I'm addicted...

[RUSH2112]

If you saw my post where I was selling my Sony F717 Digital Camera, you probably read how I bought myself a nice DSLR with the money and gift cards I got from Christmas.

Well, I think I have officially become addicted to digital photography.

First off, my camera is a mid-range DSLR: The Olympus Evolt E-500. It came with the dual lens kit, a 14-45mm lens and a 40-150mm lens. I paid $799 for the kit (I could have got it cheaper online, but I had all those gift cards for circuit city). Add $49 for a CF card, $20 for a cheap tripod, $40 for a bag, and I havent even started with the accessories yet...

Anyway, I've had the camera for all of about 4 or 5 days, and I've already takes upwards of 2200 shots, about 500 of which I have deemed worth saving.

I never realized how much fun photography can be if you have the right equipment. In several years of owning my high end point and shoot Sony, I took about 3000 pictures, and I've already nearly reached that in the first week of my DSLR.

This morning, I got in my car and just started driving north. I stopped at a few rivers and other interesting photo ops, taking a good amount of shots at each location, finally ending at Hampton Beach in New Hampshire. I spent roughly an hour there, photographing birds (which I really should have a 200mm or 300mm lens for, but mine sufficed), the waves against the rocks, the sun glimmering off the ocean. By the time I got home, I had 450 shots on the day.

The problem with me is that I always tend to get into the more expensive hobbies. Computers, Skiing, Kayaking, and now photography. I'm eyeing a bunch of accessories I have lined up that I ultimately want to buy. I want a 50mm macro lens ($400), Olympus-Zeiko's 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 lens ($800), a decent flash ($200+), and a handful of smaller accessories ranging from $50-100. Oh, and I wouldn't mine a fisheye lens if they weren't over $600. Gah, why is this so much mulah?

Yea, I know its probably stupid for me to go an drop all that money on digital photography when I am still amateur to the field, but just like with my computers, I insist on decking it out. I know I definately need the flash, since as good as the pop up flash is on my camera, it is no where near as good as a mounted flash. I also know that I want the macro lens, because I like taking close up shots, and even my 14-45 won't focus on anything closer than 1.3 feet away. Good news is that the 50mm macro is only around $200 on ebay.

I do suppose, though, that in time and with more experience, this is one hobby that could pay for itself. I have a friend who has been into digital photography for awhile (he shoots with a Digital Rebel XTi), and he tells me that he goes to photo shows and sells some of his photos, 8x10, framed and matted, for upwards of $100 each. Despite my inexperience, I already have about a half dozen pictures that I feel would sell. I, of course, would go for more money and do bigger than 8x10.

Any other photographers or aspiring photographers out there? Maybe someone that can provide some words of wisdom?

Edit
If anyone is interested, I just threw some of my better pictures into a folder on my server.
http://mike.frattaroli.us/upload/photos/

[Purcy]

Yes, I have a degree in photography, have worked in the photo field for over 30 years, so I've seen a lot of change and advancement. I worked for 10 years as a lab tech, using film and processing film and printing in a darkroom - then 3 hours later I would have a good print that I could mail to a newspaper or magazine. Now, I own two digital cameras (all my expensive SLR stuff is stored in a closet) and within 10 minutes I can take a shot, fix it if necessary in PhotoShop and email it to newspaper or magazine! I still whirl with the ease and quickness of the whole process now. You stick with it and have fun, I am in the hobby phase of my career, so I don't do it for money anymore. But it is exciting and fulfilling and yes you can make money with photography. I suggest a large Ultra fast memory card and a card reader for ease of download to your computer. The best of luck!

[christopher_wolf]

Indeed; I just got myself a Canon Rebel XTi, with the lens kit and a bag, for about $799. Photograhpy can get quite addictive, as some of my photos here suggest. The Rebel XTi is one of the best SLRs I have tested thus far as well.

[bigtiger]

Hi, Nice to know some photography people here.

First, Rush2112, if you are really into lens, I would suggest you to sell your Olympus gear and go to either Canon or Nikon. I used to own an Olympus E20N (just like S717 but a little better as it has true viewfinder rather the electronic one in S717). I know the quality of Olympus gear. My friend has the same set of gear as you.

