Reading mode: Light Dark

If your first foray into photography was with a budget dslr, what did you wish you knew earlier?

Go to last post
J

JoryWolf

New member
Messages
9
Solutions
1
Reaction score
3
I'm about to take my first photography course, and it requires a dslr. I don't even know if I'll like doing real photography, so I want to commit as little money as possible, for now. My first inclination is to just get the cheapest thing since right now I'm more concerned with learning proper technique from a professional rather than trying to churn out gorgeous pics.

However, as a student, I don't know what kind of problems, if any, I may run into later on in the class due to my camera choice. The professor already told me any dslr will do, so I doubt he'll get too brand-specific in terms of functions.

What I mean by problem, for instance, is maybe there's some really useful feature that I didn't know I shouldn't have skimped out on, and having had practice with it early on would've been great for my development (and enjoyment) of photography.

Or, maybe there's some highly-touted feature written in bold with lightning bolts coming out of it that made me pick that camera over another, but ultimately that feature isn't used by a student in a 101 class.

Or maybe none of this matters if I'm spending as little as possible, since the budget cameras all have the same set of bare-bones basic features?

So for you personally, what did you discover after a few months of learning photography with your budget dslr that you wish you knew going in?

Thanks in advance for your responses, I like the knowledgeable and friendly community here :-)
 
chuxter said:
This list of "rules" is well tested. Your problem w/ #2 is due to your failure to comprehend what "you can put up with" means. Think about it! BTW, you are not the first to stumble on #2.
Click to expand...
The reason he stumbled on it is that it is false. If you bother looking at dynamic range of sensors for a given year's camera crop, you'll find that pixel density is very poorly correlated to dynamic range. So, instead of suggesting a metric that is at best very loosely coupled to the desired performance metric, the right thing to do is look for the best performance in dynamic range or low noise at higher ISO or whatever is the relevant metric for the kind of photography you do. I can pretty much guarantee that the metric will not be 'fewest pixels."
 
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
  1. Buy the biggest piece of Silicon (sensor) you can afford.
  2. Buy the FEWEST number of pixels you can put up with.
  3. Buy the best lens(es) that you can afford.
  4. Buy the cheapest body you can put up with.
  5. Buy a camera that fits your hands and is not too big or heavy for you.
  6. Buy a camera that is intuitive (ie, don't have to read the manual).
  7. Read the @#$%ing manual anyway!
  8. Ignore your friends’ advice.
  9. Find new friends who like you, not your camera brand.
  10. Ignore fanbois who have made their last camera purchase a Religion.
Click to expand...
It's a good list and I agree with points #1 and #3..10, but I do think that point #2 needs some caveats - the notion that less pixels are always better is a bit dated. It may be true in some circumstances, not always
Click to expand...
This list of "rules" is well tested. Your problem w/ #2 is due to your failure to comprehend what "you can put up with" means. Think about it! BTW, you are not the first to stumble on #2.

A landscape photographer can not put up with as few pixels as an available-light photographer can put up with.

#2 does NOT say that fewer pixels is better than more pixels. It says that for every photographer, in every year, there is a choice of more or less pixels; pick the one with the fewest you can put up with considering your type photography.

Perhaps I should remove the bold "FEWEST" and make "YOU CAN PUT UP WITH" bold?
Click to expand...
mmmaybe :)

Better... but it still implies that less mp is better than more mp all else being equal, which I am not particularly agreeing with
 
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
  1. Buy the biggest piece of Silicon (sensor) you can afford.
  2. Buy the FEWEST number of pixels you can put up with.
  3. Buy the best lens(es) that you can afford.
  4. Buy the cheapest body you can put up with.
  5. Buy a camera that fits your hands and is not too big or heavy for you.
  6. Buy a camera that is intuitive (ie, don't have to read the manual).
  7. Read the @#$%ing manual anyway!
  8. Ignore your friends’ advice.
  9. Find new friends who like you, not your camera brand.
  10. Ignore fanbois who have made their last camera purchase a Religion.
Click to expand...
It's a good list and I agree with points #1 and #3..10, but I do think that point #2 needs some caveats - the notion that less pixels are always better is a bit dated. It may be true in some circumstances, not always
Click to expand...
This list of "rules" is well tested. Your problem w/ #2 is due to your failure to comprehend what "you can put up with" means. Think about it! BTW, you are not the first to stumble on #2.

