minutes of exposure to get pictures of the milky way and things :D
Its why Im watching 2 EOS500s on ebay right now :D
-
There are converters available that let you rig up the canons to a telescope, nice option if you have an eight inch reflector available. The problem of noise can still happen though.
-
A telescope isnt needed for a majority of photos you see of the sky.
And there are connectors to hook up my camera to a telescope (its called digiscoping :)) but if you have a standard 50mm lens, a 10minute exposure, and a tripod. you can get cracking star trail pictures. :)
Oh... and a 4.5 inch reflector is plenty for getting photos of stellar objects :)
8inches is frowned upon mainly because itll be too big and cumbersome for anyone to actually be arsed to go out with it.
You can also get mirror lenses for SLRs that can have insane focal lengths (500mm+) but have the same size lens as the 50mm :D Was looking at them today, cost about £80 for em... as opposed to a couple of hundred for the 500mm.
-
Damn.... yet another thing im tempted to buy..
(http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/images/digital/s5000/s5000-dcr1850pro.jpg)
A DCR-1850pro (1.85x teleconverter), the above piccie shows it mounted to my camera :D
Or should I save for the big daddy...
(http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/images/digital/s5000/s5000-dcr2020pro.jpg) DCR-2020Pro (2.2x teleconverter)
Ahhh... I want them all!!!
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/digital/s5000/index.htm
And I want an SLR! :(
-
Oh... and a 4.5 inch reflector is plenty for getting photos of stellar objects :)
8inches is frowned upon mainly because itll be too big and cumbersome for anyone to actually be arsed to go out with it.
By who? Go to any reasonably avid amature astronomer and a 6" is rated as a minimum for a reflector. 3 inch for a refractor though.
is that it is not sensible to pay a large sum for any refractor with an object-glass less than 3 inches in diameter, or a Newtonian reflector with a mirror less than 6 inches across.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/myspace/nightsky/telescopes.shtml
An 8" isnt that much bigger and will give a better result, i crtainly wouldnt bother with a 4.5".
-
Says most of the other information Ive read on the net. They say "size isnt important... 4.5" is the lowest you should go, but the main thing to be concerned about is will you be happy carrying it out to your favourite dark sky sites... or will it just end up an ornament."
-
the kit lens with 350Ds (the nifty 50) is actually renowned for being the best (most useful and best bang for buck) lens on the canon, great results and useful for most "snapshot" situations and portraits. sure its a fixed focal length so theres no zoom, but its one of the best lenses out there.
Im sure the "stock" lens that i saw had zoom, it was also plastic and wobbly at the end... less than quality.
-
Says most of the other information Ive read on the net. They say "size isnt important... 4.5" is the lowest you should go, but the main thing to be concerned about is will you be happy carrying it out to your favourite dark sky sites... or will it just end up an ornament."
that deppends what you want to look at, but having seen the difference between my Dads old 6" and his new 8" newtonian, the extra bulk of the 8" is more than worth it.
Of course we are lucky enough to have to go a whopping 30 feet or so to get dark enough skys to view more or less anything.
I still wouldnt bother with less than a 6" though, not if you want to see anything more interesting than the moon.
-
the kit lens with 350Ds (the nifty 50) is actually renowned for being the best (most useful and best bang for buck) lens on the canon, great results and useful for most "snapshot" situations and portraits. sure its a fixed focal length so theres no zoom, but its one of the best lenses out there.
Im sure the "stock" lens that i saw had zoom, it was also plastic and wobbly at the end... less than quality.
M3ta7h3ad is talking about the good old 50mm prime I think, though I am pretty sure the 350D comes as standard with the 18-55 zoom like just about every other DSLR on the market. Canon kit lenses are not known for their quality, the Nikon and Pentax 18-55 zooms are both optically superior and have better build quality. Thats not to say Canon dont make some nice glass, but you can expect to pay for it.
I spent some time looking at the sample photos on Steves digicams from the three contenders for my money (Nikon D50, Canon 350D, Pentax *ist DL). To my eyes the Nikon was ever so slightly sharper than the Pentax, but the Pentax had more pleasing colour rendition. The Canons sharpness was poor especially at the edges and its colour rendition was washy for my taste.
-
My problem ATM is I live in a built up area and the street lights prevent any hope at reasonable star viewing so it isnt worth me bothering to invest in a scope otherwise I would get an eight incher. Many other people on the forums will suffer the same unfortunately :(
Interesting article about alternative lens technology, page down to magic eyes.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002729/2004/01/26.html
-
Another one, was in the Metro newspaper today, completely transparent material with no reflections?
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/japanese-reseachers-invent-completely-transparent-material/
-
Some slrs now have IS too. and the cannon CCD is increadable in low light/higher ASAs
Thats because its not a teeny tiny CCD at all..
its actually a CMOS sensor, and as you say.. its pretty good. I dont have any problems with using ISO 400 at all, ISO 800 is even fairly good. 1600 starts to get a bit grainy though ;) - if you need ISO 1600 though, your probably a bit of a specialist and probably own something a bit nicer than a 350D, and thus have an even nicer sensor which can deal with 1600 just fine - my dads 20D does ISO 3200!
Im sure the "stock" lens that i saw had zoom, it was also plastic and wobbly at the end... less than quality.
Its fine really, just dont do astrophotography with it, as there is a bit (just enough) play in it to end up with blobs instead of stars.
its absolutely fine for normal stuff, during the day - take a look at any of my trackday type stuff from the last Combe visit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snellgrove/sets/72057594120358426/), it was all done on the kit lens. Its never going to equal the quality of the L lens you got to have a play with ;) ~11 / 12x price difference :lol:
The kit lens is an 18-55 zoom, F3.5 to 5.6 - It has been mentioned in here, the wonderful 50mm prime lens (non zoom) 1.8 - cheap, and very good.. I really need to get one really but I probably wont, as I plan on getting a 24-70mm F2.8 L series lens, to compliment my big white lens, and hopefully that should be everything ill need.
-
and hopefully that should be everything ill need.
iv heard that before ;)
-
yeah the shots from the CCC day do look very good, just need the 500 to buy one now lol
yep looks like its EOS 350D or bust... or maybe that should be and lol