Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Feb 14, 2013 15:49:33 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 15:49:33 GMT -8
A professional photography is my number 1 job.
What is the difference between Nikon coolpix P510 and P520? What would be the best one the P510 or a P520?Excuse me, but unless you are getting definitively paid and have sold your rights to publishing companies (and not just posting photos to here via Flickr) you cannot claim professional photographer status. Also, and this is constructive criticism, you seriously need to work on not just your quality but your composition in a LOT of your photos before you can even think of being a pro. At this juncture, calling yourself a professional photographer is a serious misnomer. Actually, it is for a planning project. Do not ask. A) What is worth your money a nikon, or a canon camera? B) If you buy lens for a Coolpix P520, can you use the same lens for a D3200?
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Cameras
Feb 14, 2013 15:56:54 GMT -8
Post by SolDuc on Feb 14, 2013 15:56:54 GMT -8
Excuse me, but unless you are getting definitively paid and have sold your rights to publishing companies (and not just posting photos to here via Flickr) you cannot claim professional photographer status. Also, and this is constructive criticism, you seriously need to work on not just your quality but your composition in a LOT of your photos before you can even think of being a pro. At this juncture, calling yourself a professional photographer is a serious misnomer. Actually, it is for a planning project. Do not ask. A) What is worth your money a nikon, or a canon camera? B) If you buy lens for a Coolpix P520, can you use the same lens for a D3200? a. If for a DSLR, Nikon. If for a bridge point and shoot, either one is worth it b. All coolpix cameras have fixed lens. Where did you see lens for the P520?
|
|
|
Cameras
Feb 14, 2013 16:25:33 GMT -8
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 14, 2013 16:25:33 GMT -8
Placing my answers directly below yours in bold highlighted text. Actually, it is for a planning project. Do not ask. Uh, okay? Project = / = professional photography. Are you sure they're the same? A) What is worth your money a nikon, or a canon camera? Nikon. All of Nikon's latest cameras are surpassing their more expensive competitors in sensor and imaging quality. According to DxO Labs, Nikon is even besting Leica and Canon's higher-end models. I personally shoot a Nikon D5100, which has a sensor score of 80, far above its direct, and more expensive competitors.B) If you buy lens for a Coolpix P520, can you use the same lens for a D3200? Absolutely not. Not under any circumstance. The Nikon Coolpix P520 is a "Bridge" camera designed as a crossover between standard point-and-shoots and straightforward DSLRs. The lenses on them are fixed, non-interchangeable lenses.
|
|
|
Cameras
Feb 14, 2013 16:58:55 GMT -8
Post by WettCoast on Feb 14, 2013 16:58:55 GMT -8
Cheese, the Nikon Coolpix P520 is an example of a 'bridge camera' also called an 'ultra zoom'. It has a fixed lens which can't be removed or swapped out for another lens. The best camera of this type is arguably not a Nikon or a Canon. Try Panasonic. See this link. I would recommend an ultra zoom for you rather than a D-SLR. D-SLR's are interchangeable lens cameras. They are generally more expensive than almost all bridge cameras, especially once you get a few lenses for them. They do take better pictures because their digital sensors are much larger. There is a large number of Nikon users here on the forum who will tell you that Nikon is the best make among the D-SLR's, but that would be disputed by all sorts of experienced professional & serious amateur photographers who will tell you that Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc. are just as good, maybe better. Also, please, instead of asking a lot of questions on here try using Google (or some other search engine) to find information about cameras that you are interested in. You will find all the info you ever wanted to know and a little more also.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Cameras
Feb 14, 2013 17:06:51 GMT -8
Post by SolDuc on Feb 14, 2013 17:06:51 GMT -8
Also, please, instead of asking a lot of questions on here try using Google (or some other search engine) to find information about cameras that you are interested in. You will find all the info you ever wanted to know and a little more also. The camera maker's website is the #1 thing to look at. Try google (or other search engine) afterward and if you really don't find your answer there, ask here. Will save a lot of time, for everybody.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Mar 1, 2013 18:07:39 GMT -8
So I have finally finalized (pun intended) my camera buying choices: When the funds are funded, I will buy myself the D5200 with the 18-105mm lens (as walk around lens). This will probably happen a year from now Second step, planned for October 2014 will see a 70-300 lens added to the arsenal Third step, for early 2015 includes getting the Tokina 11-16mm That's the news for today!