A landscape photographer can not put up with as few pixels as an available-light photographer can put up with.

#2 does NOT say that fewer pixels is better than more pixels. It says that for every photographer, in every year, there is a choice of more or less pixels; pick the one with the fewest you can put up with considering your type photography.

Perhaps I should remove the bold "FEWEST" and make "YOU CAN PUT UP WITH" bold?
Click to expand...
mmmaybe :)

Better... but it still implies that less mp is better than more mp all else being equal, which I am not particularly agreeing with
Click to expand...
You and tclune are confused. Even in 2015, there is firm evidence that for some photographers, a camera with fewer pixels is preferable. Perhaps you guys don't follow the few cameras w/ a limited number of pixels in order to get outstanding sensitivity? If you are an available light photographer, the weapon of choice in 2015 is the Sony A7S. Go ahead and read what Dave Etchels had to say about it:

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

You guys can believe whatever you want to, but fewer pixels is desirable for some photographers. My "rule 2" extends that fact to every photographer. As an example, I bought a D810. I didn't want 36 MP! I would have preferred a different sensor with 16-24 MP. I simply don't need 36 MP. I have found many venues where I wished I had a D750 or Df. BUT, the D810 excels in most other ways; that is why I bought it. I can put up with having too many pixels.

I reject your criticism of Rule 2. It was true 5 years ago when I wrote it, it's still true, and it will be true in the future. :-)
 
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
  1. Buy the biggest piece of Silicon (sensor) you can afford.
  2. Buy the FEWEST number of pixels you can put up with.
  3. Buy the best lens(es) that you can afford.
  4. Buy the cheapest body you can put up with.
  5. Buy a camera that fits your hands and is not too big or heavy for you.
  6. Buy a camera that is intuitive (ie, don't have to read the manual).
  7. Read the @#$%ing manual anyway!
  8. Ignore your friends’ advice.
  9. Find new friends who like you, not your camera brand.
  10. Ignore fanbois who have made their last camera purchase a Religion.
Click to expand...
It's a good list and I agree with points #1 and #3..10, but I do think that point #2 needs some caveats - the notion that less pixels are always better is a bit dated. It may be true in some circumstances, not always
Click to expand...
This list of "rules" is well tested. Your problem w/ #2 is due to your failure to comprehend what "you can put up with" means. Think about it! BTW, you are not the first to stumble on #2.

A landscape photographer can not put up with as few pixels as an available-light photographer can put up with.

#2 does NOT say that fewer pixels is better than more pixels. It says that for every photographer, in every year, there is a choice of more or less pixels; pick the one with the fewest you can put up with considering your type photography.

Perhaps I should remove the bold "FEWEST" and make "YOU CAN PUT UP WITH" bold?
Click to expand...
mmmaybe :)

Better... but it still implies that less mp is better than more mp all else being equal, which I am not particularly agreeing with
Click to expand...
You and tclune are confused. Even in 2015, there is firm evidence that for some photographers, a camera with fewer pixels is preferable. Perhaps you guys don't follow the few cameras w/ a limited number of pixels in order to get outstanding sensitivity? If you are an available light photographer, the weapon of choice in 2015 is the Sony A7S. Go ahead and read what Dave Etchels had to say about it:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-trend-fewer-larger-pixels-great-low-light-4k

You guys can believe whatever you want to, but fewer pixels is desirable for some photographers. My "rule 2" extends that fact to every photographer. As an example, I bought a D810. I didn't want 36 MP! I would have preferred a different sensor with 16-24 MP. I simply don't need 36 MP. I have found many venues where I wished I had a D750 or Df. BUT, the D810 excels in most other ways; that is why I bought it. I can put up with having too many pixels.

I reject your criticism of Rule 2. It was true 5 years ago when I wrote it, it's still true, and it will be true in the future. :-)
Click to expand...
Aha! Of course I know about the A7s and no, I'm not an available light photographer. But you said it: "some photographers". So your rule is not universally valid.

I reject your defense :)
 
Leonard Migliore said:
baloo_buc said:
Limburger said:
The lower end dslrs tend to have more features than the advanced/pro gear.
Click to expand...
You wanted to say less features, didn't you?
Click to expand...
I agree that low-end DSLR's have more features than pro cameras:

Scene modes, articulating screens, built-in flash, designer colors, smile detection, HDR...

