Sort of......About Cameras (which seem to be essential to posting here).

Yes, I've been reading up on the adaptability of these lenses and it would fit, but not work very well......not worth the trouble.

I also see that getting a little better picture quality will cost me about five to seven Custom 110s.......that's a lot of Bucks!!!

You really have to invest in a top of the line lens and they COST.

I'm thinking I'll probably stick with my camera that cost only one Custom Buck. I may buy another for a spare just as I do with knives. It will probably be on closeout soon and the newer models don't take AA batteries.

:)

BTW, Haeb.......you lost me when you got into all those numbers and aspects and ratios......but I get the general idea.
 
BG,
You mentioned earlier about digital not being able to manipulate depth of field as well as film. The lenses control that (mostly) and digital is capable of using the same lenses as a film camera, so there is nothing lost with digital in that aspect. Of course, aperture control plays a big part as well.

These pics I grabbed show the ability of a Digital SLR to achieve the DOF that one desires. The lens and aperture control on a point and shoot digital don't really give you this ability.



Check out this guy's out of focus beak but in focus eyes. That's a somewhat shallow depth of field.

 
BG42EDGE said:
BTW, Haeb.......you lost me when you got into all those numbers and aspects and ratios......but I get the general idea.
Click to expand...

BG, I'm sorry that I lost you with the numbers. And my bad English would be one more reason
that I was not able to declare these few tecnical aspects.

But one more trial to answer your question:
Fourthirds is a Standard for System Cameras with interchangable lenses. It belongs to the
Mount of the lenses and the format of the foto chip. The Name Fourthirds (4/3) describes the
aspect ratio of the chip. Is that better to understand?

Haebbie
 
Last edited:
Casey, what I meant to convey was that you can manipulate depth of field to a greater extent with a 35mm SLR than with a digital SLR because the average 35mm lens will go from F1.4 to F16 or 22 and the average digital SLR will have a far smaller range of F stops--maybe F3.5 to F5.6.

At F16 you will have far more depth of field than you will at F1.4, and if those apertures are unavailable you just can't do as much with depth of field manipulation.

Another variable is that telephoto will decrease depth of field and wide angle will increase depth of field.

That's how I understand it, anyhow. I suppose digital lenses with more F stops are available, but I imagine they're so expensive that most people don't buy them.

Almost all my experience is with 35mm, so I'm just beginning to figure the digital side out now.

:)
 
Haeb........yes, better.

I understand that the SLR and Fourthirds chip is what I would need to get pictures that are more clear (and especially in low light).

For my purposes my current camera......

canon-powershot-s95-and-sx130-is-announced_1.jpg


will probably fill my needs, at least for a while.

I suppose there's a good chance I will want to upgrade at some point, we shall see.

Thanks for all the info.....it's good to talk cameras.

:)
 
Last edited:
BG,

I am still caught up in the idea this thread was about taking good knife photos, with 'other' uses secondary. Especially in relationship to your 'average' forum member taking photos for use here. That said, each of us has to determine what he or she wants out of a new camera or even the camera we already own.

Myself, I am not trying to be a contest winning photographer or a money making pro. I just want a really nice photo of my knives to show you people. I have and use a Canon DSLR with a dedicated macro lens. BUT, the larger guts of the DSLR only REALLY comes into play when I blow up something really tiny on the knife, say such as a rivet head or scale crack. For the other life photos I take of huntin' and fishin' and folks I use a point and shoot that fits easy in my pocket.

It is MY opinion that if today I could start over I would not buy a DSLR but would get a 14 to 12 MG bridge camera with the factors I quoted above. The ease of use would override MY need to have the ability to blow a a tiny thing to a 16 X 20 print to hang in some art gallery. Your current camera and many of the average Joe AFFORDABLE bridge cameras will meet every need for internet photo sharing. It is of at least EQUAL IF NOT MORE importance that you deal with the other equipment such as lighting and steading and skills such as understanding depth of field, ISO and white balance as it is the camera you use. To go a step fruther the methods you use to save, edit and publish your photo can make or break your picture also.

So for your use, you have to decide - Do I want to do a bunch of other fancy photo taking or do I just want to take photos of my knives and my kids birthdays.

Do one and you start ANOTHER engrossing money using hobby (am I not right Casey), do the other and you will be taking NICE knife photos to share here and elsewhere and have nice family pictures also. I have been in both worlds, I built my own darkroom in high school and was a photographer for high school and college newspapers, I used cameras of all types in my career, I didn't lust for a young beautiful women but for a Novaflex Telephoto lens. I studied the books and mags all the time. BUT as I have gained a little experience with my maturity I would tell everyone its not about the equipment- its about the picture. If you just want to take some nice photos buy the best you can afford and to heck with the pro equipment. Its about the picture, not what you take it with........

300Bucks
 
Last edited:
BG42EDGE said:
Mag G said:

My camera gives me full control......but apparently doesn't have the bigger sensor.

Ok, Christmas IS coming......so either Mag G or any of you guys that are experienced with digital......can you give a few examples of the best values and lowest priced cameras with this much bigger sensor?

Where and what camera is the entry level to postage stamp sensors? Is the size of the sensor indicated anywhere in the published camera specs?
Click to expand...



Hi BG,

Sure, I’ll gladly answer any question you have. :) I’m not a professional photographer, but I am a very passionate amateur enthusiast who studies photography in his free time (when I’m not playing with knives, that is). Photo buffs are like knife buffs, always happy to talk about their passion!

Well, you wanted me to comment on a good value to sensor-size ratio camera. The best value out there, hands-down, is the Sony Alpha A230L. The entire kit (body and kit lens) can be had brand new for less than $400.00. As for where to find the sensor size in the specs, it will list the sensor type in the specs. You can look up the size yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds#Sensor_size_and_aspect_ratio. But any DSLR or mirrorless system will have the large, “stamp sized” sensor, some a bit bigger, some a bit smaller, but all vastly larger than point-and-shoots (and super-zooms and cell phones).

So, get your camera, check out those links I gave you, and maybe even consider taking an evening photography class at your local community college. Those are fun, and you get to learn hands-on!

Cheers,

Mag
 
300Bucks said:
BG,
Your current camera and many of the average Joe AFFORDABLE bridge cameras will meet every need for internet photo sharing. It is of at least EQUAL IF NOT MORE importance that you deal with the other equipment such as lighting and steading and skills such as understanding depth of field, ISO and white balance as it is the camera you use. To go a step fruther the methods you use to save, edit and publish your photo can make or break your picture also.

Its about the picture, not what you take it with........

300Bucks
Click to expand...

I agree with you in general, but I disagree with a few of your points.

1. To deal with ISO, depth of field, and white balance, you need a camera that lets you adjust those... easily. Point-and-shoots do not have manual controls, and even the ones that do give you a little bit of control require you to dig into the menus and push a bunch of buttons. Nobody does that. It would be tomorrow before you were ready to take the shot. And because of the tiny processor and wonky firmware, point-and-shoots do not do well at high ISOs anyway, even if you can adjust it. Point-and-shoots are just that: for pointing... and shooting.

2. I disagree with your statement about the methods you use to save, edit and publish your photo. If you don't get the shot to begin with, spending half a day in Lightroom or any other post-processing program isn't going to help your shot. I don't think the OP wants to do that, anyway. A good camera taking shots straight to JPEG will do just fine.

3. Saying "Its about the picture, not what you take it with" is like saying, "It's about the knife, not the steel you make it with." The steel is the knife. It's what makes the knife. The difference between a point-and-shoot and a DSLR (or mirrorless system) when it comes to image quality is enormous, my friend.
 
Wise words, 300.

I've oft heard it said that the photographer is what makes a great picture, not the camera. It was Haebbie's imagination that got us a picture of a bird on a knife.........cameras can't think that stuff up.

I guess that once you take a picture of a knife with a shotgun or with beautiful sunset behind it or a bird sitting on a gut-hook......you're drawn into finding more and more interesting pictures and pretty soon you discover that you have to learn more about the technical aspects of making those pictures--even some without knives in them.

