# Shopping cameras



## Steve NW WI (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm in bad need of a new camera, my little pocket digital is OK for woodcutting pics, etc, but getting pretty beat up, and my older "big" camera, a Kodak digital with a nice big lens and a good zoom, is having startup problems.

The most challenging shooting I do is stock car racing. I've never gotten good night pics, and whatever I buy, this is going to be a must. I freely admit that I'm a no-talent, no-knowledge hack photographer, and 99% of my pics get the "auto" setting. I need to learn more, I know that. I'm open to suggestions on good photo how to books here too.

But back to the mechanical part of it, I'm thinking I need to get into a DSLR. Maybe some of the better semi-pro cameras would work, but I don't have enough knowledge to even know what specs or features are important.

Anyone want to point a maroon in the right direction?

I'd like to stay under 5 bills if I can, but if I need to spend more, I can probably pry the wallet open a little more.


----------



## mdavlee (Sep 2, 2013)

I have a canon t2i and it works good for what we've done with it. It take 3 shots a second and will do pretty good for night pictures. With the bigger zoom lens I think it was in the $950 range. They are cheaper now as there's a lot of newer models. We've taken probably 35-40k pictures with it in the last 4.5 years.


----------



## deepsouth (Sep 3, 2013)

Steve

You're asking a lot to do well in Motorsport night photography for under $500. 

The latest dslr have excellent specs compared to the past and are cheap. 

I think you could be very happy with even a Nikon d3200 at the budget end..... But you then need a fairly long lens, Exactly how long depends on where you're shooting and how close in you are. You may be happy with a 200mm kit lens, or need longer, then you are looking at a few dollars for 300mm zoom lens with a slower variable aperture or a lot of dollars for a pro spec fixed aperture lens. 

I'm talking Nikon here as its what I have... Use and shoot. 

Tbh hard to advise as I'm not sure what expectations you have?


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 3, 2013)

deepsouth said:


> Steve
> 
> You're asking a lot to do well in Motorsport night photography for under $500.
> 
> ...



I've got million dollar expectations on a penny budget, but doesn't everyone? Seriously, I'd be happy with pics that you can actually see what's going on, instead of a bunch of colored blurs. Most of my shooting will probably work well with a 200, but another trip to Talladega, AL will for sure make another bigger lens necessary.

I guess the better part of going DSLR is buying a kit now, and blowing more money on extra lenses, etc. later.

Like I admitted in my first post, my lack of knowledge about cameras and photography doesn't make this any easier.

Here's a link to a bunch of pics I took while on vacation a week ago. Most pics didn't even get uploaded as they were too blurry, especially ones under the lights.

https://plus.google.com/photos/102251462303624200073/albums/5917966675630230609


----------



## KenJax Tree (Sep 3, 2013)

Ask H2H he shoots racing pictures.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 3, 2013)

KenJax Tree said:


> Ask H2H he shoots racing pictures.



Good thinking. I invited both him and Sprintcar to chime in.


Might not have mentioned it above, but I'm not afraid to buy better grade used stuff, I just don't know what's good or bad out there, and ebay has bazillions of cameras on there...


----------



## Typhke (Sep 3, 2013)

I don't know what the prices are over there but I like the Nikon D90 I have. You should be able to find some of them used. It's an older semi-professional model, aluminium body, LCD screen, 2 control discs, etc. It's more based on the pro-models than the D3200 but the specs of the D3200 are better. The thing I miss in the D90 is a great video function, it does film in hd 720p but doesn't have automatic focus while filming. 

Good luck with your search!


----------



## H 2 H (Sep 3, 2013)

Mid range camera I was testing for a few weeks was a Nikon D7100 (about $1,100) works fine but isn't the a pro camera 

The old saying glass is were it's at; is so true !

Mid range equipment (set up) will run in the $2000 to $3000 range 

Nice glass will run $2500 till your back pocket is dry like the the sierra dessert 

Once you get a budget for equipment we could help you more on equipment

When I go to any race I carry two of everything - Bodies (2); lens (4); flash units (2) etc. so I don't have to be changing lens during a race 

View attachment 312962


That setup in my hand in this pic is around $7 grand and I have two setups with at all times

I just did a wedding this past weekend and had three camera setups with me and people ask why pictures cost so much LOL


----------



## mortenh (Sep 3, 2013)

*Refer to the reviews*

Whatever you buy, first check out any review at Digital Photography Review

You might even have a go at their "Buying Guide".


----------



## deepsouth (Sep 4, 2013)

My thoughts are that you need 3 things : a modern body as the newer sensors are better than older. Hence D3200 as this is low budget. 

2. A solid tripod - you can't handhold a long lens in low light and get great results. 
Has to not have movement. There are expensive name brands (like gitzo, have a carbon fibre tripod setup that cost about $1400 us, including RRS ballhead) and also some good Chinese knockoffs now. 

3. A good, but not pro long lens. With the low end bodies, they require the lens to have a focus motor, whereas older lenses did not and had the focus motor in the body. 

This is where 2nd hand can be good.... And Id suggest finding a good forum and buying there.... No different to saws. But swap scoring for fungus in lenses, front or back focus, and other issues.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 4, 2013)

H 2 H said:


> Mid range camera I was testing for a few weeks was a Nikon D7100 (about $1,100) works fine but isn't the a pro camera
> 
> The old saying glass is were it's at; is so true !
> 
> ...



Thanks! It ain't what I wanted to hear, but it's not at all unexpected. If I can pry a grand out of my wallet between now and the next time I take a racing trip, that'd be about max.

Am I gonna find anything in that range remotely capable of good AMATEUR pics? I'm not looking to make the cover of Speedway Illustrated, just have decent pics of races I've been to.

I get the concept of good optics, got several guns that have more money on top of em than in em, but like I've said a couple times, I don't know enough to tell good from junk, other than by price.

I'm really starting to think I need to put a LOT of time into learning more about cameras and photography before I jump out and buy. Suggestions for good learning places appreciated...


----------



## deepsouth (Sep 4, 2013)

I would say yes You can get some gear that likely will work - and as a shooter you should have learnt breathing control? Also need to keep your camera steady for the time the shutter is open. Hence why I suggest tripod. 

Because I chose Nikon on preference of feel and user interface over Canon I can suggest a couple of Nikon focused sites. 

Warning: You think Stihl v Husky gets a fight going; canon v nikon is an ongoing civil war ..... Are there Stihl only chainsaw forums and husky only out there? Plenty of one brand camera forums :msp_wink:

New Camera and Photography Articles | Recent Articles Index for byThom sites | Thom Hogan - good analysis, reviews and learning tips primarily of Nikon DSLR gear, but also smallermirrorless cameras as well. 

DSLRUsers.com &bull; Index page - an Australian forum, more Nikon focused

Nikonians : The Nikon user community - a huge international Nikon forum, good for sale pages if in the USA.


----------



## winland (Sep 4, 2013)

Consumer Reports rankings:
1. Nikon D7100 $1500
2. Canon EOS 60D $1050
3. Olympus E-5 $1700
4. Nikon D7000 $1100
5. Canon EOS Rebel T3i $650 (Best Buy)


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 14, 2013)

I too choose Nikon as my preferred tool. Look into getting a used camera. Buy from a hobbiest to get the best kept gear. Pros beet the heck out of their gear cause it is just a tool to be replaced at a moments notice with a newer more robust model. Most hobbiest are gearheads and treat their gear with kid gloves and take exceptional care of it. 

When I decided to make the switch to digital I bought a new D200 and havent found the need to upgrade at all since. I still use it today, and it is just as capable of taking exceptional photos as the day I bought it. You can pic one of these up today for around $300 in near mint condition. I paid $1700 new. This saves you tons of money for the very expensive lenses you are going to need for low light photography.

When choosing a camera body dont get caught up in the megapixle wars. I have a D1x that is 5MP and a D200 that is 10MP. both of these will make beautiful prints at 20"X30" more MP is just going to take up more disk space on your computer.

Lenses it where it is at. For low light photography you are going to want what is refered to as "fast" glass. This being a large maximum aperture. My 28-70mm zoom has a constant max aperture of f/2.8 and cost me about $1500. I have a 500mm f/4 that I bought used for $2500. You can get a 70-300mm for $100 but it will suck in low light.

A good tripod can make up for cheaper lenses in low light but not for action shots. It doesnt matter how steady you hold the camera if you need a long shutter speed to compensate for a small aperture. The cars are still moving by and will be blurry. 

Here are a couple of examples of older cameras doing just fine. and a couple low light shot.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 14, 2013)

Thanks. I'm still looking - doing more reading than looking though. Trying to learn more before I pry open the wallet.

By the time I get done learning and thinking, it'll be just about time to suggest gift cards to a camera store for Christmas...

I read quite a bit, anyone recommend good photography books / magazines?


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 14, 2013)

Another thought as well. I am a hobbiest as well but I do use my gear. The picture below was shot in the middle of an ice storm. It was pouring down rain, and about 20 degrees outside. As you can see from the second pic the camera got soaked. I did make sure it was good and dry before putting it away and this is also the beauty of a higher end camera. It can take this abuse a little better. A cheap camera would have never worked again.


----------



## mesupra (Sep 14, 2013)

After lots of research into entry level DSLR cameras I was turned onto the Canon Powershot sx50, with some research and after speaking directly to several owners with years of experience in photography I purchased the camera and could not be happier. The lenses is very impressive, it would be eqivilent to buying a Canon t3i thn spending another $500 on additional lenses.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 14, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> I'm in bad need of a new camera, ......
> 
> Anyone want to point a maroon in the right direction?
> 
> *I'd like to stay under 5 bills if I can*, but if I need to spend more, I can probably pry the wallet open a little more.



I'm still under 5 bills / $5000 with a pro camera ... the 5D Mk II

Not sure what Nikon has, but for what you described, sounds like you need the Canon 7D ... and it has two processors built-in. Perfect for sports and action.

What lens you pick ... that's variable. Maybe a 135mm ... maybe something like a 70-200mm.

But you should be able to stay close to $2000 ...


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 14, 2013)

mesupra said:


> After lots of research into entry level DSLR cameras I was turned onto the Canon Powershot sx50, with some research and after speaking directly to several owners with years of experience in photography I purchased the camera and could not be happier. The lenses is very impressive, it would be eqivilent to buying a Canon t3i thn spending another $500 on additional lenses.



That is a good line.

I have the SX10 and was planning on the SX50.

My DSLRs are so far beyond those though, that the SX10 has not left my home in over a year.

But the SX50 is a solid tool.


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 14, 2013)

M.D. Vaden said:


> I'm still under 5 bills / $5000 with a pro camera ... the 5D Mk II
> 
> ..



I think OP was talking $500 not $5,000. This leaves a very limited budget.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 16, 2013)

Photog95 said:


> I think OP was talking $500 not $5,000. This leaves a very limited budget.



Oh ... I guess why $500 didn't strike my imagination was the mention of maybe "semi pro" cameras mentioned in the OP.

Because something like a Canon T3i will probably be $500 for the body alone, and it's barely semi-pro ..

But maybe that's what they meant was $500 on the body alone, intending more for lenses later.

...


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 16, 2013)

500 would be great, but I'm quickly learning that if I want to dive off the deep end, that ain't gonna cut it. It'd sure be nice to stay under 1K though.

mesupra, I looked at a couple of reviews on the SX50, I don't think it's what I want. Pretty slow in burst mode, and didn't rate too well in low light either.


----------



## El Quachito (Sep 16, 2013)

Don't forget the SLRs all have an "auto" button. I am in the market for a $450 SLR from either Canon or Nikon myself. I think feel is important. Hold it in your hands, do you like the feel of the shutter?


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 16, 2013)

El Quachito said:


> Don't forget the SLRs all have an "auto" button. I am in the market for a $450 SLR from either Canon or Nikon myself. I think feel is important. Hold it in your hands, do you like the feel of the shutter?



This is not true at all. Only entry level cameras are going to that the auto settings. Now You will still get automatic exposure if yopu use aperture or shutter priority modes you are still going to need to know what those setting are going to do to get the certain effect needed.

to OP not sure how far up NW you are but Eau Claire craigslis had a couple nice bargains the other day.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 16, 2013)

Dont usually look at the EC cl, will check it out tonight. Im about 2 hours NW of there, pretty much on the MN border.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 16, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> 500 would be great, but I'm quickly learning that if I want to dive off the deep end, that ain't gonna cut it. It'd sure be nice to stay under 1K though.
> 
> mesupra, I looked at a couple of reviews on the SX50, I don't think it's what I want. Pretty slow in burst mode, and didn't rate too well in low light either.



I don't know much about Nikon, other than Nikon obviously has good stuff too.

On the Canon end, The T series, like T2i, T3i, T4i, etc., are known for very good video on top of pretty good photos.

Had a T2i and it was great. But word of advice, the T3i and more recent, have an articulating screen on the back, which can be worth it's weight in gold for composition. Because the camera can be held on the ground, overhead, etc., etc.. Even my 5D Mk II does not have that, and I often go to my 60D when I need the articulating screen.

Probably better to have a pretty good camera with a really nice lens or lenses, than a super expensive camera with cheapo lenses.

Now ... these were taken with an $1100 lens, but look what a 135mm prime lens does for a tractor ...



...


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 16, 2013)

BTW ... if you went like the T2i or T3i route with Canon, there's this new 40mm pancake lens that came out, and it's got great reviews. Pretty much 50mm prime lens like photos, maybe better, but the lens can be found new or used for under $150.

I just saw a Canon T3i with the 18-55mm kit lens for $475 on Craigslist just now. And that's actually an okay starter lens. So lets suppose you had got that camera, and added more yourself.

Canon T3i w/ 18-55mm > $475

Canon 40mm prime > $120

Canon 70-200mm f/4 L > $600 - ish

That, as an example, used, is under $1200. You could probably deal-down to about $1100. And that's with one Canon "L" lens. Not as fast as the f/2.8 0-200mm, but virtually as sharp.

On a combo like this, the first lens you would upgrade would likely be the 18-55mm kit lens. And you would have dozens of choices, from Canon, to Sigma, to Tamron, to Tokina, etc..

...


----------



## mdavlee (Sep 16, 2013)

I'll have to check out this 40mm lens they have now.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 16, 2013)

mdavlee said:


> I'll have to check out this 40mm lens they have now.



Not everybody agrees with all Rockwell writes, but the guy still has a ton of experience.

*40mm Review* >> Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM Review

It's f/2.8 ain't as fast as a Canon 50mm 1.4, but the 40mm is not over $399 like the 50mm either.

I've had the Canon 50mm 1.8 which is closer to $100, but would probably rather have the 40mm if I was to add an inexpensive backup. But I do have both full frame and crop sensor cameras. Some reviews suggest the 40mm may not be the way to go on a crop sensor like a T2i.

In that case, $100 to $399 isn't that bad to get a 50mm 1.8 or a 50mm 1.4 ... if a prime is desired that is. Attached are a couple of photos taken with the Canon 50mm 1.4, which is the $399 lens.


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 16, 2013)

Here are a couple with descent prices. This combo wouls havew you shooting low light autio racing like a pro, and this camera body has the auto setting to get you started until you get brave enough to take control. This is an upper entry level camera body with a professional lens. A little bargaining on both would get you under $1000. That camera can do 720p video as well but from what I understand it is a joke, and I always said video on an SLR was just a gimmick to sell more to soccer moms.

Nikon 80-200 AF-D 2.8

D90 body with good condition


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 16, 2013)

Forgot about your other question. My favorite magazine is outdoor Photographer. As far as books go......I got nuttin. Best learning tool is experience. Find a phto group and ask questions and read all you can on web sites. Start buy learning what your aperture is and what it does to a photo at differnet focal lengths, but also learn that it really doesnt matter how it affects the look of a photo in low light cause you just have to shoot wide open to get the fastest shutter speed possible unless you are doing long timed exposures like capturing lightening. I think this was about a 2.5 minute exposure if memory serves me.


----------



## H 2 H (Sep 16, 2013)

Start out with used equipment (you can always sell it) then get new stuff if the bug bites you IMO

But stay away from a pro photogs gear more than likely it will be used up; check how many pic's the used camera has taking


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 16, 2013)

When picking a camera the best thing you can do is go to a camera store and hold them in your hands and take a few shots with them. If no camera store is near find a best buy or other large electronics store and go play with them. I strongly suggest sticking with Nikon or Cannon. Either brand you choose you have plenty of support right here to help you out.

Now when holding them and playing with them pay special attention to how the shutter release button feels in your hand. That is the button you need to feel the most comfortable with. The rest you will just get used to out of repetitive use. You will also want to navigate the menu system. Being able to find setting you want with ease could mean the difference between getting the shot or fumbling with a camera. I chose Nikon for both of these reasons. Others choose Canon for the same reason. It is all going to be what you like for you.


----------



## King opines (Sep 17, 2013)

I have shot Sony products for the last 5 years, first an A-380 then i boght the 580, which was a tremendous improvement, but i recently had the opportunity to purchase a Canon 7D and some gear at an outrageous price which I did. Being that most of the shooting I do is sports, Football, Soccer etc, I could not believe the differance once again between the 580 and the 7D. Your problem with blurry images at low light could be more from the settings you start off with that the camera itself, try adjusting your ISO factor and shooting from an aperture mode rather than full Auto. Whatever brand you buy take the time to understand the operation of the body, read some websites and dont be afraid to ask questions. You will see a big differance in the quality of your shots. Rather than using a tripod I use mainly a monopod, they are not as cumbersome and will hold the shot steady. If you are looking for a used camera, I have stayed away from craigslist, I have been jipped once off of sellers from there and that was once enough. I have bought much equipment from a site called KEH, and had some that Ive had to send back without any hassle from them. Many Camera stores will also rent you a lens for events that require longer glass, you can always see if thats the right lens for the job needed, and as one earlier post said about the quality of glass, the Lens is as or more improtant than the body itself. have fun, photography is a hobby that can easily consume you, kinda like chainsaws.


----------



## 54stude (Sep 17, 2013)

I would agree to go used.

If you go to national camera in mn, you should be able to get a used Nikon d70 and a Nikkor zoom for 500 used. I might even have a lens for you? PM me.

Tis year we upgraded from a d70 to a d7000, and the difference is noticeable, but the d70 takes great pics, even though it is only 5.1 mp!


----------



## H 2 H (Sep 17, 2013)

This was taking with a D70s


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 17, 2013)

54stude said:


> I would agree to go used.
> 
> If you go to national camera in mn, you should be able to get a used Nikon d70 and a Nikkor zoom for 500 used. I might even have a lens for you? PM me.
> 
> Tis year we upgraded from a d70 to a d7000, and the difference is noticeable, but the d70 takes great pics, even though it is only 5.1 mp!



5.1 megapixels is pretty dang small.

I'd go for the d7000 and just deal with the extra few hundred. Supposed to be good.

Just remembered the OP mentioning racing. And that leaves me thinking a used Canon 7D with it's two processors.

...

...


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 17, 2013)

National Camera is on my list for sure next time I get down that way. I work in Circle Pines, so it's not a long trip there before work, just haven't got a "Round Toit" yet...


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 17, 2013)

M.D. Vaden said:


> 5.1 megapixels is pretty dang small.
> 
> I'd go for the d7000 and just deal with the extra few hundred. Supposed to be good.
> 
> ...



5.1MP is plenty when dealing with an SLR. If I had to go out on a limb I would say 95% of all photos taken these days are re sized for web use. 4.5% will most likely go to china-mart to be printed at 4X6 inch prints. The other .5% will be printed no larger than 8X10. 5.1MP will easily get you 16X20 prints, and I have even done 20X30 prints from my old 5MP Nikon D1x. 

This is why I always say "Dont get caught up in the MP wars"

Now serious hobbyists, and pros will change all those percentages above but we are not talking about a pro here.


----------



## H 2 H (Sep 17, 2013)

Back in 2004 or 2005 I took pic's for a few sprint car teams and we made those pic's into vinyl cover for the back of there sprint car haulers that covered the whole tail end of them (7 ft by 10 ft +/-) those pic's were taking with Nikon D70s 

If I get some free time this week I'll look for them 

Late 90's till around 2005 the D70s was one of my back up bodies I carried every were 

Just remember glass is were it's at !


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 17, 2013)

H 2 H said:


> Back in 2004 or 2005 I took pic's for a few sprint car teams and we made those pic's into vinyl cover for the back of there sprint car haulers that covered the whole tail end of them (7 ft by 10 ft +/-) those pic's were taking with Nikon D70s
> 
> If I get some free time this week I'll look for them
> 
> ...



I've seen stuff like that before.

It's often designed to be viewed from a slight or moderate distance.

With affordable 10, 16 or 18 megapixel cameras available, I'm not sure why go with a 5 megapixel camera where some photos may stand a chance of enlargement, and other not so much.

Especially when good lens glass can be matched up with a 16 megapixel camera too.

10 megapixels is about the least I'd go with anymore. And that being sort of the median ...


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 17, 2013)

H 2 H said:


> This was taking with a D70s



Just for comparison, can you pull a 100% crop of that man's, or those women's faces to show some closer detail?

I'm guessing the image is maybe reduced in width.

*Recall the lens?*

...


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2013)

Here's something in the 18 megapixel camera range. With very good glass, a 135mm f/2 ... but the f/2 where this shot was taken, is not it's sharpest either. Anyway, here is the image, but reduced. A full body shot and then some, vs. a closeup. I suspect the *Nikon d7000* etc., can easily meet this quality too, with the 16 megapixels.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2013)

Now here are two crops.

One is 100%.

The other is 200% ... in other words, cropped at !00% and then it's width was doubled. Fabric detail still pretty much intact from about 25 to 30 feet away. As is the detail of the hair.


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 18, 2013)

This is the reason why I dont visit photography forums as much anymore. What it the point of this cropping but only for pixle peepers to measurebate. You will never print either of thos crops. The original would look very nice as a 20X30 from a 15 foot veiwing distance which is where you would probably standing when looking at a print that size. I could take that same shot with a 5MP D70 and print it to 20X30 and place them both at 15 feet and you would be hard pressed to find anyone that could pick out any difference in the details in the hair of shorts, not to mention you are not even going to be looking for individual strands of hair anyway. 

Nice shot BTW. I love the props and background choice.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2013)

Photog95 said:


> This is the reason why I dont visit photography forums as much anymore. What it the point of this cropping but only for pixle peepers to measurebate. You will never print either of thos crops. The original would look very nice as a 20X30 from a 15 foot veiwing distance which is where you would probably standing when looking at a print that size. I could take that same shot with a 5MP D70 and print it to 20X30 and place them both at 15 feet and you would be hard pressed to find anyone that could pick out any difference in the details in the hair of shorts, not to mention you are not even going to be looking for individual strands of hair anyway.
> 
> Nice shot BTW. I love the props and background choice.



Actually, I would print stuff like this and view it from 3 feet away.

There's one Asian model I photographed, and considered printing a 20 x 30 of her standing in a vine maple grove. And me, or others, would be looking at it from not just distant, but from a mere few feet away. Likewise with this photo below. It's got a residence on the right hand side with some pretty cool looking concrete or stone railing that shows up completely in the 20" x 30" print haning right behind me as I type. That's why details seems to matter. Or, put another way, the *potential* for details. There's going to be some photos I take that will be printed for viewing like *10 feet* away. Say, the *Portland Yard, Garden and Patio show*, where images are on the backdrop of my booth. But I want cameras and lenses that have the options for big photos to be seen both near and far.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2013)

In that last image, the point of focus is actually the rocky area in the middle where the two forks meet. So the railing is out from that. But here's what I enjoy being able to see in poster size prints. Apparently, judging by this *100% crop*, the image file could provide a fairly detailed 60" x 40" print.

So 8 to 10 megapixels would probably be a fairly reliable camera for consistent poster size prints ... and I'm guessing 5 or 6 megapixels would be a fairly consistent 11 x 14 and 16 x 20 shooter.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2013)

One other thought about photos, cameras, lenses and details ...

I wouldn't call it pixel-peeping, but this is more related to* salvaging* a photo. The head shot below is *not* a head shot. It's cropped from a bigger image. I didn't care for the rest of the image. Sometimes it's nice to have enough detail that a photo can be extracted from a photo.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Sep 18, 2013)

I do occasionally print out bigger pics for friends. I take a lot of farming pics while field work is going on, my friend has 16x20 or so pics of his combine and 4x4 tractor on the wall in his office, from my old 6MP camera, they looked pretty good blown up.

Most of my pics do, however get shared on the internet (drastically resized), although I do crop quite a bit as well. I also have one of those digital picture frames that I fill with pics from previous years' race trips and set up on the table outside the camper for visitors and friends to look at.

Pretty sure I don't need a 4000gigapixel camera, at least to start. I'm kinda looking at this like buying cars, equipment, etc. I'll get something that'll do the job, and I can upgrade later and still get some of the original investment back when I trade or sell the old stuff.


----------



## H 2 H (Sep 18, 2013)

One thing about my photography is it happenings in a split second and then it's gone forever nothing staged except trophy shots. I think it would be hard to tell race promoters; team owners and drivers to stop in the middle of a race so I could take a picture of them 

That pic I posted earlier was from 2006 ? (it was on the first page of photobucket site) with a backup camera I don't have the time to move settings around or change lenses from different and cameras during races; I carry two to three bodies set up with different lenses. It was also taking with f/3 (plus) lens on a dusty sprint car track with flash and it wasn't ps'ed (at night) if you ever been to a dirt race track you'll know what im talking about :msp_smile:

And that pic did make a national rag :msp_smile:


PS: those D70s were such a bad camera


----------



## Photog95 (Sep 18, 2013)

I hope you dont think that I am trying to pick a fight here. I understand what you are talking about with heavy cropping and details. Most people are not even going to care. The shot above with the river....I spotted that one on your website and fell in love with it. It is an amazing shot as a whole. I would not even consider getting up close to a large print of it to start picking rocks out of a rail. That need to be enjoyed by stepping back and looking at it as a whole from a proper veiwing distance for whatever size print you have. I love it.

Now back to the pixle peeping. It really is fun sometimes. The shot below is a fun example. Somewhere around here on a CD I have the RAW file for this shot. It is really fun to look at it as enlarged as possible before losing details. Somewhere in one of those upstairsa windows there is a clock hanging on the wall and you can actually see what time I took this shot. Kinda cool.


----------



## Beefie (Sep 18, 2013)

You guys have given Steve a hole head full of info, me as well. The biggest thing that is going to happen is to get Steve to open his wallet:hmm3grin2orange: Keep those awesome outdoor shots coming. The lightning and the Iced up tree are just mind blowing, you guys have the talent to see whats good.


Beefie


----------



## Photog95 (Nov 8, 2013)

This looks like it might be a pretty good buy.
http://lacrosse.craigslist.org/pho/4171043333.html


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 9, 2013)

LaCrosse is a bit of a road trip, but I might give a call if I have some time tomorrow. I haven't really shopped much yet, but I was leaning towards a T3I. It sure looks like I'll have all the overtime I want (or more than I really want) for the next few weeks, might be a camera on the Merry-Christmas-To-Me list.


----------



## bubba3228 (Dec 3, 2013)

Steve I was and still am looking for a decent entry level camera and wanted to do more research as well. I found this forum (http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/n/d/851.jsp) to be helpful with the learning curve. Hope it helps.

Bub


----------

