so on amazon there's a 200 quid difference in price when the only difference is one has an extra lense. do all lenses cost 200?
so on amazon there's a 200 quid difference in price when the only difference is one has an extra lense. do all lenses cost 200?
My standard answer for a cheap entry point is the Pentax K-x. Class-leading high-ISO capability, 720p video, great compatibility with legacy (read: cheap) lenses, uses AA batteries (a plus in my eyes), reasonable build quality for the price.
The K-x is available in three different kits... 18-55, 18-55 + 50-200, 18-55 + 55-300. Obviously the 18-55 is gonna be the cheapest. As for the price difference, my comparison was based on US prices... don't really know what it's like over there.
The D3000 is a very capable cam, but it lacks several things in comparison to the K-x:
1. High-ISO capability, aka ability to shoot in low light w/o severe image noise
2. HD video recording (doesn't matter to some people; matters a lot to others)
3. Compatibility with older lenses (older lenses, both AF and MF, are cheap and often great quality--the K-x works w/ all Pentax lenses dating back to the 50s, while the D3000 can only work with AF-S lenses, made since the late 90s)
You can do a side-by-side comparison on dpreview between the two.
As for lens prices... good ones are definitely $200/200GBP and up.
is this good as in the difference compared to a 'meh' lens is blindingly obvious, or if you aren't that knowledgeable about photography you won't notice too much of a difference?
Well, the main things you get from more expensive lenses are:
1. Wider max aperture, aka f-stop. Most kit lenses start at f/3.5 or f/4 and have a variable aperture, meaning they're f/3.5 at 18mm but f/5.6 at 55mm, or something. "Pro" zoom lenses tend to be constant aperture (usually f/2.8 or f/4) throughout the entire zoom range. This makes it easier to keep consistent exposure across the zoom range. A wider aperture also has other advantages, like shallower depth of field (subject "pops" from the background) and better usability in low light (wider aperture means more light is entering the lens, so you get faster shutter speeds at wider apertures).
2. Better sharpness from max aperture. Most kit lenses are soft at their widest aperture and only get sharp (if they get sharp at all) at f/8 or so. Pro lenses tend to be sharp from wide open and get razor sharp as you stop down. Sharpness isn't everything, but it's something most shooters want from their gear.
3. Edge-to-edge sharpness. As above, this isn't everything, but kit lenses tend to be sharp at the center and quite blurry at the edges--simply poor optics due to corner-cutting to maintain a lower price. Pro lenses tend to have better sharpness across the entire image.
4. Build quality. Pro lenses are built to last, generally of metal vs. the cheap plastic used in kit lenses.
There are exceptions to all of the above--there are some "pro" lenses that are little better than kit lenses--but this is where review aggregators come in.
Saturday hike near Los Alamos:
DWB - quick question. With your B&W photo's is that done in post production or in camera settings?
Stunning photos again btw.
Stunning photos again btw.
B&W is always PP, aside from film scans.
Thanks!
What about the Sony A330? Is that decent DLSR for a newbie? Thanks.
Nice pics DWB... Reminds me of my hike a bit, although much drier looking.
I don't have much experience with Sony dSLRs. I've heard their build quality is poor and they're a bit lacking in features, but like most all dSLRs they're capable of taking great photos. 
Yeah, parts of the woods around here are very much like the forests in NC, but... drier.
Well having looked at some YT reviews the responses are mostly positive. It has some nice/nifty features and live view, something I would really prefer to have.
As a Sony user I wish I could recommend it, but I think it's awful. It's probably a good camera... if your hands are half the size of the average person. The grip and ergonomics are horrendous.
Hmmm...
Well, thanks. Will look for something else.
Well, thanks. Will look for something else.
Are sigma lenses good? ive been offered a deal on a 70-300mm one in replacement of my tamron one but i want to know if it will be better than the tamron one
well i got a proper canon 70-300mm for the same price as the brand new sigma one so all is well 
tthose bike pictures are really nice 
Quick one of me testing my flash - people call me Bieber, can you tell why? 
you have your hair cut around a bowl aswell? lol jk
Because thats the gayest haircut ever. 
It's been a long while since I've done anything with the camera. I still don't have my hard drives situated from the fact that my portable drive I bought WAY back is inaccessible due to the USB circuit part and haven't gotten the drive removed and installed inside the PC yet (too much other stuff going on to worry about the PC.)
Thus, I was sitting outside in the shade with my guitar on my knee and my camera around my neck while the kids played in the pool and figured I'd try a few out....
Cool, I just noticed on the first shot you can really see the groove in the index finger from playing.
The 2nd one I was actually trying to show something rather than just thinking that it was a "this would be cool..." shot. I was trying to really put some power into bending the string to show all the distortion in the skin on the fingers, but juggling getting the shot with the camera and positioning my fingers, I think the fingers laxed quite a bit on the strings.
Had some other good shots, but with the way the sunlight was filtering down through the trees, it created some not-so-good hot spots with the exposure needed in all the shade. I wanted to play around with those spots of light, but the contrast between the sunspots and the shade was too drastic for my camera (or skill level, hehe.)
Thus, I was sitting outside in the shade with my guitar on my knee and my camera around my neck while the kids played in the pool and figured I'd try a few out....
Cool, I just noticed on the first shot you can really see the groove in the index finger from playing.
The 2nd one I was actually trying to show something rather than just thinking that it was a "this would be cool..." shot. I was trying to really put some power into bending the string to show all the distortion in the skin on the fingers, but juggling getting the shot with the camera and positioning my fingers, I think the fingers laxed quite a bit on the strings.
Had some other good shots, but with the way the sunlight was filtering down through the trees, it created some not-so-good hot spots with the exposure needed in all the shade. I wanted to play around with those spots of light, but the contrast between the sunspots and the shade was too drastic for my camera (or skill level, hehe.)
A few from Memorial Day:
Strawbale house?
Just regular adobe, or maybe even faux-adobe (or "fauxdobe" as we call it). Typical house around here.
Camera Showoff
(5560 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG