Very similar backgrounds. I started out as a musician, then I started into electronic repair, working in my fathers repair shop, then into electronic experimenting and design (hobby) including building shortwave radios (I enjoyed listening to hams more than talking to them - a little shy back then) and test equipment. Now, I am starting into photography, and just love it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why did you buy a DSLR? And what are your goals?
- Thread starter BigMike
- Start date
morenoar
Forum Enthusiast
I got a DSLR because it allows me to learn how to take photographs without the cost of devloping film. I had a 35mm Nikon and liked to take pictures. I got very frustrated when the pictures came back and the shots where Dark or to bright or out of focus or ? So when I saw the 300D for les than $1K, I knew I had to have it. I never even new that there was such things as DSLR, before November or 2003. I knew about digital cameras and 35mm and that was it. With the 300D I can take pictures like crazy, in creative modes, and see the results that same day. I can see what I need to improve on, everything. The cost for me now is the accesserios. New lens, then the external flash and battery grip.The tripod expense. You all know what I am talking about. Everything that I would have bought for my 35mm, but now I can use without having to worry if the shots came out good or not. All of you have fun
dave clark28980
Leading Member
That's right. I wouldn't take pictures if I didn't have a computer to manipulate them and display them. I like computery things in general but I got a DSLR because I like the smooth pictures too.
I also like to write software and do other things with my computer such as watch DVDs and surf the Net. Photography is just one of the accessories to my computer hobby but I do obsess over how smooth and clean my pictures look. I don't claim to be anything more than a tech junkie. I have no ego as far as photography is concerned. I spend way more money on LPs and software.
Dave Clark
I also like to write software and do other things with my computer such as watch DVDs and surf the Net. Photography is just one of the accessories to my computer hobby but I do obsess over how smooth and clean my pictures look. I don't claim to be anything more than a tech junkie. I have no ego as far as photography is concerned. I spend way more money on LPs and software.
Dave Clark
chibimike
Senior Member
I was out in Malibu shooting with my G2, which I was perfectly happy with.
Suddenly a large pack of dolphins came swimming along, jumping out of the water and playing.
I took about 60 shots and with the lag and SLOW af, I didn't get one good shot of the dolphins.
I bought a 10d within a week and never regretted it.
mike
Suddenly a large pack of dolphins came swimming along, jumping out of the water and playing.
I took about 60 shots and with the lag and SLOW af, I didn't get one good shot of the dolphins.
I bought a 10d within a week and never regretted it.
mike
1.) I used a manual focus Ricoh SLR for years, and enjoyed what it could do - awesome pictures.
2.) Had (still do) a Canon G2, and compared to the Ricoh, IT SUCKED! Slow shutter, could never know what was focused, etc. Great camera, but NOT a SLR.
3.) I needed a toy, and I wanted something fun to play with.
Basically, I love the hobby, and I wanted to get a bit more serious. I only plan on doing pro work if I take and sell landscapes or other such images. I hate people and dealing with all the BS that is associated with photography ("Why are you taking my picture!!!???") - so I have NO interest in that aspect - unless it is family/friends. Anyway, I would love to sell landscapes and see what happens - but I need to take them first
Basically, I wanted to get back to where I was with my old film SLR, and the G2 was not it.
2.) Had (still do) a Canon G2, and compared to the Ricoh, IT SUCKED! Slow shutter, could never know what was focused, etc. Great camera, but NOT a SLR.
3.) I needed a toy, and I wanted something fun to play with.
Basically, I love the hobby, and I wanted to get a bit more serious. I only plan on doing pro work if I take and sell landscapes or other such images. I hate people and dealing with all the BS that is associated with photography ("Why are you taking my picture!!!???") - so I have NO interest in that aspect - unless it is family/friends. Anyway, I would love to sell landscapes and see what happens - but I need to take them first
Basically, I wanted to get back to where I was with my old film SLR, and the G2 was not it.