All that stuff. Pro cameras are built better, have better controls and don't have strange features that take over what you're trying to do.
Click to expand...
 
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
  1. Buy the biggest piece of Silicon (sensor) you can afford.
  2. Buy the FEWEST number of pixels you can put up with.
  3. Buy the best lens(es) that you can afford.
  4. Buy the cheapest body you can put up with.
  5. Buy a camera that fits your hands and is not too big or heavy for you.
  6. Buy a camera that is intuitive (ie, don't have to read the manual).
  7. Read the @#$%ing manual anyway!
  8. Ignore your friends’ advice.
  9. Find new friends who like you, not your camera brand.
  10. Ignore fanbois who have made their last camera purchase a Religion.
Click to expand...
It's a good list and I agree with points #1 and #3..10, but I do think that point #2 needs some caveats - the notion that less pixels are always better is a bit dated. It may be true in some circumstances, not always
Click to expand...
This list of "rules" is well tested. Your problem w/ #2 is due to your failure to comprehend what "you can put up with" means. Think about it! BTW, you are not the first to stumble on #2.

A landscape photographer can not put up with as few pixels as an available-light photographer can put up with.

#2 does NOT say that fewer pixels is better than more pixels. It says that for every photographer, in every year, there is a choice of more or less pixels; pick the one with the fewest you can put up with considering your type photography.

Perhaps I should remove the bold "FEWEST" and make "YOU CAN PUT UP WITH" bold?
Click to expand...
mmmaybe :)

Better... but it still implies that less mp is better than more mp all else being equal, which I am not particularly agreeing with
Click to expand...
You and tclune are confused. Even in 2015, there is firm evidence that for some photographers, a camera with fewer pixels is preferable. Perhaps you guys don't follow the few cameras w/ a limited number of pixels in order to get outstanding sensitivity? If you are an available light photographer, the weapon of choice in 2015 is the Sony A7S. Go ahead and read what Dave Etchels had to say about it:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-trend-fewer-larger-pixels-great-low-light-4k

You guys can believe whatever you want to, but fewer pixels is desirable for some photographers. My "rule 2" extends that fact to every photographer. As an example, I bought a D810. I didn't want 36 MP! I would have preferred a different sensor with 16-24 MP. I simply don't need 36 MP. I have found many venues where I wished I had a D750 or Df. BUT, the D810 excels in most other ways; that is why I bought it. I can put up with having too many pixels.

I reject your criticism of Rule 2. It was true 5 years ago when I wrote it, it's still true, and it will be true in the future. :-)
Click to expand...
Aha! Of course I know about the A7s and no, I'm not an available light photographer. But you said it: "some photographers". So your rule is not universally valid.

I reject your defense :)
Click to expand...
LOL Hey Roberto, no rule is universally valid for all people all the times. Just substitute the word "suggestion" for the word "rule" if it really bothers you. Personally, I think Charlie's suggestions make a good bit of sense for beginning photographers and is a very helpful guideline.

I read rule suggestion 2 more like, don't worry about spending extra to get more megapixels at this point in time. I want more megapixels so I can crop deeper when doing bird photography. Therefore, I am not willing to "put up with" less.

Does this mean it applies in all cases to you or some other experienced photographer who has his/her specific needs? Of course not, but his suggestions are directed to beginners who may not have any specific needs in the beginning. I think the list is well thought out and quite applicable to his intended audience. They also may be well considered when any of us ponder our various wants and needs prior to a purchase decision. :-)

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.
 
Last edited:
roby17269 said:
roby17269 said:
You guys can believe whatever you want to, but fewer pixels is desirable for some photographers. My "rule 2" extends that fact to every photographer. As an example, I bought a D810. I didn't want 36 MP! I would have preferred a different sensor with 16-24 MP. I simply don't need 36 MP. I have found many venues where I wished I had a D750 or Df. BUT, the D810 excels in most other ways; that is why I bought it. I can put up with having too many pixels.

I reject your criticism of Rule 2. It was true 5 years ago when I wrote it, it's still true, and it will be true in the future. :-)
Click to expand...
Aha! Of course I know about the A7s and no, I'm not an available light photographer. But you said it: "some photographers". So your rule is not universally valid.

