Proper Camera for Daughter (turning 15)

[faniebraai]

+1
I'd avoid the 20d bodies mentioned earlier in the thread.

To Fanie: I would still put some effort into getting your Fuji camera up and running.

Ideas on where I can get it fixetit?

 

[BigAl-sa]

Where are you Fanus?

 

[faniebraai]

Where are you Fanus?

Here i am.







Kempton Park.

 

[Lord Farquart]

+1
I'd avoid the 20d bodies mentioned earlier in the thread.

Specifically those two, or 20D in general? If the latter, may I ask why?

 

[RanzB]

Specifically those two, or 20D in general? If the latter, may I ask why?

Old technology.

 

[TheMacintosh]

OP, I have a Nikon D5100 that is sitting doing nothing? I could prob give it to you at a good price with the 18-55mm kit lens

 

[faniebraai]

OP, I have a Nikon D5100 that is sitting doing nothing? I could prob give it to you at a good price with the 18-55mm kit lens

Thanks guy. But I really will have to first spend some time with the daughter. Will do so this weekend. If it looks like she is super serious about this, I will let you know on Monday. Thanks!

 

[BigAl-sa]

Old technology.

What he said.

I have a 350d which has the same sensor. High iso not nice...

 

[bwana]

What he said.

I have a 350d which has the same sensor. High iso not nice...

I've still got my two 400Ds

 

[satanboy]

I've still got my two 400Ds

hahaha...that looked funny

 

[Progenix Oj101]

Yes and no. ISO performance, frame rate, buffer size and autofocus performance are places where a modern entry level camera will beat the pants off of Canon or Nikon's finest from ten years ago. For you, freezing sports motion in low light and getting the shot you need requires everything I've just mentioned, but for shooting landscapes and portraits you're unlikely to often go above ISO 100 for a single shot.

bwana? Not arguing, I just don't know what new tech there you have in mind that'll make portraits and landscapes better on a new camera.

 

[bwana]

bwana? Not arguing, I just don't know what new tech there you have in mind that'll make portraits and landscapes better on a new camera.

Did the OP say anything about his daughter only being interested in portraits and landscapes? Maybe all of the portraits you shoot are done in studio, under ideal lighting, but not mine.

I don't know about you but I still get a lot of clients who want a print at the end of the day, and not just small format. People talk about the megapixel myth but MPs still come in mighty handy when you're printing. I did some thumbsuck math and came up with the following comparison between the 20D and 70D resolutions.



EDIT: I probably should have used a different background colour for the 70D

 

[Progenix Oj101]

Did the OP say anything about his daughter only being interested in portraits and landscapes?

That's what I make of this

"People & Nature"

If she means macro shots of insects, fanie's wallet is about to start bleeding

 

[bwana]

That's what I make of this



If she means macro shots of insects, fanie's wallet is about to start bleeding

People & Nature is pretty broad/vague - weddings, events, editorial, sports, street photography, BiF, wildlife… they also spring to mind.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

People & Nature is pretty broad/vague - weddings, events, editorial, sports, street photography, BiF, wildlife… they also spring to mind.

I know, I mentioned that a page or two back Considering she's 14 and has a selfie addiction I'm GUESSING she wants to do portraits/group shots, for nature I'm guestimating landscapes (probably sunsets) but honestly have no idea there - it's all speculation for now

fanie if she's serious about BIF I suggest you take out another bond on your house or sell your car :erm:

 

[Lord Farquart]

If she means macro shots of insects, fanie's wallet is about to start bleeding

Not true. You can start with macro without forking out a cent. Just turn the lens around on the body. You can either hold it there, tape it or buy a reverse adapter. Reverse adapter should be less than R300. Next step is adapter rings. Again, a cheap set without auto focus will set you back less than R500 on BoB. Then again, for macro you don't want auto focus. You want to decide where to focus as your depth of field is very narrow.

So, for zero money you can play around.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Not true. You can start with macro without forking out a cent. Just turn the lens around on the body. You can either hold it there, tape it or buy a reverse adapter. Reverse adapter should be less than R300. Next step is adapter rings. Again, a cheap set without auto focus will set you back less than R500 on BoB. Then again, for macro you don't want auto focus. You want to decide where to focus as your depth of field is very narrow.

So, for zero money you can play around.

To do that you need an slr. Fanie doesn't have one, so it's going to cost him more than a cent.

 

[Lord Farquart]

To do that you need an slr. Fanie doesn't have one, so it's going to cost him more than a cent.

This thread is all about convincing him to do it and stop dicking around. Once there is a SLR, then you can do macro on a shoestring.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

Not true. You can start with macro without forking out a cent. Just turn the lens around on the body. You can either hold it there, tape it or buy a reverse adapter. Reverse adapter should be less than R300. Next step is adapter rings. Again, a cheap set without auto focus will set you back less than R500 on BoB. Then again, for macro you don't want auto focus. You want to decide where to focus as your depth of field is very narrow.

So, for zero money you can play around.

I paid under R100 for my reversal ring. Honestly the resolution of the kit lens is rubbish to begin with, and now you're using an even smaller portion of the glass to cover the sensor. Next problem is depth of field, wide open at f/3.5 the lens lets in enough light (if you crank up the ISO), but the depth of field will be about half of an insect's eye - not ideal.

Stopped down to f/22 or smaller things get better, but now the picture is so dark you're talking exposures of several seconds in broad daylight - unless you're photographing a dead or completely motionless insect and using a tripod you're going to need flash - lots of flash. The depth of field on a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens shot wide open can be greater than that of a reversed lens at f/22 simply because you can focus on something that's further away - with a reversed lens your focal point is about an inch from the rear element.

Focusing also becomes an issue with a reversed, stepped down lens as the viewfinder is pretty much pitch black - live view is required for focusing but the camera's gain is turned up so high it becomes difficult to differentiate between noise and missed focus.

Extension tubes work, but suffer from one of the same issues. If the entire lens can resolve 12 MP and you're only using the inner 15 % of the lens you're not going to get sharp images. Depending on the lens, you might find your focus point is suddenly inside the lens before you get to the desired reproduction ratio.

Have a look at this:

I was only stopped down to f/11 and had to use two flashes at 1/2+0.3 power. That shot took around 60 attempts to get sharp focus as the depth of field was so small and there's a delay when shooting with live view. One shot without flash using a 100mm f/2.8 would have gotten me a sharper image with a larger depth of field - the magnification ratio would not have been as high but I could crop in and still get a sharper image.

So yes, you can start playing around with macro on a shoestring budget, but no, you're not going to get stellar results and you'll be limited as to what you can shoot.

 

[Swa]

Are you using a macro filter?