NormanAllen
Senior Member
BigMike-
I am ashamed to say it, but it was on a Mac
. That was in 1990 or so. Then in 1993 I used Photoshop on a Power PC. '93 was when PS finally came to Windows.
The saddest part is that I still feel like a Photoshop n00b sometimes
Norman
I am ashamed to say it, but it was on a Mac
. That was in 1990 or so. Then in 1993 I used Photoshop on a Power PC. '93 was when PS finally came to Windows.The saddest part is that I still feel like a Photoshop n00b sometimes
Norman
Florindo Gallicchio
Senior Member
Good thread, BigMike.
I'm a very happy owner of a Sony DSC-F707, an exceptional camera with which I've taken great pictures. But last year, while on a photography trip to Yellowstone National Park, I found that sneaking up on wild animals to get a shot was just plain stupid. This was NOT a good idea:
As you can see, the shot is a bit soft. I was standing in a marsh, my camera on a tripod because of the low light (it was around 7AM), with the road about 200 - 300 yards behind me. It was dumb, but wow, that was a pretty moose. I also missed some nice shots of hawks, turkey vultures, and other assorted animals because I couldn't get close enough without getting eaten or gored. I also want to get into candid shots of people, and in NYC I'll need a nice loooonnnggg lens reach to do that...
I also couldn't live with the Sony's limited not-so-wide angle. I needed wider for landscapes. I ran into this limitation with my fall foliage shots as well as NYC skyline shots. I need the wide angle, and I'm considering the Sigma 12-24 for that.
I am a firm believer that one can take phenomenal, professional-quality shots using a digicam like the Sony. Many great photographers have proven it. I will continue to use my Sony for certain situations, but the overall flexibility and reach of a dSLR are what I need for this stage of my photography.
In the end, however, it is the photographer, not the equipment that takes the nice picture. I also believe that it's the camera lens system I'm buying into; the body can be upgraded, but the glass remains. I do this all as a hobby, but I do donate my prints to charity events (charity auctions, etc.), and I sell prints to those who ask for it.
Florindo
http://www.pbase.com/florindo
I'm a very happy owner of a Sony DSC-F707, an exceptional camera with which I've taken great pictures. But last year, while on a photography trip to Yellowstone National Park, I found that sneaking up on wild animals to get a shot was just plain stupid. This was NOT a good idea:
As you can see, the shot is a bit soft. I was standing in a marsh, my camera on a tripod because of the low light (it was around 7AM), with the road about 200 - 300 yards behind me. It was dumb, but wow, that was a pretty moose. I also missed some nice shots of hawks, turkey vultures, and other assorted animals because I couldn't get close enough without getting eaten or gored. I also want to get into candid shots of people, and in NYC I'll need a nice loooonnnggg lens reach to do that...
I also couldn't live with the Sony's limited not-so-wide angle. I needed wider for landscapes. I ran into this limitation with my fall foliage shots as well as NYC skyline shots. I need the wide angle, and I'm considering the Sigma 12-24 for that.
I am a firm believer that one can take phenomenal, professional-quality shots using a digicam like the Sony. Many great photographers have proven it. I will continue to use my Sony for certain situations, but the overall flexibility and reach of a dSLR are what I need for this stage of my photography.
In the end, however, it is the photographer, not the equipment that takes the nice picture. I also believe that it's the camera lens system I'm buying into; the body can be upgraded, but the glass remains. I do this all as a hobby, but I do donate my prints to charity events (charity auctions, etc.), and I sell prints to those who ask for it.
Florindo
http://www.pbase.com/florindo
Jimmy B182852
Forum Enthusiast
--
JB
Wild-Mike
Veteran Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was lead to believe that PC meant "personal computer". When I was providing computer training in 1985 - 1991 the two platforms for personal computers were refered to as IBM (or IBM compatible) and Macs/Apple. But PC always referred to personal computer. Has that changed?
Regards
Mike
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/
Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein
Regards
Mike
--I am ashamed to say it, but it was on a Mac
or so. Then in 1993 I used Photoshop on a Power PC. '93 was when
PS finally came to Windows.