The whole process of dreaming up a picture and then making it happen......that contradictory marriage of two opposing intellectual modes--the impractical creative imagination and the very practical technical knowledge mode.....that's what makes it interesting to me.

:)
 
Mag G......keep in mind that 300 was talking about my camera, not a point and shoot.

Mine is a bridge......so it allows all the controls you mention and allows for easy adjustments.

My concern is with getting photos that are a little bit sharper under difficult and low light conditions.....and I'm not willing to spend a huge amount of money to get that benefit.

But maybe this? How does it compare to the Sony Alpha A230L????

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T...7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319212656&sr=1-7

Does this deal give a pretty good bang for the buck?
 
BG42EDGE said:
Mag G......keep in mind that 300 was talking about my camera, not a point and shoot.

Mine is a bridge......so it allows all the controls you mention and allows for easy adjustments.

My concern is with getting photos that are a little bit sharper under difficult and low light conditions.....and I'm not willing to spend a huge amount of money to get that benefit.

But maybe this? How does it compare to the Sony Alpha A230L????

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T...7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319212656&sr=1-7

Does this deal give a pretty good bang for the buck?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Canon Rebel line is excellent. :) It's more than $100 more than the Sony, but it definitely has a reputation to back it up! Up to you to decide if it’s worth $150 or so more than the Sony. The low-light performance of either will be higher than your bridge due to the sensor size alone but also due to the better glass that tends to be faster (i.e., can open up wider, i.e. has a lower f/stop number), but mainly because of the sensor size.

The larger sensor of the DSLR cameras means that they collect more light/detail per pixel than a bridge camera. Those point-and-shoot (and bridge) cameras advertising 16 megapixels aren’t telling you that they are cramming 16 million pixels onto a sensor the size of the head of a tack. These days, megapixel count is largely for marketing to non-enthusiasts. But a 10 megapixel DSLR with excellent glass will take far superior pictures to a 20 megapixel point-and shoot.

So, what does that mean for low light performance, which you mentioned was important to you? It basically means that as your camera tries to get the right exposure, it can only do a few things: it will try to open up wider (lower f/stop number) and slow down the shutter speed, letting in more light. But if you’re already shooting at the limit of hand-held (1/60 or so) and shooting wide open (maximum aperture opening), then the camera has no choice but to up the ISO.

ISO. Even though digital camera sensors are complex pieces of technology, at their heart they are actually analog devices. An electrical signal is sent to the sensor, with a certain gain for the signal. When you up the ISO, you are increasing the signal strength and increasing gain, but you are introducing “noise.” Basically, the sensor is straining to be more sensitive to light, and it loses detail in the process (causing those ugly, gray, washed-out images taken in low-light). That’s “noise.” The huge sensor of a DSLR deals with the increased signal gain much better, keeping “noise” in check, and they often even have great noise filter options. A good DSLR or mirrorless system can take print-worthy pictures at ISO 3200! Bridge and point-and-shoot cameras usually cannot even give you a useable picture at ISO 800.

Take, for example, a typical low light situation: at a dinner table in a restaurant. With a DSLR, you can shoot manual: bring the shutter speed down to 1/60 or so, turn that IS (image stabilization) on to help with the low shutter speed, boost the ISO to 1600, turn that noise filter on (to further reduce noise in the image), and open the aperture way open as far as it will go (typically 2.8 or 3.5). You just might get a shot good enough to print out.

A point-and-shoot or bridge will try to get the shot, but it will fail because it just doesn’t have the capability. It will want to use a flash, but a lot of people (myself included) think that those on-camera flashes make low-light pictures really ugly. On-camera flashes should really only be used for fill.

Cheers and don’t hesitate to ask anything! Lots of enthusiasts here. :)

Mag
 
Incredible amounts of info here......I'm still processing stuff from the first page along with this one. Thanks to all the contributors.

:)

About that Rebel T3.......would it be better to buy a body and then get a better lens than the usual one they sell with it?

If so.....any recommendations? Perhaps even a non-Canon lens?
 
Take, for example, a typical low light situation: at a dinner table in a restaurant. With a DSLR, you can shoot manual: bring the shutter speed down to 1/60 or so, turn that IS (image stabilization) on to help with the low shutter speed, boost the ISO to 1600, turn that noise filter on (to further reduce noise in the image), and open the aperture way open as far as it will go (typically 2.8 or 3.5).
Click to expand...

With my current camera I'd set the ISO to 800, shutter 1/30th or 1/15th and aperture at 3.5 and use self-timer shutter release while bracing against something (elbows on the table or camera on a decanter or something). I must admit I still have to test this theory, though. :)
 
BG42EDGE said:
Mag G......keep in mind that 300 was talking about my camera, not a point and shoot.

Mine is a bridge......so it allows all the controls you mention and allows for easy adjustments.

My concern is with getting photos that are a little bit sharper under difficult and low light conditions.....and I'm not willing to spend a huge amount of money to get that benefit.

But maybe this? How does it compare to the Sony Alpha A230L????

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T...7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319212656&sr=1-7

Does this deal give a pretty good bang for the buck?
Click to expand...

You might want to check out DPreview: http://www.dpreview.com/products/

You can check out their reviews of cameras and lenses. If you go to the forums, you'll find a lot of user feedback for the various models and will oftentimes see pictures taken with the body/lens combo that you're interested in.

I can't speak about Canon products because I have no recent experience with any of their bodies or lenses. I have heard that Canon does offer a couple of entry level lenses that are fairly decent lenses though (they also have some that aren't very good - so researching is a good idea).

I do have some experience with Sigma lenses (though not in a Canon mount). My experience with Sigma lenses - the more costly models - has been quite good. I generally prefer Pentax glass over Sigma (or anything else in a Pentax mount) but Sigma has some offerings that are very competitive in terms of sharpness, color rendition and general picture quality - usually at a lower price (than the top of the line glass from the camera manufacturer).

Sigma's 17-70 lens is - in a Pentax mount - considered to be a quality lens. I suspect that their Canon mount is equally good. There are occasions when a different maker's lens doesn't play all that well with the camera body. In fact I had such a problem with one of my Sigma lenses (on a Pentax body). Sigma was very responsive to my complaint and had me ship the lens back to them for an update in the circuitry. The lens came back in a couple of weeks and works perfectly since the update.

Canon makes some of the best lenses there are. Generally speaking, those lenses are going to be very expensive but they're worth every penny if you're really serious about picture quality.

As a general rule, fixed-length lenses are sharper and faster than zoom lenses. There are a few zoom lenses that can compete with a fixed length lens, but those are fairly rare exceptions.

Ken Rockwell has a site http://www.kenrockwell.com/ that may be of some help to you. He's a big Nikon fan and some photographers aren't keen on some of his thoughts, but he does a pretty good job of reviewing photography equipment and explaining the various elements essential to good photography. Personally, I agree with his thoughts that the equipment isn't nearly as important as lighting and the photographer, but others disagree.
 
Once again guys, we have to be careful in this thread of serving the forum members. To limit ourselves to the upper end of the spectrum may cut out people who can't justifiy the expense.

Mag, I do not disagree with a single thing you have recommended, just the position that the large sensor, inter-changeable DSLR is necessary for internet and 8 X 10 quality photos. Especially of knives and kids and pets and sunsets at the beach. Mag, I am hesitant to mention models, but for your info to know what I base some ideas on is the Fugi S2950. Small sensor but most adjustments possible. I still will say if I had it to do over I would just stay with a bridge camera. I do not relie on flip flashes so I would hope my bridge would have a hot shoe.

Let me carefully explain my statement that it's the picture not the camera thats important. I agree with you that you should master your epuipment and be able you push it to it maximum. Such as the ability to put razor edge on a knife, whether bench stone or crock stick technique is the most important. So to is the use of a cameras ability. If someone masters a bridge camera then they will likely focus on the picture itself and not too much on it's 'taking".

I believe that some of the bridge cameras have enough ability for quality, to satisify a lot of folks. Those that seek more should look into higher ability cameras. My own goal again is a really good photo of a knife. What is really good ? I guess that is a opinion.

BG, I have your Canon and it is fine. I almost bought the Sony as recommended by Mag. TODAY I would go back and do that because of one factor, the screen is moveable. When I am on tripod, with light box set up and all my white reflectors in place , the lights all humming and the knife all free of dust and fingerprints the ability to tilt the cameras screen to see straight into it improves what you see to accurately know what setting may need tweaked, etc..

Mag has given good DSLR advice, and so has Habbie and Tahts. My advice is more for the person that sees their max investment at the $225 level than the $725+ level.

BG, You have pulled me into one of the great discussions thread that you like.....ha...maybe pulled is the wrong word...ha We are getting far enough out there we need to be careful that this is not a Buck knife thread and more a general photography thread. Moderators may swing into action.

I take pictures of Buck knives. I do a lot of other stuff also and anymore studying about the details of photography is on a lower priority. Its all about how much time you want to invest. I am played out on this subject BG, if you or anyone has questions PM and I will be glad to answer.....we might 'otter' get back to the Bucks before we get whacked..........300Bucks
 
Last edited:
I actually just realized that this is in the Buck Knives forum. :P I found this thread from the main page; I never come to the Buck forum.

I don't know what to tell BG now because I don't know what his price point is or what his experience level is. They seem to keep changing. First he wanted the best value, now he's willing to pay $1,000. First he didn't know about photography, now he knows how to shoot in low light. Here's the deal: if money was not an object, I'd buy a Lecia M9 with a Noctilux F 0.95 lens for myself, and I'd recommend you do the same. But that's an almost $20,000 set up. If you already know the basics of photography and can find your way around a camera (and you have a budget around $1,000), then I take back my suggestion of the Canon Rebel and Sony Alpha.
 
Taht-sa-dats.......thanks for all the info and especially the dpreview link--looks good. I think that, for me, the Sigma lens would probably be the best way to go if I jump into DSLR. Not sure if I want to make that leap. :)

300.....this topic is marked as "Off Topic," so I think we have room to blather on about all kinds of cameras if we wish......otherwise, why do we have an "Off Topic" category? There are precedents. :)

Also......this discussion might actually deter somebody from spending too much on a camera that won't add much to his capabilities.

Mag G.......sorry if I confused you. I never said I don't know photography, I said I'm just learning about digital and how it differs from 35mm. I'm learning a lot and you have been a big help.

As far as what I would spend......I'm learning that it would have to be about a thousand bucks at minimum.......and I could spend that much, but the question in my mind is if the gain I'd get in capabilities is worth it to me.

Still pondering that as I learn more about the costs and options.

I do greatly appreciate all the contributions here.

300.....you really have the same camera as I do??? Or are you saying you have the Rebel?
 
Last edited:
Mag, Yup, you are in the Buck forum. We take pictures of Buck knives and sometimes stuff around Buck knives.

BG, I have a Canon Rebel and a fTN....your bigger Nikon looks interesting to try out on knife photos....the Canon world is fine but I would look at the Sony Alpha because of the swivel ability of the back screen. But I am taking 98% of my photos in a light box. I can't afford the top Canon lens. FYI - Actually the Rebels sensor is slightly smaller than the full sized Canon DSLR.

I defer to your knowledge of the forum rules. Was just being cautious...300
 
Last edited:
I don' know nuthin 'bout no forum rules.

:)

I just surmised that if we had the option of labeling a thread "Off Topic".....we could use it and wander a bit. I've been wrong before.

Anyhow......that flip-screen thing is clearly an advantage in shooting knives (and some other situations that require looking at the viewer from another angle).

There was a great old 35mm SLR that when you needed to shoot from the hip you just pulled off the top and, PRESTO......there was a viewfinder you could look down into. What brand was that? I always wanted one of those......never got one.

So......I'm thinking that migrating screen will be among my criteria in choosing my next camera. Great for shooting KNIVES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top