I reject your defense :)
Click to expand...
As any self-aware member of your clan would. ;-)

 
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
You guys can believe whatever you want to, but fewer pixels is desirable for some photographers. My "rule 2" extends that fact to every photographer. As an example, I bought a D810. I didn't want 36 MP! I would have preferred a different sensor with 16-24 MP. I simply don't need 36 MP. I have found many venues where I wished I had a D750 or Df. BUT, the D810 excels in most other ways; that is why I bought it. I can put up with having too many pixels.

I reject your criticism of Rule 2. It was true 5 years ago when I wrote it, it's still true, and it will be true in the future. :-)
Click to expand...
Aha! Of course I know about the A7s and no, I'm not an available light photographer. But you said it: "some photographers". So your rule is not universally valid.

I reject your defense :)
Click to expand...
As any self-aware member of your clan would. ;-)
Click to expand...
Thread carefully ;)
 
Buy a used DSLR and a very basic lens. You can find a used Canon XSi for about $225, or buy an old Nikon D90. And they do take great photos.

It really is best to go with the most basic DSLR. The lack of features is a benefit, because you'll learn what you're missing. It's way better to spend $250 and figure out which features you wish for, than spend $1,000 and realize what you're missing.

There is no one best camera. There is no one best lens. Some people really go for the art, and others are very technical.

For example, three kinds of photography are landscape,
Sports/wildlife, and Street. (There are many others as well). For Landscape photography, emphasis is ideally on highest possible sensor quality, a heavy tripod, and usually wide-angle lenses. Focus is often manual. Photos are shot at the lowest ISO. For sports/wildlife, it's almost the opposite: A big telephoto lens and a high framerate camera with very fast autofocus and good high ISO capability. For street photography, it's usually a very compact camera, often not a DSLR at all.

For sure you can use the same camera for all of these types of photography, but when you drop $1,000-$5,000, you'll want a camera that favors the kind of work you most enjoy. This is why my advice is to start super-cheap and use it to learn. I started with a $109 Fuji SLR with a 50mm f/2.0 lens. I had to stop the lens down to meter. When I upgraded, I was really ready.

But photography is art. Learn photography, not "how to use your camera." My metaphor is learning guitar: It's about you, not the instrument. You are what makes the photo great, not the camera.
 
Last edited:
Guidenet said:
Guidenet said:
I reject your defense :)
Click to expand...
LOL Hey Roberto, no rule is universally valid for all people all the times. Just substitute the word "suggestion" for the word "rule" if it really bothers you. Personally, I think Charlie's suggestions make a good bit of sense for beginning photographers and is a very helpful guideline.
Click to expand...
I agree! That's what I've been writing here for a long time... but hey! I didn't call them "rules", someone else did :)
Guidenet said:
I read rule suggestion 2 more like, don't worry about spending extra to get more megapixels at this point in time. I want more megapixels so I can crop deeper when doing bird photography. Therefore, I am not willing to "put up with" less.

Does this mean it applies in all cases to you or some other experienced photographer who has his/her specific needs? Of course not, but his suggestions are directed to beginners who may not have any specific needs in the beginning. I think the list is well thought out and quite applicable to his intended audience. They also may be well considered when any of us ponder our various wants and needs prior to a purchase decision. :-)
Click to expand...
Ok ok I surrender :)

We do agree
 
baloo_buc said:
The rest are just "features" I never count. If we count every scene mode or guide mode an entry level packs then they have more "features".
Click to expand...
Good morning, Victor. I basically agree with you, but go further. I don't think you need treat every scene mode or guide mode as a separate feature to still be true. I think even considering scene mode as just a single feature, most entry level cameras as well as cameras made by those large home electronic appliance companies out feature pro-level cameras. Those features are often ones I don't count either. I think they cram them on to appeal to those looking for a new electronic play thing rather than a good tool for creating compelling images.

Many of these so called features are a poor mimicry of actual photographic techniques. Many beginners see examples of great HDR or Panorama examples on the Web and think they can achieve the same thing by a menu choice or push button. Many of us, including experienced and passionate photographers, sometimes enjoy playing with electronic gadgets, but when it really counts, most of these whiz bang features can actually get in the way or instill a false sense of capability which can make one end up with mediocre images.

