| |
|
Or, use your gamerDNA username: (more...)
| ||||||
| |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
03-08-2006, 04:22 PM
| #16 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
| Quote:
I don't know jack about point-n-shoot cameras. However, I've heard that Canon has some goo 5+ mega pixels for really good prices. The Powershots have always performed well. They even have the new Powershot S3 with image stabilization revealed this Feb. Myself, I'm a SLR shooter, have been forever. When I decided to switch over from film to digital, I approached it from the glass point of view. I picked which manufacturer had the best lenses first, then hunted for bodies second. Canon won over Nikon for me. Nikon at the time stated they would never invest fully into full frame sensor sizes. (35mm sensors to match film size.) Canon however did have full frame sensors but those were 15k+. I did however start buying the 'L' series lenses. My first was the 24-70 2.8L at around 1500 bucks, and then a 70-200 2.8L with IS for just under $2000. I stuck with the EOS series bodies. I really like the 10D even though it's discontinued. I have big hands, and holding the Digital Rebel or the 20D never fit me well. I've played around a lot int he sub-10 mega pixel range. But my next camera will be 12mp or above. In order to do 30-inch or greater prints I need the pixels. Some magazines wont accept digital if you are under 10mp. In order of price I'd go along this route, depending on what you can afford ... Digital Rebel XT - 8.0 mp @ $750.00 Canon 20D - 8.2mp @ $1,100.00 Skip the 20Da Canon 30D - 8.2mp @ $1,300.00 Canon 5D - 12.7mp @ $3.200.00 Nikon has some good cameras too, dont get me wrong, there are some nice entry level SLR's to chose from ... Nikon D50 - 6.0mp @ $600.00 Nikon D70s - 6.0mp @ $1,000.00 For the Nikon point-n-shoot series, the Coolpix have held their own like champs forever. Excellent pocket sized carry cameras. Go visit www.dpreview.com for complete specs and samples from just about every digital camera. If you have specifics that you need like flash sync, Low/High ISO or such, let me know and I can help ya weed out the trash from fact. Speaking of specifics, since you mentions cars, animals and nature ... I look at lense choiuce for those. 1. Cars - Mostly always outdoor sin some lot, show, or showroom. A wide prime lense does good for this, like a 17mm or 20mm prime. 2. Animals - Household pets, or zoo's? Household needs a wide lense too, f2.8 apperture also. I shoot zoo's a bit as well as animal fairs and such. I love the 70-200 for those. 3. Nature - Wide... wide ... wide! Landscape demands a nice wide lense. 17mm through 24mm. Plus, you can use the same lense for doing macro's. ... Bonzai Last edited by Bonzai : 03-08-2006 at 04:28 PM. | |
 |
|
03-08-2006, 06:26 PM
| #20 (permalink) |
| Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 1,503
+9 Internets | wow bonzai thanks a lot heh I didin't expect that much info, very appreciated. honestly im pretty much a noob when it comes to technicallities for camera's and such, I would like to really get into it maybe as a hobby or even a career, who knows.
__________________ Blaezen Feanturi. 65th Halfling OverLord of the Vallon Zek Sever. |
| |
|
03-08-2006, 11:55 PM
| #25 (permalink) |
| An Excellent Driver  Join Date: May 2003 Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,747
+5 Internets | I don't know much about photography, but I do know what hurts my often tired, smoke burned eyes. That first one hurts, Bonzai. When I look at it, that lens flare feels like it's burning my retinas. The edges on it make it look like the glass was drawn in a comic book (which may be a good thing, depending on what poetry you're putting with it). That second one is much, much easier on the eyes, but my favorite is Gudrid's. I doubt that you can publish a picture of Luigi, but that melty look is nice. If that melty look could be improved upon, then it would be something that would catch my attention if it were hung up some where. It looks like shattered liquid, which is impossible, so it's interesting  I know, glass is technically a liquid, and that's technically not impossible, but y'all know what I mean. It looks impossible, but real enough to be believable. |
|
| |
|
03-08-2006, 11:56 PM
| #26 (permalink) | |||
| Badger Diplomacy  Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The Dairy State
Posts: 5,974
| Quote:
__________________ ____________ Stupid is a strong horse. It can be ridden far. Quote:
Quote:
| |||
|
| |
|
03-09-2006, 02:34 AM
| #27 (permalink) | |
| Registered User  Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,696
+29 Internets | Quote:
| |
| |
|
03-09-2006, 05:01 AM
| #29 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: O_o
Posts: 704
+2 Internets | Sorry to break your bubble bud, but in this day and age there is still no clear distinction on whether or not glass is an amorphous solid or a high viscious liquid. The notion of "flowing glass" that you talk about has not been validated, so your statement on the matter is correct. On the other hand, in regards to thermodynamics / molecular dynamics, arguments can be made for both ideas. As I said, logically, glass is a solid, but when you state "Glass is in no way, shape or form a liquid" I had to interject. Last edited by simeon : 03-09-2006 at 05:06 AM. |
|
| |
|
03-09-2006, 10:46 AM
| #30 (permalink) |
| Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 1,503
+9 Internets | glass is made out of melting sand isn't it? it's just a process of different stages and stuff, it starts as sand, forms into a liquid then turns into a solid body of glass?
__________________ Blaezen Feanturi. 65th Halfling OverLord of the Vallon Zek Sever. |
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|  | |
Linear Mode
