Let's Talk About DSLR Cameras...

02Pilot wrote: Learning how a particular camera, lens, and sensor work together to produce color is part of learning how to get the most out of them. With digital, there is a general expectation that you will have to do at least some basic post-processing to get the best results. Everyone has their favorite photo editing software; I won't go into that beyond saying that there are some very good free software packages. Learning how to make some basic adjustments will help you to produce results more to your liking. I took the liberty of making a couple simple adjustments to one of your photos above - I hope you don't mind - to show you what I'm talking about. This is literally three adjustment processes that took about one minute to complete.

At the risk of thread-jacking, can you give me the five-cent tour on what post-processing you did to that? I've got both Gimp and Digikam installed as well as the Nikon software that they offer for free, but all I've really done is a little cropping here and there and format conversions.

wae wrote:

02Pilot wrote: Learning how a particular camera, lens, and sensor work together to produce color is part of learning how to get the most out of them. With digital, there is a general expectation that you will have to do at least some basic post-processing to get the best results. Everyone has their favorite photo editing software; I won't go into that beyond saying that there are some very good free software packages. Learning how to make some basic adjustments will help you to produce results more to your liking. I took the liberty of making a couple simple adjustments to one of your photos above - I hope you don't mind - to show you what I'm talking about. This is literally three adjustment processes that took about one minute to complete.

At the risk of thread-jacking, can you give me the five-cent tour on what post-processing you did to that? I've got both Gimp and Digikam installed as well as the Nikon software that they offer for free, but all I've really done is a little cropping here and there and format conversions.

Working in GIMP, I simply applied auto levels in Levels, then dialed in a little more contrast in the highlights with Curves, and sharpened lightly with G'MIC/Octave Sharpening (there are lots of sharpening options; I used that one because it's the one I'm most familiar with, as I use it with scanned film images a lot). There are plenty more things that could be done, and all of them more finely than what I did, but I just wanted to show what sort of improvements could be made quick and dirty to address the OP's complaints about washed out colors.

In reply to 02Pilot:

That does look a lot better. Then again, that's one of my better shots. That looks so good that I'm beginning to miss that car.

I have Gimp myself, and I really haven't spent a lot of time with it, but it's a pretty good free photo suite.

02Pilot wrote:

wae wrote:

02Pilot wrote: Learning how a particular camera, lens, and sensor work together to produce color is part of learning how to get the most out of them. With digital, there is a general expectation that you will have to do at least some basic post-processing to get the best results. Everyone has their favorite photo editing software; I won't go into that beyond saying that there are some very good free software packages. Learning how to make some basic adjustments will help you to produce results more to your liking. I took the liberty of making a couple simple adjustments to one of your photos above - I hope you don't mind - to show you what I'm talking about. This is literally three adjustment processes that took about one minute to complete.

At the risk of thread-jacking, can you give me the five-cent tour on what post-processing you did to that? I've got both Gimp and Digikam installed as well as the Nikon software that they offer for free, but all I've really done is a little cropping here and there and format conversions.

Working in GIMP, I simply applied auto levels in Levels, then dialed in a little more contrast in the highlights with Curves, and sharpened lightly with G'MIC/Octave Sharpening (there are lots of sharpening options; I used that one because it's the one I'm most familiar with, as I use it with scanned film images a lot). There are plenty more things that could be done, and all of them more finely than what I did, but I just wanted to show what sort of improvements could be made quick and dirty to address the OP's complaints about washed out colors.

Cool! I'm playing around with some of that stuff now. Thanks! Gave me something to spend the afternoon doing...

So, I checked out my dad's old gear tonight.

He has a Canon AE-1. It's pretty old. The lenses all use the FD mount, which is not ideal. From what I understand, I could use them on an EOS body with an adapter, but I will not have auto functions and will lose some of the lens specific features. That kinda blows.

Not sure what I am going to do here.

Well, I'd take the money you were going to spend on the DSLR, buy a bunch of film, and get to work with the AE-1, but I don't suppose that's the answer you're looking for.

Whatever you buy, as long as it's a DSLR with an optical viewfinder and not something that relies on the back screen, you'll be fine. As I said above, I recommend a single prime lens to start, but a kit zoom will probably be the cheaper option.

wae wrote: I just got a Nikon D3300 with a kit lens and a 200m zoom for about 500. Everything I read said that it was pretty much the best DSLR in its price range and was basically the same as the 5300 except for the lack of WiFi and touchscreen. Easy to use, takes great pictures, doesn't break the bank. Lots of camera for the money, I think.