|
|
|
Cameras
Mar 11, 2013 19:21:59 GMT -8
Post by WettCoast on Mar 11, 2013 19:21:59 GMT -8
Quoted from the Ferry Spotting thread... Generally, Mr. Horn is right on in what he has said above (in the ferry spotting thread). I am not really keen on seeing photos posted here on the WCFF that show a tiny ship way off in the distance, unless the photo has some other scenic merit. Keep in mind that the zoom of a camera can be just a bit confusing. It is not common to hear people speaking about the 'angle of view' a lens will give you, but that is what really is important. Generally it is desirable to have a lens or lenses that will cover a range from 'wide' wide angle to a telephoto that allows distant views to be brought ~8 times closer than they would appear through a 'normal' lens. A zoom that covers such a range would might be billed as a 16X zoom having a portion of this zoom on the wide able side, and the rest on the 'tele' side. Most commonly zoom lenses will have their focal length rage converted to the equivalent range on a 35 mm film camera (or 'full size' DSLR). Most DSLR's nave APS-C sized sensors which are significantly smaller than full size (35 mm) 24 x 16 mm sensor versus 36 x 24 in full size. The APS-C sized sensor has a 'crop factor' of 1.5 compared to the 35 mm 'full size' camera. That means that an 18 to 250 mm zoom used on a APS-C sized DSLR has a focal length range equivalent to 27 to 375 mm on a 35 mm (full size) camera. This lens would also be called a 14X zoom (250 divided by 18 is 13.88 rounded up to 14). For an APS-C sensor sized camera a normal lens would be about 36 mm. Focal lengths greater than 36 mm are in the telephoto range. Below 36 mm you are in the wide angle range. Keep in mind that although this lens is a 14:1 zoom it actually has a magnification power of just under 7 meaning the lens is able to bring objects 7 times closer than a normal lens would. Point and shoot, bridge & ultra zoom cameras have smaller sensors, sometimes radically smaller. As an example. the Panasonic FZ-200 ultra zoom that I often use has a focal length range of 4.5 to 108 mm. This camera has a crop factor of about 5.6. You take that crop factor and use it as a multiplication factor in determining the equivalent 35 mm zoom range for this camera (24 to 600 mm). The fixed zoom lens on this camera has a zoom ratio of 24:1. It can bring objects 12 times closer than a normal lens would. Again the first portion of its zoom range is on the wide angle side. When zoomed all the way out objects appear to be less than half the size they would be when viewed through a normal lens. Don't neglect the wide angle side - often ships are too close to you and if you don't have enough wide angle range, you won't be able to get a shot with the whole ship in the photo. Wide angle lenses can be very useful for interior shots, and for capturing potential flagship - banner photos. Some notes: 1 - Nikon calls their DSLR cameras with APS-C sized sensors 'DX' format. Their 'full size' DSLR's are called 'FX' format. Other manufacturers also make DSLR's with full size & APS-C sized (or similar) sensors. The full size DSLR's are bigger & heavier & much more expensive. For more see: photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx 2 - What is meant by the term 'normal lens' - what you see through a normal lens is essentially the same as what you see with your eyes. Objects do not appear to be shrunken, or enlarged. If a camera with a normal lens is held vertically to one eye, what you see through the viewfinder should closely match what your other eye 'sees' directly. For more see this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens
|
|
|
Cameras
Mar 30, 2013 21:38:05 GMT -8
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 30, 2013 21:38:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Cameras
Apr 4, 2013 22:34:24 GMT -8
Post by Steve Rosenow on Apr 4, 2013 22:34:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Cameras
Apr 5, 2013 10:56:13 GMT -8
Post by paulvanb on Apr 5, 2013 10:56:13 GMT -8
I recently bought the Canon Rebel 4Ti. I love the touch screen! I shoot manual HDR for business and the images are great.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Cameras
Apr 6, 2013 21:05:49 GMT -8
Post by Neil on Apr 6, 2013 21:05:49 GMT -8
This isn't about a specific camera, because I know next to nothing about them. And it's not about ferries.
Anyway.
My younger daughter, the photography buff, is always chiding me when I go out for a walk without my camera. She says you never know what you might run into, and you should be prepared to chronicle it. I think she probably even takes her camera when she works a shift at Starbucks... since she said that one of the Sedins had been seen at a West Van outlet where she did a turn. I've never been much of a photographer, and until three or four years ago I didn't usually take a camera anywhere... more often than not it sat in a drawer. I come from a very non-photographic family.
But today I went for a walk around Helliwell Park here on Hornby, and as I drove away from the cabin, I thought, hmmh, maybe I should be listening to Laura and taking my camera whenever I go out. But I didn't bother going back. I walk around Helliwell all the time. What can be new?
So, half way around I came upon a dead seal on the beach, with a young eagle feasting. Closer than I've ever been to an eagle, and after checking me out as I stood on the trail, the eagle went back to ripping at the seal's tongue, while two more eagles and several ravens jockeyed for next in line at the buffet. Further along the trail, a huge elephant seal was snoring on the beach, just a few metres away... again, closer than I've ever been to one of those beasts. I stood and watched as it awoke, scratched its belly with its flippers, and stretched languidly. Posing perfectly for the camera I'd left behind, zoom barely required, unless I wanted to examine its snotty nose.
So I think I've learned my lesson. No matter where I go or how many times I've been there, from now on I'm taking my camera. Never know what sights I might encounter at the A&W in Courtenay.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 6, 2013 21:15:25 GMT -8
So I think I've learned my lesson. No matter where I go or how many times I've been there, from now on I'm taking my camera. Never know what sights I might encounter at the A&W in Courtenay. Thanks for that story. For me, sometimes I feel camera-fatigued and I purposely leave the camera at home (or stowed in my backpack), just so I can enjoy the scenery with my own senses and memory. Just to be in the moment, without fussing over capturing the present for a future moment.
|
|
|
Cameras
Apr 6, 2013 21:23:07 GMT -8
Post by Cable Cassidy on Apr 6, 2013 21:23:07 GMT -8
So I made another purchase today, just because the price was so great.
Black Nikon F80 (black) with 28-80mm lens for $50. The lens itself is worth around $80 so I jumped on it.
I also sold my 24-85mm VR the other day. I wasn't overly impressed with how the lens focused on moving subjects (my 18-55mm VR focused more accurately). So now I'm on the lookout for a new "general use" lens, which will probably be the 16-85mm VR or 18-200mm VR.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Cameras
Apr 6, 2013 21:48:09 GMT -8
Post by SolDuc on Apr 6, 2013 21:48:09 GMT -8
So I made another purchase today, just because the price was so great. Black Nikon F80 (black) with 28-80mm lens for $50. The lens itself is worth around $80 so I jumped on it. I also sold my 24-85mm VR the other day. I wasn't overly impressed with how the lens focused on moving subjects (my 18-55mm VR focused more accurately). So now I'm on the lookout for a new "general use" lens, which will probably be the 16-85mm VR or 18-200mm VR. I'd probably advise the 16-85mm or 18-105mm. The 18-200 and 18-300 do not have great reviews and have many flaws so the huge amount of money dropped in them isn't worth it. If you had a 24mm (I'm assuming that it is a full-frame) then the 16-85 would get you an angle as wide but a slightly higher zoom. The 18-105 gets you more zoom than the 18-55 but it starts at the same mm is you were to go more wide angle.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Apr 6, 2013 21:54:50 GMT -8
So I think I've learned my lesson. No matter where I go or how many times I've been there, from now on I'm taking my camera. Never know what sights I might encounter at the A&W in Courtenay. Thanks for that story. For me, sometimes I feel camera-fatigued and I purposely leave the camera at home (or stowed in my backpack), just so I can enjoy the scenery with my own senses and memory. Just to be in the moment, without fussing over capturing the present for a future moment. I can understand that... since you've favoured us with so many photo-essays from your travels, and have done outings where you set up specifically to take time lapse (or whatever the proper term is) movies of ferries. There is a value, sometimes, in just being present, without worrying about that little plastic-and-metal journalist you carry around with you. I'm at the other extreme though, and I think it's time I recognized the value that today's no film and no developing cost photography presents when we live in an environment as opportune as this part of the world is.
|
|
|
Cameras
May 17, 2013 0:53:57 GMT -8
Post by Steve Rosenow on May 17, 2013 0:53:57 GMT -8
I've added a big accessory to one of mine, recently: I disconnected the OEM Anton/Bauer D-tap socket on the wiring harness, and directly wired the light right into my Sony BKW-L601 battery back. The light itself is a 50-watt MR-16 halogen that has been replaced by a 9-watt LED that has the brightness of a 100-watt halogen. To give an indication of size, tghe light fixture is close in relative size to a soda can and the soft box is 4' across each face. Coming soon: A 130 watt-hour battery that'll allow me to shoot almost continuously for almost five hours straight, a couple microphone cables and an EV-RE50 interview mic or two. (currently in unobtainium status) Been filming a documentary of the state ferry system lately, so it'll all come in handy!
|
|
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 17:59:46 GMT -8
Post by Mike C on May 20, 2013 17:59:46 GMT -8
In the world of photo sharing sites, Flickr has conducted an, in my opinion, absolutely brutal change in their interface. Every aspect of their desktop website has changed, almost to mimic the mobile iPhone app.