All you have to do is read some of these boxes or a press release and wonder. Some might object to one of these or another saying they enjoy that one, but it's the congestion which gets in the way and the idea some of these take the place of actually learning how to do something. I think some of these companies are just want to out-PlayStation their competition, suggesting they are needed or even desired to affect inspiring imagery.
  • in camera hdr
  • sweep panorama
  • five shot night composite
  • auto best shot selection
  • 3D still image
  • auto photo book creation
  • picture effects
  • art filters
  • touch screen
  • power zoom
  • WiFi
  • zebra stripes
  • and a whole lot of other such items
You mention scene modes. LOL Have you seen such foolishness as is going on lately. These are just a small selection taken from a Panasonic. Who wrote these and who believes this? ;-)
  • Warm Glowing Nightscape
  • Sweet Child's Face
  • Glittering Illuminations
  • Relaxing Tone
  • Romantic Sunset Glow
  • Cute Dessert
What if your dessert isn't cute or that child doesn't have a sweet face? What happens when it's a stormy sunset? What in the heck is a Glittering Illumination, for Heaven's sake? Think about who buys into such foolishness. Press this button and a Glittering Illumination will automatically appear on your Facebook page to excite your friends and family. :-O

Take care, Victor.
 
Guidenet said:
You mention scene modes. LOL Have you seen such foolishness as is going on lately. These are just a small selection taken from a Panasonic. Who wrote these and who believes this? ;-)
  • Warm Glowing Nightscape
  • Sweet Child's Face
  • Glittering Illuminations
  • Relaxing Tone
  • Romantic Sunset Glow
  • Cute Dessert
Click to expand...
Marketing people are quite inventive. Unfortunately I didn't find a Scene for shooting pets named Dolly. I am looking forward for this "feature" and still hoping to find it.

I guess the best is "Relaxing Tone". Every time you want to relax put you camera in that Scene mode. Is that simple.

From marketing people I know that if you say something (no matter how stupid) at least 1 in 10000 will believe it. The best commercials are quite crazy. A few years ago it was a Nestle commercial about Nesscafe. The commercial started with two guys shivering from cold that wake up. The subtitle said it was somewhere near South Pole. One gets out of the bed, clears the frozen calendar that reads June 1st and says to the other guy that summer began (Leto pribyli). Both go outside in a blizzard, installed two chaise longues, and a large umbrella and drink from a large can of Nesscafe. One says to the other in Russian accent "Miami" and the other responds in Russian "Eta tochno (Exactly)". Outside was daylight.

The commercial was very popular yet it contained a few issues:
  • Near South Pole on June 1st it is night all day.
  • The season that starts on June 1st is more correctly named Winter.
  • The blizzard around is fierce but the umbrella stands like in a beach breeze.
So marketing people don't have to tell the truth all the time.
 
MarshallG said:
Buy a used DSLR and a very basic lens. You can find a used Canon XSi for about $225, or buy an old Nikon D90. And they do take great photos.

It really is best to go with the most basic DSLR. The lack of features is a benefit, because you'll learn what you're missing. It's way better to spend $250 and figure out which features you wish for, than spend $1,000 and realize what you're missing.

There is no one best camera. There is no one best lens. Some people really go for the art, and others are very technical.

For example, three kinds of photography are landscape,
Sports/wildlife, and Street. (There are many others as well). For Landscape photography, emphasis is ideally on highest possible sensor quality, a heavy tripod, and usually wide-angle lenses. Focus is often manual. Photos are shot at the lowest ISO. For sports/wildlife, it's almost the opposite: A big telephoto lens and a high framerate camera with very fast autofocus and good high ISO capability. For street photography, it's usually a very compact camera, often not a DSLR at all.

For sure you can use the same camera for all of these types of photography, but when you drop $1,000-$5,000, you'll want a camera that favors the kind of work you most enjoy. This is why my advice is to start super-cheap and use it to learn. I started with a $109 Fuji SLR with a 50mm f/2.0 lens. I had to stop the lens down to meter. When I upgraded, I was really ready.

But photography is art. Learn photography, not "how to use your camera." My metaphor is learning guitar: It's about you, not the instrument. You are what makes the photo great, not the camera.
Click to expand...
MarshallG, My only regret is that I can't give you more than a +1, (tried hitting it 100 times but only recorded once, LOL).

