just found a review claiming the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 to be the bestEST of the "high-quality advanced compact" cameras
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/gear/Produ … 1199.shtml
agree?
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/gear/Produ … 1199.shtml
agree?
don't be - learn from others, i have.Jenspm wrote:
Sorry for yet another question,
Excellent place to start. My buddy shoots a T1 and he loves it.Jenspm wrote:
Sorry for yet another question, but Christmas is coming and I have to compile a wish-list
From what you guys have said, I understand the Canon EOS 500D (aka T1i) is a good starting camera? Or is there something else (cheaper?) that would be a better option? It is available on Amazon with the "EF-S 18-55 mm IS Lens Kit" for £473.. Is that a good lens combo? Or are there other combos that are better/have more value?
I've never used a DSLR before, and only rarely use the manual settings on my compact. But now I don't have a compact anymore, and feel it's about time to get a "big boy". My flickr username is Jenspm should that be relevant to anything at all.
Thanks <3
70-200s are good for portraits, but generally the primes in the 80-135 range are the best, especially because of the faster apertures. they aresignificantly cheaper too, which is nice. Cept for the 135 F/2, which is amazing but also $1000Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
OOO im eyeing that fixed lens size too. Wallpaper do it!!
i've got the nikon 50 1.4 D
excellent sharpness and bokeh. it's yum. i cannot imagine focal length of 80~ the desired portrait lens is the 80-200? tho f2.8 however that pro lens is uber expensive.. looking at one of the off branded ones tokina or tamron has that 2.8 for a better deal.
please post some pics. . .Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
headed to zion/bryce tomorrow Yay!
I got my sigma with f/2.8 for was it 600EUR or something similar. So I'd say that's a bit mucho. But then again it says Cannon in the box.
I couldn't agree more.. it makes my head hurt (sometimes literally). A good photo imo is clean, accurate, and crisp.Uzique wrote:
seriously what is it with the trend in photography nowadays to hyper-saturate all your images with colour so it looks as if you constantly experience 'reality' on mescaline? no colours are that bright or that contrasted. it's impressive in certain shots but when everything is totally nuked with extremes it just makes it look as if you live in disneyland. why are photographers afraid of mid-tones and subtle warmth nowadays?
Last edited by Kimmmmmmmmmmmm (2010-12-23 09:03:34)