Comic book guy change rating: Worst. Interface change. EVER.
How annoying. Flickr had an easy-to-use, professional, sleek profile that was extremely stable and had no funny stuff. Now it looks like Facebook.
Flickr, why?
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 18:09:08 GMT -8
Post by SolDuc on May 20, 2013 18:09:08 GMT -8
In the world of photo sharing sites, Flickr has conducted an, in my opinion, absolutely brutal change in their interface. Every aspect of their desktop website has changed, almost to mimic the mobile iPhone app. Comic book guy change rating: Worst. Interface change. EVER. How annoying. Flickr had an easy-to-use, professional, sleek profile that was extremely stable and had no funny stuff. Now it looks like Facebook. Flickr, why?I totally agree with this. Apart from the go-away easy interface, I find the new pro-equivalent features to be #$%^ as just a year of ad free costs as much as two years with more features. Many features like stats and replacing photos are no longer avaliable for non-current pro users and do not seem to be part of any new paid account. Oh well, now that photobucket is really bad then I guess flickr will also become, and that everyone will complain at first like Proboards V5 but by a few weeks it will be normal. Result: I am glad that I upgraded to pro and that I can still renew to have the "old" pro features.
|
|
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 18:20:57 GMT -8
Post by Blue Bus Fan on May 20, 2013 18:20:57 GMT -8
In the world of photo sharing sites, Flickr has conducted an, in my opinion, absolutely brutal change in their interface. Every aspect of their desktop website has changed, almost to mimic the mobile iPhone app. Comic book guy change rating: Worst. Interface change. EVER. How annoying. Flickr had an easy-to-use, professional, sleek profile that was extremely stable and had no funny stuff. Now it looks like Facebook. Flickr, why?I like the new update.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 20, 2013 18:21:02 GMT -8
My initial reaction to the changes at Flickr were negative just as has been expressed above. However, I have been spending some time there over the last couple of hours and I am starting to come around to thinking that it is okay. I have not found anything that I could do before that I can't do now, and figuring out where they put stuff so far has been alright too. Some features such as the 'Flickr Home Page' seem to me to be significant improvements over what they had before. Other than having a 'cover photo' feature I do not find it to be like Facebook. No doubt over the next few weeks I/we will find bugs/issues. Update: Have a read on this.
|
|
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 18:32:31 GMT -8
Post by Blue Bus Fan on May 20, 2013 18:32:31 GMT -8
Does anyone know how many times you can upload a day?
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 18:59:42 GMT -8
Post by SolDuc on May 20, 2013 18:59:42 GMT -8
More detailed information for pro users like most who use flickr here: mashable.com/2013/05/20/flickr-pro-changes/and a comment there, which I find to be really true: So basically if you are pro you may wish to stay pro for the following reasons: - Unlimited storage (and no $500 for one TB/year) - Stats & referrers - Replace a photo However you may choose not to renew (still available if you are already pro) or to switch to free because of: - Increased file sizes (150 more MBs per photo, videos double the size and length) I will be keeping my pro account as I find the "1TB forever" option just a bad thing as once you reach this limit there is no wait-and-it-will-happen, but a $500 to spend on another TB without the option to buy less space. Blue Bus Fan: you can upload as many photos as you want per day, but once all of the photos you uploaded reach 1TB, you are good to close your account and move on. This is why you'll want to upload smaller (like 1024 or 2048) pictures to stock as much photos there.
|
|
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 19:13:28 GMT -8
Post by Blue Bus Fan on May 20, 2013 19:13:28 GMT -8
- Unlimited storage (and no $500 for one TB/year) I think they will change it if know one buys it because that is scam. Can I still get pro?
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 19:17:36 GMT -8
Post by SolDuc on May 20, 2013 19:17:36 GMT -8
- Unlimited storage (and no $500 for one TB/year) I think they will change it if no one buys it because that is scam. Can I still get pro? Nope. Enjoy! (full sarcasm intended)
|
|
|
Cameras
May 20, 2013 19:50:35 GMT -8
Post by Blue Bus Fan on May 20, 2013 19:50:35 GMT -8
The price is cheap for 1 photo which is $0.00102486. $512.43/500,000=$0.00102486/photo.
|
|