But you were precisely correct. For his class ANY basic camera will work, (w/ manual exposure & focus).

The technical skills can be learned relatively easily and quickly.

"Composition" (art) skills can take longer and are less related to any specific camera.

I suggest ANY camera w/ at least 8mpx (for 300dpi @ 8"x10") is sufficient.

And any lens including 35mm (APS) (or 50mm if FF), w/ manual focusing ring, is equally sufficient to learn these basic skills.

Personally, I recommend a Nikon D70. They are available/cheap, and has a unique feature of an electronic shutter that he can use w/ external flash at a higher shutter-speed for additional sunlight fill-flash range, or darken the background to isolate the subject. (note their were several other Nikon cameras, in that time frame, that also used that shutter, but I think the D70 was most common and thus more available today -- and also had focus motor for more compatibility w/ legacy lenses)

The next step up would be a used dSLR that has LIVE-VIEW, (just so he can learn to use it -- as I am not sure it would be part of the class since they didn't specify it).

*********

As far as future features on dSLR, FORGET IT .... go mirrorless and get 10X more features w/ native (uncompromised) Live-View and (4K) video capabilities, period.

DSLR's will always be limited/slowed by their (ancient-technology) "mirror", period.

Mirrorless are the cameras of the FUTURE, period.

The recent announcements of the A7rII and RX10-II are more evidence of it. (much to the chagrin of the dSLR snobs)

BUT .... "composition" (art) skills are still the most important, and often the most difficult to truly master. They will determine where to move after the technical skills.
 
Last edited:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
roby17269 said:
chuxter said:
You guys can believe whatever you want to, but fewer pixels is desirable for some photographers. My "rule 2" extends that fact to every photographer. As an example, I bought a D810. I didn't want 36 MP! I would have preferred a different sensor with 16-24 MP. I simply don't need 36 MP. I have found many venues where I wished I had a D750 or Df. BUT, the D810 excels in most other ways; that is why I bought it. I can put up with having too many pixels.

I reject your criticism of Rule 2. It was true 5 years ago when I wrote it, it's still true, and it will be true in the future. :-)
Click to expand...
Aha! Of course I know about the A7s and no, I'm not an available light photographer. But you said it: "some photographers". So your rule is not universally valid.

I reject your defense :)
Click to expand...
As any self-aware member of your clan would. ;-)
Click to expand...
Thread carefully ;)
Click to expand...
I try to.

Remember that just as "available light" is only ONE genre, so is what ever YOU like to shoot.

My point is and has been that as pixel count goes up, most other parameters [involved w/ IQ] get worse. DR gets worse. Noise gets worse.

And some non IQ issues get worse, like file size, speed of saving images, and thus the burst rate is lower. Along w/ file size, comes a smaller buffer [measured in images].
 
baloo_buc said:
Guidenet said:
You mention scene modes. LOL Have you seen such foolishness as is going on lately. These are just a small selection taken from a Panasonic. Who wrote these and who believes this? ;-)
  • Warm Glowing Nightscape
  • Sweet Child's Face
  • Glittering Illuminations
  • Relaxing Tone
  • Romantic Sunset Glow
  • Cute Dessert
Click to expand...
Marketing people are quite inventive. Unfortunately I didn't find a Scene for shooting pets named Dolly. I am looking forward for this "feature" and still hoping to find it.

I guess the best is "Relaxing Tone". Every time you want to relax put you camera in that Scene mode. Is that simple.

From marketing people I know that if you say something (no matter how stupid) at least 1 in 10000 will believe it. The best commercials are quite crazy. A few years ago it was a Nestle commercial about Nesscafe. The commercial started with two guys shivering from cold that wake up. The subtitle said it was somewhere near South Pole. One gets out of the bed, clears the frozen calendar that reads June 1st and says to the other guy that summer began (Leto pribyli). Both go outside in a blizzard, installed two chaise longues, and a large umbrella and drink from a large can of Nesscafe. One says to the other in Russian accent "Miami" and the other responds in Russian "Eta tochno (Exactly)". Outside was daylight.

The commercial was very popular yet it contained a few issues:
  • Near South Pole on June 1st it is night all day.
  • The season that starts on June 1st is more correctly named Winter.
  • The blizzard around is fierce but the umbrella stands like in a beach breeze.
So marketing people don't have to tell the truth all the time.
Click to expand...
There was another I saw, (may also have been Nescafe).

Same exact scenario, two guys (at NIGHT) warming themselves by a fire. They discuss why life is "great", (w/ their coffee). And as they speak the sun "rises" (from the East) with a spectacular sunrise.

I know the exact spot, (been there / done that), it was a scenic overlook high on Schnebly Rd. in Sedona AZ. BUT ... the sun "rise" was towards the "west", so obviously a sunSET.
 
I've gone through the camera suggestions from this thread and I looked up the prices on keh, and of the suggestions, these three seem to be the cheapest: d70, d60, k100d.

I saw a d70s when it came up in results for the d70. It's rated as "excellent" with "With Battery and Charger; Surface Sticky" for $59 plus $12 shipping. What do you think of that?
 
JoryWolf said:
I've gone through the camera suggestions from this thread and I looked up the prices on keh, and of the suggestions, these three seem to be the cheapest: d70, d60, k100d.

I saw a d70s when it came up in results for the d70. It's rated as "excellent" with "With Battery and Charger; Surface Sticky" for $59 plus $12 shipping. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...
a 70D for $59 - go for it
 
beagle1 said:
JoryWolf said:
I've gone through the camera suggestions from this thread and I looked up the prices on keh, and of the suggestions, these three seem to be the cheapest: d70, d60, k100d.

I saw a d70s when it came up in results for the d70. It's rated as "excellent" with "With Battery and Charger; Surface Sticky" for $59 plus $12 shipping. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...
a 70D for $59 - go for it
Click to expand...
I'd buy a dozen. But he's talking about a D70, which is an old Nikon. Not a bad camera, but not a 70D.
 
beagle1 said:
JoryWolf said:
I've gone through the camera suggestions from this thread and I looked up the prices on keh, and of the suggestions, these three seem to be the cheapest: d70, d60, k100d.

I saw a d70s when it came up in results for the d70. It's rated as "excellent" with "With Battery and Charger; Surface Sticky" for $59 plus $12 shipping. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...
a 70D for $59 - go for it
Click to expand...
+1

Nikon D70s.

If it works, its worth it!

NOTE: The D70s has a bigger screen than the D70 as well as a connector for a wired remote. As someone mentioned above . . . high speed flash sync on the cheap. And dual control dials. And ability to trigger a Nikon flash unit off camera wirelessly.

What's not to like! LOL.

IMHO . . . it might force you to slow down to get a good shot. But . . . if you can take a good picture with an older camera . . . when you upgrade to something more modern, you'll be laughing!

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
JoryWolf said:
I've gone through the camera suggestions from this thread and I looked up the prices on keh, and of the suggestions, these three seem to be the cheapest: d70, d60, k100d.

I saw a d70s when it came up in results for the d70. It's rated as "excellent" with "With Battery and Charger; Surface Sticky" for $59 plus $12 shipping. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...
For the purposes of your class, any of those will work.

I have already recommended the Nikon d70 because it had a unique, (at the time), "electronic" shutter that you can use at any shutter speed w/ flash.

ALL (most) dSLR's require limit your shutter speed to less than 1/250sec when you are using flash.

I am sure this may sound complicated (now), but: that means your f/stop must be about f/16 and with a typical flash (GN 80), your maximum distance it will be useful is about 5'.

BUT ... w/ D70, you can actually use about 1/1000 and then set f/8 and then double your useful distance (10'+).

Also note that at really short (macro) range you can even possibly use 1/2000 - 1/4000 @ f/16 and darken your background for some unique "flower/insect" photos.

Again, if that seems complicated, don't worry about it. You will understand later.

Because of that feature, the D70 could be a camera you may want to KEEP after your class, (even if you get a newer one that does not flash-sync above 1/200 - 1/250).

Personally I now use a Panasonic FZ-1000, precisely because it has a "leaf" shutter that also sync's @ 1/4000, that I very often use for macro (flower/insect) w/ dark background.

So YOU would be able to do this photo w/ Nikon D70s: (SUNlight -- 1/4000 @ f/8).

(Note you would NOT be able to do this with any/most other cameras limited to 1/250 sync speed -- w/out HSS flash.)

941cf95158c44dedb1599ab38ab5364e.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top