SWMBO is getting this for a certain holiday. She's only been talking ab out it for a few months. Definitely a good deal. (I am still enjoying my D5100, after the D70, after the Coolpix995, after the N8008, after... well you see where this is going.)

02Pilot wrote: Well, I'd take the money you were going to spend on the DSLR, buy a bunch of film, and get to work with the AE-1, but I don't suppose that's the answer you're looking for. Whatever you buy, as long as it's a DSLR with an optical viewfinder and not something that relies on the back screen, you'll be fine. As I said above, I recommend a single prime lens to start, but a kit zoom will probably be the cheaper option.

Yeah, I need digital for the blogging I'm doing. It is a nice vintage setup though! I think I may have lit a fire with my dad again too; he was all excited when he brought all the stuff out and showed me all the lenses and filters he was using.

I may mess around with it a bit in the future. It might be cool to take some shots of some of my friends' cars with it once I have a better idea of what I'm doing.

That said, I am still on the fence with what to get. I really like that Pentax K-50, but I've seen a few other Pentax cameras that appear to be good deals. I found a barely used Pentax K-R with an 18-55mm lens with charger and bag for $185 shipped, which seems like a great deal. I just have the feeling that if I go Pentax, I will regret it down the road. There's just so much more stuff out there for Nikon, Canon, and Sony systems.

This kit for ~$300 would be excellent to start with; http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281733367256?ul_noapp=true&chn=ps&lpid=82

Pentax K-x + 18-55 kit lens + 55-300 kit lens. Yeah, it's a red K-x, but you're buying this for the glass, and I bet no one is going to care. I also bet that all of the shots you shared could have been taken with just the 55-300 mounted. There's also KS-1's on ebay with 18-55 lens kits going for about $300. Add the 55-300 DA L for another $100 or so and you'd have a great combination for only 25% more than you planned on spending.

I'd get a used Canon just so I could use all those old lenses.

In reply to PHeller:

"all those old lenses" require the use of an mount adapter. FD is film-era Canon mount, EF and the EF-S mount are digital. He might as well buy a Sony body and get a mount adapter at that point.

Yeah, from my research, EF mount came out around 1987 with the old 35mm EOS bodies. These incorporated motorized focus among other things. Adapters to mount FD lenses to modern cameras are out there for around $10, but you lose some of the lens features when doing this. It won't zoom as much as it's supposed to among other things. I've seen FD mount adapters for Canon, Sony, and other camera systems, so it doesn't matter.

I may be back on the Nikon train, because that's what my friend has. We'll see. I'll pretty much go with anything that meets my requirements.

SilverFleet wrote: Yeah, I need digital for the blogging I'm doing. It is a nice vintage setup though! I think I may have lit a fire with my dad again too; he was all excited when he brought all the stuff out and showed me all the lenses and filters he was using. I may mess around with it a bit in the future. It might be cool to take some shots of some of my friends' cars with it once I have a better idea of what I'm doing.

Phhht...that's what scanners are for.

Seriously, if you or your father want to experiment with film, drop me a note and I'll get you pointed in the right direction (it's not as easy as it used to be, but it's far from impossible). And there is something about film images that is hard to replicate with digital...

SilverFleet wrote: Yeah, from my research, EF mount came out around 1987 with the old 35mm EOS bodies. These incorporated motorized focus among other things. Adapters to mount FD lenses to modern cameras are out there for around $10, but you lose some of the lens features when doing this. It won't zoom as much as it's supposed to among other things. I've seen FD mount adapters for Canon, Sony, and other camera systems, so it doesn't matter. I may be back on the Nikon train, because that's what my friend has. We'll see. I'll pretty much go with anything that meets my requirements.

I wouldn't let those old lenses affect your current decision one bit, as you have mentioned you could only use them with an adapter and zero automatic features. At that point it really doesn't matter if you are using it on a DSLR from Canon or a Nikon or whatever.

When I first went digital I based my purchase on the film lenses I already had. Looking back I should have probably just started from scratch.

Just my 2 cents:

I shot a Canon A1 all through high school and then moved to EOS in college. I have been shooting Canon this entire time and currently use a 7D. When the magazine first went DSLR (2002 or so) we were regularly upgrading bodies. Lately, though, we haven't just because they have gotten so good and the file sizes are big enough. That 7D body is now 5 years old, although soon it will move to backup duty as a 7D Mark II is on the way.

