koffiejunkie
Executive Member
That's a pretty good picture, either ways!
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
EOS 350D ... any good?
- Thread starter sdd
- Start date
sdd
Expert Member
What are you doing awake? Having too much coffee again, mate?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Well, not too much but lots. I work from 12:00 to 21:00, and I'm two time zones (one hour with summer time) behind you.
What are you doing awake? Still taking pictures?
What are you doing awake? Still taking pictures?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
The other reason I'm awake (which makes my shift convenient) is that I'm arranging my trip to china, and their office hours are from 22:00 until about 07:00 my time.
sdd
Expert Member
I have just realised that a lot of my photo's are closeups (macros). Was thinking that maybe I should get a decent macro lens.
Any suggestions? Something that is good bang for your buck.
Any suggestions? Something that is good bang for your buck.
sdd
Expert Member
Damn ... only looked at your location now ... I thought you were kidding. Those hours are hectic man.
And yes, I am still taking photos. Loving this new toy of mine.
Cannot wait to get a flash and some glass this weekend. First I have to arrange a spa visit for my beautiful wife - she is pissed as me spending so much money recently on gadgets and gizmo's.
And yes, I am still taking photos. Loving this new toy of mine.
Cannot wait to get a flash and some glass this weekend. First I have to arrange a spa visit for my beautiful wife - she is pissed as me spending so much money recently on gadgets and gizmo's.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
I can get pretty close up with my 24-105L f/4, but that won't fit into your R10k budget. Bwana's DIY solution is probably a good and affordable place to start.
After that, tele-zooms with macro functions are not bad, and it gets better on the more expensive lenses.
I took this picture with the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO, a fairly cheap lens. I did crop a little but only slightly - maybe 5-10% on either side:
The downside to the cheaper zooms is, at their longer end, they are slower, so you don't have that narrow depth of field to work with. They also don't focus quite as close as the more expensive macro zooms, and nowhere near as close as a dedicated macro prime. The above picture was taken from about 1.5m away at 300mm, wide open (f/5.6).
These two were taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM at 105mm, f/4 from closer to around 30cm and neither were cropped at all:
Interestingly, Canon doesn't even mention the word "macro" on the page for this lens, or the specifications. But it's closest focus difference is listed as 45cm (I actually get closer than that, so I'm not sure if that's just being conservative, or if there are different versions of the lens).
But I don't have macro equipment, since that's not really my thing. I like wide way more
After that, tele-zooms with macro functions are not bad, and it gets better on the more expensive lenses.
I took this picture with the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO, a fairly cheap lens. I did crop a little but only slightly - maybe 5-10% on either side:
The downside to the cheaper zooms is, at their longer end, they are slower, so you don't have that narrow depth of field to work with. They also don't focus quite as close as the more expensive macro zooms, and nowhere near as close as a dedicated macro prime. The above picture was taken from about 1.5m away at 300mm, wide open (f/5.6).
These two were taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM at 105mm, f/4 from closer to around 30cm and neither were cropped at all:
Interestingly, Canon doesn't even mention the word "macro" on the page for this lens, or the specifications. But it's closest focus difference is listed as 45cm (I actually get closer than that, so I'm not sure if that's just being conservative, or if there are different versions of the lens).
But I don't have macro equipment, since that's not really my thing. I like wide way more
mercurial
MyBB Legend
I would not be able to get myself to invest in a 6MP. I'd take nothing less than a 10MP.
@Genius: The D40's pics may appear to be the same and that's probably because you're not blowing it out as much as you can with the 450D (most images viewed at average screen resolution will look good). The 450D has much more detail, in fact, twice as much. You probably really can't blow up the images with the D40 as to the extent with the 450D, which makes the 450D particularly useful for posters/large prints/photos.
Last edited:
I can understand the posters - but then again i dont think i will ever take a photo and blow it up to a life size poster.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
Ken Rockwell has two purposes in life - to promote himself and to promote Nikon. Just something to keep in mind when subjecting yourself to his pontifications.
BTW - when you take your course ask them why they omitted auto exposure bracketing on the D40.
Last edited:
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Yeah, most don't, but it could be a really nice feature to have. As for the link, I think bwana explained it nicely
I dont think there is anything wrong with Ken Rockwell - he has a hosts of expensive Canons that he gives the same amount of respect. He actually has more Canons on his website than Nikons. So i dont think he is promoting Nikon.
@ Mercurial - he proved it on his site. So i will believe it.
@ Mercurial - he proved it on his site. So i will believe it.
I dont see why they shouldn't. These days an A0 print is under r200 and makes one heck of a poster.Yeah, most don't, but it could be a really nice feature to have. As for the link, I think bwana explained it nicely
It seems a pity more people dont print
mercurial
MyBB Legend
@Genius: Lol you just don't want to admit it, do you? Go read some objective forums, genuine forums like dpreview.com if you want a real analysis of something.
Anyone can fake info if they have an agenda. All the experts on this forum seem to know it, so what makes you so special to deny it?
Anyone can fake info if they have an agenda. All the experts on this forum seem to know it, so what makes you so special to deny it?
mercurial
MyBB Legend
I dont see why they shouldn't. These days an A0 print is under r200 and makes one heck of a poster.
It seems a pity more people dont print
Exactly. I am gonna be printing quite a few of mine as well. I have a Lexmark 4-in-1, which has a special photo printing cartridge. I was wondering if this printer is sufficient or if I should get a dedicated photo printer of the sorts?
Except for proofs I get all my stuff printed out at a local fujifilm place.
I get preferred rates now but even before that it was much simpler, higher quality, and probably cheaper than doing it on my Epson Photo printer.
@Genius: Lol you just don't want to admit it, do you? Go read some objective forums, genuine forums like dpreview.com if you want a real analysis of something.
Anyone can fake info if they have an agenda. All the experts on this forum seem to know it, so what makes you so special to deny it?
What? I researched it in depth. Check my topics on this forum. Basically the conclusion was that mega pixels means very little. Its a marketing gimmick that camera manufacturers are using to sell more units. Seems like you fell into that trap.
Sure, if u blow a poster up, you can notice, but thats as far as it goes. Who blows posters up anyway, certainly not me.
ldmelsa
Executive Member
More people here are likely to crop than enlarge - in both a higher number of quality MP are beneficial.
ldmelsa
Executive Member
yes, but it has to do with the sensor size as well
the 450d and 5d are both 12mp, but the 5d is sharper