Anyway, I sold my Olympus Gear and now own canon XT. I made the change about a year ago. I bought a mid-ranger lens ($600)--17-85 IS USM. I also own a Sigma 70-300MM lens.

Canon XT is at least as good, if not better, than your gear. But the choices of lens are far more than that of Olympus Evolt series. Plus, the prices are so much cheaper. With the prices you listed, you can get a really decent L-series of Canon Lens and you will be surprised how good they are.

I shot about 8000 on my former Olympus E20 over around 3 years of usage. Some are out of my home-studio. But as I can see, none of them can beat the the quality from my Canon XT.

Well, in the mean time, shoot with Olympus gear and show us some of your works.

[RUSH2112]

Well, I do know that Canon makes the better product, and I went to Circuit City planning on buying a Digital Rebel XTI. However, it was $100 more and the kit only had the 18-55mm lens. The big reason I went with the Olympus is because it was cheaper AND included 2 lenses (which retail for about $200 each). I did not want to have to jump to buying a new lens right away, since I would want a wider range than the 18-55 provides (nor would I want to just get the body and have to get the lens seperately - I wanted everything I needed to start right there. What can I say, I'm impatient.)
What I didn't like about the XT vs the Olympus and the XTI is the small screen. I love the 2.5" screen on mine.

Well, is it true that the body isn't really what makes the camera (as I have read in a few places), its really the lenses you use? In that case, I suppose I can just get a Sigma (I believe they make lenses for Olympus) and ebay the kit lenses if they're not as good as they seem.

I have taken some pretty good pictues with this thing so far, but I suppose I have no real fram of refrence when it comes to DSLR's, so I really can't know for sure.

[christopher_wolf]

Canon and Nikon have some spectacular lenses, that I know. The Nikon D80 is similar to the XT/i except for some minor detail in the way it sharpens shots and a tinge of the watercolor effect in some of the photos; making it a tad easier to post-process sharpen the Canon shots. At that point, though, it matters little to those who don't zoom in many times and get picky. Both pretty good choices to get started with.

[schen]

I agree to a point with some of you guys on the whole lense thing, but in my experience, unless you're a professional, most of the top Japanese manufacturers are a toss-up in terms of lense quality. Much of what make some lenses more "professional" oriented is more solid construction to compensate for the abuse that this equipment suffers as opposed to actual optical quality. As any long time photographer and you're find stories about all (including Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leitz) manufactures that have laid eggs over time. Quite often, the best deals are in the second tier of companies; the Pentaxes, Olympuses, Fujitsus, etc. Of course you don't get the tremendous variety and especially some of the specialty lenses that the big guys produce, but neither do you pay for the cachet of using what the pro uses.

On the body from, the main thing that makes a HUGE difference that doesn't get discussed much, is sensor size. That is the major reason for how inexpensive your E-500 was; it's significantly smaller than the top models out there were some use sizes as large as the 35mm format. It's really not about megapixels, but the number of megapixels crammed into a certain size. Too many of these little guys in the same space causes noise.

In the end, it's what you'll use, and can afford that's important. IMHO, the E-500 is a great starter DSLR. Good optics with fairly inexpensive lenses (mostly because they don't have to be as large to cover the smaller sensor). I suspect that if you remain serious, you'll eventually outgrow it eventually and move on to a more high-end system, whether that's Nikon, Canon, or Leica, that's up to you. My only word of warning here is to not get so caught up on the equipment that you misses shots trying to decide which lense to use!

For myself, I gave up a 35mm, 2 body rig with 22 lenses for a "SuperZoom" all-in-one. Although I miss the speed of a SLR, I'll have to admit that what I have is still more camera than I am photographer and not worrying about the other stuff has helped me to take better picturers, even after 40 years of photography (some of it professionally).

[ronbo613]

Photography is my business and I have used just about every brand and type of still, video and movie camera there is. There are exciting and tedious aspects to all of them.
First, I would say how amazed my colleagues and I have been by the quick takeover of the commercial photography world by digital imaging. We shouldn't have been so surprised because after the initial changeover from darkroom and light table to computers, the cost is much lower.
Digital photography can give your hobby/passion/profession new life. No runs to the developer or waiting for film, a "digital darkroom" on the desk that can manipulate images like never before, the horizons of creativity have never been broader for photographers.
If you're asking, I think Canon has the better DSLR gear right now, but it is only a narrow, narrow lead over Nikon. You won't go wrong with either of these brands.
The best strategy to buying quality gear is to put your money in lenses; they take the photos and you can use them with cameras you buy later. If you have limited funds, buy a cheaper camera and good lenses. Aftermarket lenses are OK for amateur use, no professionals I deal with use them, only the brand name lenses.
Here's my company website, someone mentioned kayaking, you might want to have a look here, if you like that, you might want to check out this 2006 highlight video. Don't worry, nothing for sale.

[bigtiger]

Hey, we have at least two pros in this forum. So good to know.

yes, lens are more important, but body also makes some difference. I agree with schen, E500 is great starter camera but soon you will feel the need to upgrade.

Yes, E500 has smaller CCD. High-iso noise is a big problem.

Also, E500 doesnot support wired remote release. To me, that is a must. For that single reason, I will ditch E500.

As far as picture quality, I cannot say for E500 because I do not own it except some hearsay from my friend. I used to own Nikon D70S with kit lens. I can say that my kit 18-85 IS USM produces better pictures than that of the Nikon.

[RUSH2112]

Well my long term plan is to keep the Olympus for a few years, adding/upgrading lenses as I go, and learn the ins and outs of DSLR photography. If I decide then that I would like to continue this hobby more professionally, I will front the cash for something like the Canon 1Ds Mark II (alright maybe not an $8000 camera, but you get the point).

Another reason that I didn't want to jump into a more expensive camera from the get-go is that I wasn't sure that I'd use it. In my experience, when you use a point-and-shoot, you are less likely to use it as a hobbyist camera, and more likely to just take it to family gatherings and sports events. Once I realized how much fun it can be when you have decent equipment, I realized that the investment was justified.

Ron, thanks for that link, I was actually just thinking about waterproof cases for kayaking, even though I dont exactly need a bulletproof underwater case. How much do those things generally cost?

Oh, and if anyone is interested, I just dropped some of my better pictures into a folder on my server: http://mike.frattaroli.us/upload/photos/
I welcome comments and criticism, anything that will help me improve. (Actually, I think I'll edit that link into the main post as well)

[ronbo613]

Well my long term plan is to keep the Olympus for a few years, adding/upgrading lenses as I go, and learn the ins and outs of DSLR photography. If I decide then that I would like to continue this hobby more professionally, I will front the cash for something like the Canon 1Ds Mark II (alright maybe not an $8000 camera, but you get the point).

That brings up another good point about digital photography; "long term" is not as long as it used to be. For top shelf professional use, the lifespan of a digital SLR is about two years. The trick is to find the most inexpensive camera that will do the job for you. That's where the "good lenses-cheap camera" philosophy comes in. Good lenses make good photos, even with a non-full format sensor. An example would be the Canon EOS 20D. With it's 8MP sensor, it was enough data for an 8.5 X 11" full bleed magazine page so the 20D with a good lens, usually a Canon L series or 10-22mm EF-S lens, was good enough to get you published.
The big guns, like the 1Ds MkII, are preferred because of their ability to write data quickly, so you could shoot more frames per second. The full format sensors give you more data than the sensor of a camera like the 20D, but it's getting to the point now where there is more than enough data for commercial images, but more megapixels means you need more computer to process and store them, so you get to a point of diminishing returns. If you want to shoot posters or something like that, get a 30 megapixel digital back for your Hasselblad.

Another reason that I didn't want to jump into a more expensive camera from the get-go is that I wasn't sure that I'd use it. In my experience, when you use a point-and-shoot, you are less likely to use it as a hobbyist camera, and more likely to just take it to family gatherings and sports events. Once I realized how much fun it can be when you have decent equipment, I realized that the investment was justified.

I always recommend a camera that will be easy to use. If somebody can't figure out how to use it or it's a hassle to carry around, they won't use it. For some people, it's a better call to get a small camera that fits in their pocket and is easy to use so they will enjoy taking pictures. Better to have a 2MP point and shoot camera that is actually used than a 14MP technical wonder that you need a degree to operate and a Sherpa to carry it around. The idea is to take pictures, not own expensive equipment. Also, "right tool for the job"; none of the digital camera housings that are on my website are for cameras less than 8MP, but all the photos of the housings on the website were taken with a Nikon 2MP camera I've had for a few years because you don't need 13MB image files for the internet.

Ron, thanks for that link, I was actually just thinking about waterproof cases for kayaking, even though I dont exactly need a bulletproof underwater case. How much do those things generally cost?

Let's just say the housings I make are strictly for professional use. If you're not getting paid for your photography or filmaking skills, they wouldn't be in the budget. For kayaking, you should check out the Pentax Optio. Waterproof, good quality photos and reasonably priced. It will do the job until you decide on something better.

[bigtiger]

The big guns, like the 1Ds MkII, are preferred because of their ability to write data quickly, so you could shoot more frames per second.

Thank you very much ronbo613. I like this comment. It is very straightforward. I heard that 1Ds does not offer more picture quality and I am glad that you didnot bring the picture quality topic out.

I also concur with your comment about a 2M camera. My parents are still using a Nikon 2100 PS 2 Meg digital camera. The pictures out of it still amazes me. It is easy to carry around and pretty resistant to vibrations and abuses.

TO Rush2112, keep trying, you will get even better pictures. For the moment, these pictures are good enough for a beginner like you.

[tomh009]

The big guns, like the 1Ds MkII, are preferred because of their ability to write data quickly, so you could shoot more frames per second. The full format sensors give you more data than the sensor of a camera like the 20D, but it's getting to the point now where there is more than enough data for commercial images, but more megapixels means you need more computer to process and store them, so you get to a point of diminishing returns.

Actually, 1Ds Mk II is not terribly fast. With a full-frame 16Mp sensor, it's a fabulous studio camera, but it is most definitely not designed for speed.

I believe that the #1 digital SLR for photojournalism (and especially for sports photography) is the 1D Mk II. It's much faster than the 1Ds, but with a lower resolving power (1.3x crop factor and a 8Mp sensor). This is what you will see many, many pros use at sporting events.

I use an EOS 20D (with a 10D as a backup) myself. It has the same resolution as the 1D Mk II, but with a 1.6x crop and some loss of speed. But the 1.6x factor allows my long lenses to reach farther -- my 80-400/5.6 zoom is effectively a 640mm lens, and that's a good thing when you are shooting motorsports.

[ronbo613]

In the "adventure sports" photography we do, we try to use the cheapest camera we can because they can be damaged, destroyed or stolen at any time. A typical setup would be a 20D for "water" or "high risk" shooting and a 1D MkIIn for "land use".
As far as Canon DSLRs go, the 10D was their first camera to put serious digital photography in the affordable range and still has a few diehard fans out there, but came up just a little short of that 8.5X11" full bleed quality level. At this stage of the game, it was truly 50/50, digital/film. The 20D was a huge step up from the 10D, even though it may not have looked much different than the 10D, it was truly an entry level professional grade camera. The 30D, on the other hand, has no significant performance benefits over the 20D, making the 20D an even better buy. The 1.6X crop factor is about the only negative, but there is not going to be a full format digital camera for less than $2500-3000.USD for some time, if at all. The crop factor really hurts at the fisheye/wide angle end, but the 10-22mm EF-S is an excellent lens, a full step up from EF lenses and a half notch below L Series, even though it will only work with the partial format cameras.
Most of the pro guys do use the 1D MkIIn(I said 1Ds MkII but I ment to say 1D MkIIn), a few might use the 5D(one curious thing I noticed; the 20D has a 1/250 flash sync, the much more expensive, full format 5D is only 1/200). Also there is the durability factor. The Rebels are great cameras for the price, but made of really weak plastic, the 20/30D are pretty durable and the full sized 1D cameras are the most durable of the bunch, another reason they are the choice of pros. The proprietary battery of the smaller cameras is not so hot either, compared to the stacks of AA rechargeables most photographers have.
I would point out that just a couple years ago, the original EOS 1D, with a 4MP sensor and $4000.USD price tag(if I recall correctly), was the camera every pro had. What do you think it is worth today?

[christopher_wolf]

Well, one of the things about the Rebel XTi is that is has practically the same AF sensor/array as in the 30D, the XTi tracks low light action shots as well as the 30D in resolute focus which is a *great* thing (I'll post some shots of this later, the AI Servo AF can do literal wonders along with the dual-precision center point); not to mention the self-cleaning system (I think it is the only self-cleaning SLR from Canon that I know of). The way I see most people using SLRs like the Rebels isn't in such as way as to be *that* rough with them, such as dropping them into pockets and hard cases or tossing them around like a point and shoot camera; when the terrain and environ get far more serious and active, however, most pros tend to pull out the 20D and 30D or even the EOS-1Ds Mark II with all their tough magnesium alloy chassises; even though the XTi offers a tempered plastic body over stainless steel frame whereas it was just aluminum with the XT. The Rebel XTi is also a great side camera even if you already have a 20D or 30D. I also agree that one of the most important investments has to do with the lenses since the MPs on the sensors are more than enough on today's cameras; you will be wasting time and money if you have an optics setup that doesn't at least meet or exceed the abilities of the sensor and processor. The differences between the 30D and the 20D are kinda minor, such as the 20D having a louder and more distinct shutter noise than either the 30D or the Rebel XT/i.

[ronbo613]

Well, one of the things about the Rebel XTi is that is has practically the same AF sensor/array as in the 30D, the XTi tracks low light action shots as well as the 30D in resolute focus which is a *great* thing (I'll post some shots of this later, the AI Servo AF can do literal wonders along with the dual-precision center point); not to mention the self-cleaning system (I think it is the only self-cleaning SLR from Canon that I know of). The way I see most people using SLRs like the Rebels isn't in such as way as to be *that* rough with them, such as dropping them into pockets and hard cases or tossing them around like a point and shoot camera; when the terrain and environ get far more serious and active, however, most pros tend to pull out the 20D and 30D or even the EOS-1Ds Mark II with all their tough magnesium alloy chassises; even though the XTi offers a tempered plastic body over stainless steel frame whereas it was just aluminum with the XT. The Rebel XTi is also a great side camera even if you already have a 20D or 30D. I also agree that one of the most important investments has to do with the lenses since the MPs on the sensors are more than enough on today's cameras; you will be wasting time and money if you have an optics setup that doesn't at least meet or exceed the abilities of the sensor and processor. The differences between the 30D and the 20D are kinda minor, such as the 20D having a louder and more distinct shutter noise than either the 30D or the Rebel XT/i.

The Rebel is a great camera for the price and more than enough camera for most people interested in more than "point and shoot" type photography. I agree that this would be the camera you might want to buy if you had limited funds. Better a Rebel and a good lens than a 30D and a cheap lens. Most of the time a cheap lens looks OK at first because you might be used to a point and shoot or are using an old zoom lens, but as you start to look at your photos with a more critical eye, a better lens starts to look like a good investment when all your photos are "soft".
You can use a prime lens(24mm, 50mm, 135mm, etc.) that is not the most expensive one in the lineup(like a Canon EF instead of an "L" Series lens) and get good photos, it's the zoom lenses with lots of glass where you have to spend a little more. A 20-500mm zoom for $200 may seem like a good idea, but usually it won't work out. Not only will the photos not be so crisp, but it will probably wear out quickly. You may have seen little "gold" specks inside of an old zoom lens, that is the brass helicoil of the zooming mechanism being ground to dust.

[Carlito149]

I like Nikon DSLRs becouse of best grips.
Nice colours that produces.
Canon 400D is too small for me.
Now i own Canon S2is, but i would like to own Nikon D80
or Pentax K10D.

Here are some my pics:)
http://carlito149.deviantart.com/gallery/?order=9

[tomh009]

The grips vary by model ... I have never used the Rebel models for more than a few minutes, but the grips on the 10D/20D (and EOS-1 and T90 earlier) are great, even when the total weight of the body plus a (small!) lens is around 3 lbs (1.5 kg). With a big zoom, though, you do have to switch to holding the lens, but that will eb true regardless of what type of camera body you are using.