They're not cheap, but L-series glass is amazing, too. However, you get what you pay for. Our 70-200mm L will soon turn 12 years old. The 17-40mm L is 10 years old. All of this gear has covered zillions of miles, mostly been used outdoors, and shot a ton of shots.

I'm not saying that Canon is the only answer, but good gear costs a few more bucks up front but then delivers for years to come.

SilverFleet wrote: Yeah, from my research, EF mount came out around 1987 with the old 35mm EOS bodies. These incorporated motorized focus among other things. Adapters to mount FD lenses to modern cameras are out there for around $10, but you lose some of the lens features when doing this. It won't zoom as much as it's supposed to among other things. I've seen FD mount adapters for Canon, Sony, and other camera systems, so it doesn't matter. I may be back on the Nikon train, because that's what my friend has. We'll see. I'll pretty much go with anything that meets my requirements.

AIUI, the problem with FD lenses is that the focal distance is really really short, shorter than all of the major SLRs on the market. That means a lens adapter can't just be mechanical & electrical, it needs to have optical components to fix the focal length. That makes it significantly more expensive and compromises the image quality as well.

The EVIL cameras (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) don't have a mirror, so they tend to have really short focal distances. I vaguely remember reading that there was a non-optical adapter to use FD lenses on micro-4/3 cameras, but I don't know any details (since I own neither FD lenses nor a micro-4/3 camera it didn't hold much appeal to me).

As for why people are focusing on Nikon and Canon -- yes, there are other brands, but the lens availability on those brands is significantly smaller, especially in the longer telephoto lengths that are the ones most useful for motorsports.

Bump this Bad Larry up...

So, I haven't bought a DSLR yet. I've done a ton of research, and decided that for now I want to get an entry level DSLR camera to start with. My wife and I were talking and she wants to get in on the photography game, so I think this is the best route to take, and I can always get a better second body down the road. I've basically narrowed it down to the Nikon D3300, Nikon D3200 (the old version of the D3300), or a Canon Rebel T5. My goal has been trying to get the factory bonus kit with two lenses and a bag for under $500.

Spec-wise, the D3300 seems to be the winner. 24.2mp, supposed to take slightly better pictures, and has 5fps continuous shot mode. It also films video in 60fps in HD, and has optional Wi-Fi transfer capability.

The T5 is a little under that, spec-wise. 18mp, 3fps continuous shot mode, video is 30fps in HD, rear LCD has half the pixels, and the battery life isn't as good.

I know that MP isn't that important, so 18mp would be fine. I'm more concerned about the 3fps shot mode. Is that enough to capture stuff in motion clearly?

Right now, I can go down to Target and buy the T5 for $429 with the dual lens kit and bag. The D3300 is $700 for a similar kit. I've seen it every once in a while for $499 for the Nikon kit, though. The way I figure it, even the Canon with it's lower specs blows away the Fujifilm 10mp point and shoot I have been using. I can always get a better body down the road.

Then, there comes the question of refurbished cameras. Obviously, they can be had for a little cheaper. I'd rather have a brand new unit, but I've heard that refurbished ones can often be better than a new unit.

My goal is to have a camera before the next local Lemons race we are competing in which is in the beginning of August.

Any thoughts?

SilverFleet wrote: Any thoughts?

I would once again recommend a used "prosumer" body (50D, 7Dmk1) instead of a new Rebel.

If you're ok with refurb, the D3300 kit seems to come up every couple months with a good deal, I got mine from Beach Camera on eBay in Sept of last year with 2 lenses for $380 and it only had 4 actuations on the body. In order for Wi-Fi transfer you need the adapter ($20ish)

There's this going on now; http://slickdeals.net/f/8841099-nikon-d3300-dslr-w-18-55mm-vr-ii-lens-refurb-wifi-adapter-paintshop-pro-x8-for-319-free-shipping

SilverFleet wrote: Any thoughts?

You'll have three big roles in lenses: super-wide, "normal", and telephoto. I'm sure there are better terms. Super-wides are absolutely fantastic for getting super-close to something and taking it all in. They're great for vacations in dense areas (woods, urban, etc.), car shows, and anything where you want to artistically capture a subject and its surroundings. Normal lenses are your bread and butter, because they take a picture of what you see. These'll be for your family photos, pictures of your kids, and anything where you want to catalog your life. Finally, telephotos are self-explanatory. You want these for sports, car racing, birds, and vacations in the open wilderness.

You want your super-wide to go wiiiiiide but still be a zoom (meaning, you can select how wide for ease of framing). You want your "normal" camera to handle low light, since more than half of your life is spent not in sunlight. You want your telephoto to autofocus fast enough to capture your subjects, with other priorities being weight and focal length.

I would pick your camera based on the lenses you want to buy. The ubiquitous 18-55 mm kit lenses that come with both Canon and Nikon cameras are generally pretty good and can substitute for wide and "normal" lenses, but they don't go extremely wide (ideal is 10-12 mm) and they don't handle extreme darkness (ideal is f/2.0 or more open). I'd rather buy a body without the lenses and cherry-pick my options.

The biggest reason to buy Canon starting out is they've actually been seriously improving their consumer lenses over the past few years. Canon has the only affordable super-wide (their brand new 10-18 mm EF-S is $280); Nikon's options cost $800 on brand and the cheapest good option is over $500 (the Tokina 11-20 mm). Both Canon and Nikon have good 35 mm and 50 mm prime lenses (your "normal" lens), but Canon's STM options are super-thin and very light. I think Nikon wins in the super-cheap telephoto department, but you'll probably want to get something in the $500 range and both Canon and Nikon are pretty alright (I like my Nikon 70-300 mm VR). If you're going to cherry-pick your lenses, go with Canon.

I've never had an issue with my refurbished Nikon D3100 from Adorama and think refurb is the way to go. Buy from someone reputable so if there is a problem, you can return it without hassle. My only Nikon regret is with the super-wide lens conundrum; I want a wide but don't want it to cost a GRM-priced car. That regret alone is enough to make me want to jump ship (a Rebel SL1 plus the 10-18 mm lens is CHEAPER than buying a Nikon super-wide).

Even if you stick with the kit lenses, you'll have fun. I'd skip RAW unless you want to agonize in front of your computer over every photo. I like bumping the saturation up a smidgen in the white balance settings. Remember to use your flash outdoors when taking pics of people and set it to "Slow Rear" when indoors.

DuctTape&Bondo wrote: If you're ok with refurb, the D3300 kit seems to come up every couple months with a good deal, I got mine from Beach Camera on eBay in Sept of last year with 2 lenses for $380 and it only had 4 actuations on the body. In order for Wi-Fi transfer you need the adapter ($20ish) There's this going on now; http://slickdeals.net/f/8841099-nikon-d3300-dslr-w-18-55mm-vr-ii-lens-refurb-wifi-adapter-paintshop-pro-x8-for-319-free-shipping

Wow.. I can get that with the other lens I want for $408 shipped.

One technical point: FPS has nothing to do with capturing objects in motion; it is simply a function of shutter speed and/or panning. The latter is just a skill to develop, but the former on a DSLR will in turn be a function of ISO performance. The better the camera performs at higher ISO, the faster you can set the shutter and the better chance you have of capturing the subject clearly.

I haven't used either of the systems in contention, so I really have nothing of value to add on the primary question.

02Pilot wrote: One technical point: FPS has nothing to do with capturing objects in motion; it is simply a function of shutter speed and/or panning. The latter is just a skill to develop, but the former on a DSLR will in turn be a function of ISO performance. The better the camera performs at higher ISO, the faster you can set the shutter and the better chance you have of capturing the subject clearly.

FPS is how quickly the camera can reset and take the next shot if you hold the button down, it's the old equivalent of "motor drive". On a DSLR it's primarily a function of the mechanical operation of the mirror assembly.

When doing sports photography, a higher FPS lets you "spray and pray" looking for a good action shot.

I ended up dropping the hammer on that refurbished D3300 deal. Thanks for the tip on that! I did buy the 55-200MM lens as well. It's still cheaper than the Rebel T5 kit I was going to buy.

So berking pumped.

Also, the big reason I wanted to go Nikon aside from the specs being better is that my friend has a stupid amount of pro Nikon gear. Some of it is older, but he does have a lot of F Mount stuff I can borrow.

Something that made car shows more fun to photograph is a 15mm prime (fixed focal length) lens. There's a number of options around that length; I wouldn't go more narrow than 16mm on a camera like the D3300. 10mm would be about as wide as I'd want to go. Ther's a Sigma semi-fisheye, 15mm, that is very well reviewed that would be awesome for this.

Good luck!