Korean Job Discussion Forums

[amanley206253]

When I consider that the likely majority of Dave's ESL Cafe viewers and contributors are traveling types, I too consider there may be some wisdom on certain "traveling electronics", including SLR digital cameras.

After visiting Guinsa Temple in the northeast I decided that I would do very well with purchasing a high-quality camera to capture these truly picturesque moments of visual splendor that I'm perpetually bombarded with as I move fro the countryside, and meet its many entertaining and great people and see its impressive geography. A camera is needed for this kind of venture! And to be honest, I resent being the tourist type with a fanny-pack and a neon pink visor, HOWEVER, there are some moments that do well with being recorded, beyond my memory and my eventual recollections.

Digressing, I would like to hear some input on SLR camera types, especially in accordance with particular advantages ones have on others in differing situations (close shots, wide shots, shooting scenery, shooting wide spaces, etc). From my initial research I see it depends heavily on lens types, and so I'm subsequently considering purchasing different lens if I feel it's needed.

If you have an SLR camera, you surely have an opinion!

[Mr. Pink]

The Pros: You can take breath taking photos.

The Cons: It is burdensome to carry around a body and a couple lens to capture such shots. I carried an SLR all over Beijing and Shanghai on separate trips there and it was a royal pain in the butt.(This might be overcome by getting one of those SLR backpacks like National Geographic makes)

Also, the price. If you want quality lens, you will need a zoom, a utility lens and possibly a wide angle lens. For better quality products, that is around $2000 plus the cost of the body.

Of course, if you are just starting, you can pick up a kit for around $1000 that will have a decent body + two starter lens. (To get an idea of what I am thinking, goto www.costco.ca and in the digial cameras section the one for 859.00 or something like that.)

I currently use my school's equipment as I am the sponsor of the photography club. We have a Canon 450D with a 70-300mm IS UMD lens. I have on order a 18-55mm lens and a 24mm lens. (We also have a second 450D with a 50mm lens, but that lens is useless.)

Once I am done with my contract (next year) I'll probably purchase a Canon body and the 3 types of lens I stated early: utility lens, wide angle and zoom.

[ty7180]

I just bought an Olympus pen ep-1. It is small enough to put in a pocket when not in use. Also it is easy to hide when you are traveling so you don't stand out as a target to theifs. I don't know a lot about cameras, but this seemed like the best option for an all around camera.

[Spud10]

If you want just a Generic lens set to use in all situations, then Mr. Pink's Lens set is definitely Ideal, as it covers the Zoom, wide angle and in between.

However, a lot of people base their lens set on what they do. In my case, I take a lot of Outdoor shots while also taking pictures of people. Thus, a High zoom lens (anything over 105mm or so) is not really something I need.

Zoom lenses are nice for just generic shooting though, and the typical kit lens of 18-55 mm or 18-135 mm are fantastic for that.

I personally am a big fan of the Prime lens. You get better quality pictures than your typical zoom lens, but they also require you to get out of your comfort zone and move about when taking pictures.

I also like wide angle lenses for the obvious out door shots, but they have other uses as well.

Really it all depends on your personal taste and what you like to do. No one can truly say what lens is best for you.

[blackjack]

If you want the best of both worlds (as well as some of the disadvantages from both), get a compact with a super zoom. I have a canon sx200 12x zoom amazing photos in a slightly larger than compact size. I can't change lens and it's not as small as a true compact but it has an amazing lens and zoom with a lot of the manual controls.

I really recommend it

[Hindsight]

amanley206253, you don't say what camera you've been using, or how much photography experience you have.

I'll let you in on a little secret. One of the keys to great pictures is in the photo editing. You don't need a super fancy program like Photoshop. But you need more than just brightness, contrast and sharpness controls. I mainly use the "levels" histogram type control for luminance or brightness, saturation, and the unsharp mask, plus I crop.

If you get a camera with a good lens and raw photo capability, chances are you will be able to produce very nice photos, after you edit them. Raw photos produce much more detail than jpegs, so a 6 mp raw file may have more detail than a 9 or 12 mp jpeg. And a good 6 mp file, even a jpeg, will be plenty for producing a great looking picture for the web.

I have used a Nikon DSLR, and I have a micro four thirds 12 mp camera. These will not necessarily produce pictures that look better than those from a good amateur camera. In fact, a professional camera might produce pictures that look worse. A pro is likely to use the camera with the internal sharpening turned to a minimum, plus lower contrast and saturation -- this way it is easier to adjust the file in photo editing.

That said, these days many fancy cameras will have idiot proof settings, and all sorts of settings to get nice files straight from the camera. But they have LOTS of settings, and if you don't know what you are doing and set the camera wrong, you might get crummy pictures. DSLRs are not necessarily the best cameras for amateurs.

I have owned and used some nice APS super zooms. They can produce great pictures right from the camera, but can also produce pictures rivaling DSLRs by photo editing their jpegs or raw files.

It's funny, but when you read reviews of the latest, greatest camera, there's always some joker that writes that their old 3 or 4 mp camera produced better pictures than this new whizbang 12 or 15 mp wonder. And there can actually be some truth to that. I was looking at photos from the Fuji 3800, an early 3mp APS that came out about 9 years ago, and they are great! The megapixel race has been a mixed blessing.

Don't assume that a newer camera is somehow going to give you better pictures. Learn how to edit the photos you are taking now, plus make sure you are using the full potential of the controls on your camera. Do you know how to use the EV compensation, the ISO settings, the F stop and shutter speed settings, if you have them? Are you holding your camera really steady, or propping it against something, or using a real tripod (not a tinfoil one)?

These are some of the methods serious photographers use to get good pictures. Plus they have typically studied photography to some extent, perhaps reading books or looking at books of great photographs, and they have shot thousands of pictures.

The biggest and most common mistake I have seen amateurs make is buying a fancy SLR and then putting a cheap lens on it, either a cheap kit lens or a third party lens. What's the point of getting a great camera is you have a cheap lens? I guess to impress other people. This has been going on since the film SLR days, and with film cameras it made absolutely no sense, since the camera was mainly a holder for the film. Now the camera IS the film, so it's not quite the same, but a first-rate lens is still the key to truly sharp, vivid pictures, the kind of pictures the OP seems to have been talking about.

There is no simple answer to the OP's query. But I would say the cheapest way to get professional quality pictures would be to get a good basic DSLR with 6 to 9 mp, and then get a professional quality single focal length prime lens, say 35 or 55 mm. Put your money into the lens. I have seen some fantastic photos from a 6 mp Nikon DSLR and a 50 mm prime lens, but the photographer also did some very skillful editing on his shots.

But that's probably not what most amateurs want. So if you want bells and whistles, I would recommend an APS super zoom, preferably one that produces raw files. These can do just about everything a DSLR can do, short of changing lenses.

Oh, and keep in mind that the mirrors and shutters of DSLRs are typically more fragile than regular digital cameras.

[pkang0202]

Go EVIL.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/

[Hindsight]

OK, pkang0202, do you actually have one of the EVIL, aka micro four thirds cameras?

Is it that much better than your previous camera?

One of the ways photographers are getting super shots these days is through HDR (high dyncamic range) editing.

http://jakob.montrasio.net/2009/10/15/hdr-2009-tutorial-make-a-nice-hdr-image-in-10-minutes-or-less/

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/d50,hdr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yakobusan/434857499/

As I mentioned, one of the best HDR photographers I have seen recommends beginners simply get the Nikon D50 and a 50 mm lens. You also need a steady tripod.

I haven't done HDR, yet (I guess partially because you still need a really nice subject to get great HDR shots). You usually need to do three shots, with a 2 stop bracket either way (use the auto bracketing setting). Your best bet is to set the camera to manual, with a low ISO and raw file. Then you merge the three shots with a HDR editing program. You don't have to have a SLR to do this.

I mention this because some of those great shots out there are not just the result of a good camera. There are a lot of other things that may go into these shots.

And I have seen some real nice shots online that were produced by under $200 pocket cameras, not always with the best lenses. But they were tweaked and sharpened in photo editing.

[IlIlNine]

Are you honestly suggesting HDR for beginners? Also, are you honestly suggesting that editing can make a crappy photo good?

Garbage in = garbage out.

Good photography is not based so much on equipment, but about the basics of photography: subject, composition, exposure. Nail all three with whatever camera you have around, and you'll have a great photograph (which then, if you wish, you can edit later to make it better!).

If you want a cheap combo that takes nice pictures, first you have to pick your poison: Canon or Nikon. Let's choose Nikon for laughs. Get a D40, kit lens (18-55 AF-S) and be happy. Will cost you ~350,000 or maybe a bit more. If you like taking pictures with your friends in a dark bar, all you need to do is pick up Nikon's 35mm 1.8 lens which will run another 250,000. Done!

Then, if you're bored, feel free to learn about the joys of HDR, photoshop, stitching panoramas, selective coloring, proper sharpening technique, retouching, curves, advanced editing with layers, and all that other stuff.

Oh, I'll totally agree with you about the megapixels and such. Heck, I was using a 2.8 megapixel D1H until last year (and I still miss that cam!) - but technology moves on - and the sad fact of it is, with a few exceptions, that it's always an improvement over what it replaces.

[IlIlNine]

The EVIL cameras sure are tempting! They can take great pictures and video, are small, and they look good too.

Caveats:

- Relatively new lens system in micro (and non-micro) 4/3's -- meaning a smaller lens selection (mitigated somewhat by adapting other lenses, but that's hardly for noobs), smaller used market, and it's unlikely you'll be able to swap lenses with your friends.

- no optical viewfinder. They call it a feature -- but using the LCD in bright daylight isn't ideal. The EVFs are pretty good! ... but not quite as good as an optical finder

- Expensive. The D40 suggested above will have similar image quality for a third the price (though no video and bulkier).

If you're looking for a take-anywhere cam with a lens or two to take with you (that 20mm 1.7 is a gem!), and can afford it, by all means, take the plunge!

[Hindsight]

[pkang0202]

[Mr. Pink]

[crossmr]

I finally got a DSLR about 8 months ago. I've used SLRs for a long time, but but hadn't made the plunge into DSLR territory. Unlike most of this country I don't have a canon.

I started on my father's Pentax k1000 a long time ago and when I graduated high school I bought one and used it for quite a few years before digital cameras really got popular.

my point and shoot digital cameras were kodaks, but when I went DSLR I went back to Pentax. I got a Pentax K-M in Japan. Saved about 200,000W~ over buying it here in Korea. Since I'm a foreigner in both countries I got a tax discount there and didn't have to pay duty here. It is a Japanese brand so no import tax. Also lowered the price.

Quite happy with it. Yes, it is bulky. You really can't avoid it if you want a DSLR and want to actually use the flexibility you paid for. I think it is why most people with a DSLR keep a slim point and shoot for going to the bar/parties/etc

As mentioned it is important to learn how to use the camera, and to learn some basic photo editing. You can find tons of sites online that give classes or tutorials on various programs. I've started to learn lightroom a bit.

Starter stuff doesn't have to be ridiculous. I think between my body with 18-55 lens and a 70-300mm zoom, it was around.. hmm... $770 US~ give or take.

I've actually used the zoom at sporting events (even though it is a little slower zoom) and the pictures have turned out not bad. I'm sure they could benefit from a $1200 really fast zoom, but when you get started, choosing the $200 zoom is more than okay to get your feet wet.

[blade]

OP here is a useful website for learning the basics of DSLR cameras and lenses.
http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-digital-slr-camera.html

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-digital-slr-lens.html