The Canon S2 IS is actually a pretty nice camera, but the one thing that really irks me is the digital viewfinder. It's SLOW! I strongly prefer an optical viewfinder, even if it's not so accurate, as is the case with most digital rangefinder cameras.

But even on the P/S, I have the need for control (manual exposure rules!) so I'm still using an ancient (by digital standards at least) Canon S30 for snapshots and for diving ...

[christopher_wolf]

Not only do I remember physically seeing those gold dust flecks, but actually seeing what they did to the shots taken.

I will look into those lenses as well, the kit lens is pretty good on a Rebel XT but I think that something like the XTi might reach the limits of the 18-55 EF-S kit lens after awhile; given that the rest of the versatility and robustness obtainable with the XTi lies mainly with the lenses it can take on the body.

I prefer to manually tweak most of my shots and use the viewfinder by itself; I figure that if I am going to spend time to take the short, might as well take enough time to make it look really good.

[ronbo613]

Two signs that a zoom lens is probably a good one; internal focus and internal zooming. If the lens barrel zooms in and out a fair distance and you can wiggle it around, that should tell you something.

[RUSH2112]

Alright, I've got another question.
I want to try some macro photography, but what is a sensible budget?
I found three options that are compatible with my camera.

1. 25mm Macro Extension Tube ($120) - http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-EX-25mm-E ... lectronics

2. 35mm 1:1 f3.5 Macro Lens ($200) - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... ype=search

3. 50mm 1:2 f2 Telephoto Macro Lens ($425) - http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Telephoto ... lectronics

I understand the differences between the two lenses, but is the latter worth the extra cost for a lens that I'll only use a limited number of times? And what is with the extension tube? Do they actually work, and are they worth it?

[tomh009]

Two signs that a zoom lens is probably a good one; internal focus and internal zooming. If the lens barrel zooms in and out a fair distance and you can wiggle it around, that should tell you something.

Wiggling is definitely not good!

But many of the high-end large zooms (like Canon 100-400/5.6, Nikon 80-400/5.6 and Sigma 80-400/5.6) do extend when you zoom. It's basic optics that force you to do that -- the other option would be to have an outer barrel that is long enough to contain the inner barrel when fully extended, but with the long zooms, that results in a lens that is always very bulky, and that's not necessarily desirable.

[tomh009]

Alright, I've got another question.
I want to try some macro photography, but what is a sensible budget?

Your 14-45 will focus down to about 15 inches, so I would suggest getting used to close-up photography with that first.

If you still want closer, I would suggest looking at used Olympus macro lenses on eBay (caution: I have no idea what Olympus lenses are compatible) as e macro lens will be the most useful option for you.

Extension tubes will give you a high degree of magnification, but you will have to use manual focus and manual exposure. And you'll need to verify body and lens compatibility. Again, I have no experience with Olympus here. But tubes are fairly specialized -- I have a set, and I use them quite infrequently.

[christopher_wolf]

Practice using the lens you have already for the Macro shots, then work on getting used to setting the exposure and aperture manually. As long as it is fairly well lit, you additionally need not worry about specialized macroflashes or the like, unless you encounter a difficult lighting condition. You can get some pretty decent macro shots with the kit lens, in any case.

Then see if you want to go for one of those lenses, although I would hold off on getting an extension tube since, having used them only one in photography ever, you have to have a real good reason for the shot to require one in the first place.

[ronbo613]

Do they still make that adapter where you flip the lens around and use it backwards as a macro lens?

[christopher_wolf]

I think so, if by that you mean the 58/52 reverse macro adapters; both the Canon manual and several instructional sites for it made reference to a macro adapter like that, but they seem to be rather scarce. At least, they still have the one from Novoflex. The other adapters I have seen don't let you keep the connection between stuff like IS lenses and the camera or even AF should one want to use it.

Some people actually make their own reversers for that with the kit 18-55, rather brave people too although it seems that they do get good results.