The saddest part is that I still feel like a Photoshop n00b
sometimes
Norman
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/
Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein
NormanAllen
Senior Member
Well in most technology publications today, the word PC is commonly used to describe anything that was derived from IBM-compatible machines (Dell, Gateway, home-built, etc). A Mac is considered a Mac.
Basically, IBM-compatible is no longer used. IBM-compatible means "PC" today. I could be wrong, but that's what I have been reading for the past few years anyway.
Basically, IBM-compatible is no longer used. IBM-compatible means "PC" today. I could be wrong, but that's what I have been reading for the past few years anyway.
JohnNYC
Forum Enthusiast
KIDDING!!!!
I did it for the added versatility on shooting different situations (i.e. indoors/low light, nature, landscapes and etc....)
I did it for the low noise on higher ISO.
I did it for faster auto-focus and more DOF control.
ANd most importantly......
I did it to replace arm workouts at the gym ;-)
Ro1
I did it for the added versatility on shooting different situations (i.e. indoors/low light, nature, landscapes and etc....)
I did it for the low noise on higher ISO.
I did it for faster auto-focus and more DOF control.
ANd most importantly......
I did it to replace arm workouts at the gym ;-)
Ro1
I really like the s45, I take it with me on trips (cycling mostly) where I can't easily take 300D. I also take it with me on wilderness hikes and set it up in intervalometer mode to take 99 shots at 1min intervals - to make time lapse movies of clouds, approaching storms, etc. Then I'll plan to come back to place I left it later.
Learned keyboard, the guitar. Experiemented with recording. Still do.
Al
billybob_jcv
Senior Member
I'm a professional computer geek (an IT manager), so I consider spending 90% of my time on a PC "fun". However, I really struggle with the artistic side of image processing (my brain must have too much techie and not enough artist). I really envy the folks who seem to have a natural feel for how to tweak photos to make them pop, change backgrounds, clone out distractions, etc. When I try that, it usually looks like a kid went wild with crayons, dull scissors & a glue stick.
I do enjoy the challenge, and I think there is something a bit therapeutic about creating a picture I'm proud to show. And believe me, I need all the therapeutic outlets I can get!
I do enjoy the challenge, and I think there is something a bit therapeutic about creating a picture I'm proud to show. And believe me, I need all the therapeutic outlets I can get!
billybob_jcv
Senior Member
The release of the original "IBM PC" in 1981 caused the term "PC" to become associated with IBM & IBM-compatibles. Old-timers to PCs (like me & it sounds like maybe Norman) tend to refer to "PCs" vs "Macs". However, the reality is that they are all by definition "Personal Computers" or PCs. For a while, the common term used was "Wintel" (Windows/Intel) , however the surge of Linux has made even that term somewhat misleading.
Nuala
Forum Enthusiast
and because I love gadgets.
I've always loved photography - did a course when I was at college. Had a Pentax SLR and a number of lenses and my own darkroom at home. Then left college, got a job, got caught up in the real world and sold all my gear. Then had children and spent years taking snapshots with Pentax point and shoots.
I've always been a heavy computer user - had a BBC B many, many years ago - and when digital became affordable I jumped right in. Got my first digital camera - an Olympus D490 - cost £500 - but I was immediately hooked - I loved the immediacy of it all. I went to Majorca for my summer holiday and took 700 photographs!
My job is managing newspapers and in 2002 I launched a glossy magazine which is all about the photographs and this got me totally focussed on the quality of the image.
Bought a Fuji 602 and loved the improvement but the shutter release lag was such a pain - most of my photographs are of children and cats (sad I know) - and I kept missing the moment.
I feel a bit of a cheat owning such a great camera as I am a real amateur and I suppose I could have got by with an advanced point and shoot but when the 300D came out, just after I had had a good bonus, I couldn't resist.
And I love it - I love the speed and the images blow me away - even though mostly when I get a good result it's the camera not me. I just wish I could work out the low light focussing - then it would be perfect for me.
