One of my hobbies is photography. Now I am not a professional but I like to take photos of professional quality. I had to consider whether to go for a compact digital camera or a Digital SLR camera. I was lucky in the 1980s to a 35 mm SLR camera. The picture quality was fantastic. Much better than a compact camera. The ability to modify settings and change lenses to throw items closer or displace them was much higher than the 35 mm compact camera
Fast forward today, not much has changed. The quality of digital compact cameras has gained a lot in the Digital SLR but is still behind of, in my opinion. Both benefited from the fact that you can see the result immediately after the shot has been taken but the DLSR is much higher in the ability to change shot, on the ground and in many ways. One thing with the Covenants is the lack of depth of field. Take the picture and the complete image will try to is better to be in focus. With DSLR you can have the subject in focus and blur of the Fund that creates simple but effective results.
Use a digital SLR - Canon EOS 400 d. I had 18 months by what has now been overtaken in the Canon range. You can't 'Live View' which means that you will have to compose the shot through the view finder. However the latest Canonhave this now. It came with a standard 18 mm - 55 mm Canon lens, but also in the package was a 200 mm Tamron Zoom lens. I bought a bag Lowepro Slingshot A100W and SanDisk 4 GB Compact Flash Card, separately.
Out of the box you can paste into auto and never leave that option if you want to. However, this defeats the object of having so much power and scope on their vaccines through the auto option. Remember is digital by what you may experience more and more new with different settings until you get bang on. If I had to leave the car forever, so he could buy a compact camera.
The clarity of the vaccine has to be seen to be believed. .1MP has a serious camera that takes you from professional results. Many professionals who have the higher end of the range Canon EOS £ 5,000 more would say different. Remember that they have to justify the £ 5000 plus price it will find the smallest detail different but you and me the images look closely enough the same.
I went to Turkey in the summer and the images that I took with my camera which could never have been achieved with a compact camera. The scenario was a photographers dream and I managed to fill the card 4 GB with images of superior quality. The ability to capture raw is also a bonus fo the semi-serious photographer. With bonuses there is no compression with JPEG and is as it says the RAW image.
You have the option of changing the white balance when your back in the team. Yes we can bodge that even when it is a JPEG file, but not is where nearly as effective as RAW. Dessie will go.
Next to the darkroom it it depends on you. Using Adobe Photoshop. Cost approx £ 500 but is what use the professionals. There are loads of magazines by there with tips on how to use Photoshop but I recommend to get a decent book on it. It is a great piece of software, but it can make portraits of dream and Andy Warhole popart with a little practice and tuition. There are also Photoshop Elements for under £ 100 but I understand that this is a scaled version towards bottom of the professional version and would be good for the beginner to intermediate.
Your friends and family could they mock you with the major camera and bag and some might say "want everything you to when you can get a camera that fits in your Pocket". Believe me, when you see your laptop presentation through an HDTV will be green with envy and climb to copy your photos or even buy them.
Everything in my Canon EOS 400 D might be old in 18months old but will stay with me for a few years. I can live with shooting through the viewfinder. Perhaps your uses it for new cameras you need to keep the camera out in front of you. Compare the best-sellers. The choice is yours.
http://informationdanno.blogspot.com/
{ 0 comments... Views All / Send Comment! }
Post a Comment