Nuala
I've always loved photography - did a course when I was at college. Had a Pentax SLR and a number of lenses and my own darkroom at home. Then left college, got a job, got caught up in the real world and sold all my gear. Then had children and spent years taking snapshots with Pentax point and shoots.
I've always been a heavy computer user - had a BBC B many, many years ago - and when digital became affordable I jumped right in. Got my first digital camera - an Olympus D490 - cost £500 - but I was immediately hooked - I loved the immediacy of it all. I went to Majorca for my summer holiday and took 700 photographs!
My job is managing newspapers and in 2002 I launched a glossy magazine which is all about the photographs and this got me totally focussed on the quality of the image.
Bought a Fuji 602 and loved the improvement but the shutter release lag was such a pain - most of my photographs are of children and cats (sad I know) - and I kept missing the moment.
I feel a bit of a cheat owning such a great camera as I am a real amateur and I suppose I could have got by with an advanced point and shoot but when the 300D came out, just after I had had a good bonus, I couldn't resist.
And I love it - I love the speed and the images blow me away - even though mostly when I get a good result it's the camera not me. I just wish I could work out the low light focussing - then it would be perfect for me.
Nuala
Hewlett-Packard HP 9100A, that came out in 1968. HP coined the phrase "personal computer". They used the phrase in an ad for the 9100A computer that said: "The new Hewlett-Packard 9100A personal computer"
For those of us around back then that remember this beast, it was anything but personal, it was a boat anchor
The very first home computer, is argued to be the "Simon" designed by two Columbia University graduate students back in 1950. It used relays, and it was aimed at the home user, and was described as a "computer for the desktop" It sold for about 300 dollars, but plans to build it yourself came out in Radio Electronics magazine of the time. I remember seeing different versions of "Simon" in different electronic publications up into the 70's, when I was in electronic tech school.
For those of us around back then that remember this beast, it was anything but personal, it was a boat anchor
The very first home computer, is argued to be the "Simon" designed by two Columbia University graduate students back in 1950. It used relays, and it was aimed at the home user, and was described as a "computer for the desktop" It sold for about 300 dollars, but plans to build it yourself came out in Radio Electronics magazine of the time. I remember seeing different versions of "Simon" in different electronic publications up into the 70's, when I was in electronic tech school.
NormanAllen
Senior Member
NormanAllen
Senior Member
Mike-
You are correct. But regardless of how things were named then, do you know how/why they are they they are now? It's a mystery to me how PC vs Mac is still around (sort of). Why aren't laptops called PCs? If you think about it, a laptop is more of a PC than a desktop... Why do they make everything so difficult.
You are correct. But regardless of how things were named then, do you know how/why they are they they are now? It's a mystery to me how PC vs Mac is still around (sort of). Why aren't laptops called PCs? If you think about it, a laptop is more of a PC than a desktop... Why do they make everything so difficult
.billybob_jcv
Senior Member
In my biz (IT Manager) we refer to them generically as "clients" and "servers". The clients are delivered to the end-users, and can be a Mac, Dell, IBM, laptop, desktop, PDA, whatever. The servers are in the datacenter, and they can be IBM, Dell, Compaq, Sun, etc, and may run Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, etc. We have organized our IT group in a similar fashion - we have an IT group for "client support" and a separate group for "servers & network infrastructure".
I don't go back in the biz to 1968 - but I do remember the Altair from the 70's (keyboard? - I don't need no stinkin' keyboard!), as well as the MUCH more modern Commodore PET line.
I don't go back in the biz to 1968 - but I do remember the Altair from the 70's (keyboard? - I don't need no stinkin' keyboard!), as well as the MUCH more modern Commodore PET line.
Mike-
You are correct. But regardless of how things were named then, do
you know how/why they are they they are now? It's a mystery to me
how PC vs Mac is still around (sort of). Why aren't laptops called
PCs? If you think about it, a laptop is more of a PC than a
desktop... Why do they make everything so difficult
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum