New and looking for help :)

S

Suvvey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
85
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Hi everybody

Im new to the photography scene so please bare with my newbishness :bang:

I am looking to buy a DSLR and currently looking at the Canon 600D. I think the flippy out screen attracts me more than anything else and that is why i would like to ask you pros a few questions.

Im not sure what kind of photography i will be moving on to but i do have plans to begin with cars. Mostly consisting of still shots and close ups of engine bays, alloys and that sort thing.

The kit i am looking at comes with 18-55mm lens. Is that suitable to what i would be starting out with? Im guessing the length of lens determines the distance that i can get a focal point? What is the max distance i can expect from a 55mm lens? After reading arround the website i have become aware that the lens makes a massive difference to the effectiveness of the camera so any suggestions and tips would be much appreciated.

From this camera i am am hoping to have a nice base which i can learn my way arround a DSLR and will be able to make use of all the functions after familiarising myself with all the features. I do not want to feel the need to upgrade 1 year down the line.

Thanks

-Alan
 
Ah thats a very nice guide. Sorry i tried to use the search engine but there is so much information to siv through on these forums.

Now after reading what you said, "the 18-55 measurement tells you how wide a view you get" and what the guide says, "You can work out the zoom multiple of a lens by dividing the longest focal length by the shortest so a 18-55mm zoom is 55 divided by 18 = about 3x", I am confused to how those two are related.

Is it possible to explain with examples of the same picture but with a different lens. Sorry this could be going off on a tangent which might be better suited to a different section.

I know, I know :bang:

:(
 
To give you an idea this was shot at 32mm
Img_2295.jpg


and this one at 24mm

Img_2641.jpg
 
the x3 it's referring is the zoom factor that particular lens provides, i.e. at maximum zoom an object will appear in the viewfinder 3x larger than at minimum zoom.

Basically, the lower the mm number the more you'll fit in the viewfinder, and the kit you're looking at will be a great starting point. I will say though, if you can do without the flip out screen, the 550D is basically the same camera hardware wise so you could save yourself a little cash to put toward your next lens :)
 
What you need to remember is that on a 600d there will be a crop factor. This in its basic form means that whatever focal length the lens is, you have to multiply it by 1.6 (read up about crop factors if you're interested why). Thinking in terms of 'X', ie 3X zoom is kind of irrelevant, you just need to know that at the shortest end you will have the equivilent of 28.8mm (18x1.6) and at the long ends you will have 88mm (55x1.6). I don't know if this is patronizing as I don't know how much you already know, but 50mm is generally considered about equal to what the human eye sees, so with 28.8mm you'll be able to see a wider view than this and at 88mm you'll be able to see things closer than our eyes, but at the same time this means you'll not see as much of the scene of course.

Unfortunately I have no example at various focal lengths so can't provide those but you can probably google "focal length image comparison" or something.
 
Appreciated. Ok, from what i understand now "the zoom" and "how wide" are two different expressions for same meaning? As in 1mm would be basically 0x zoom and 55mm is ~3x zoom.
 
Not quite :) a 1mm or any prime lens (one that has just one focal length, be in 50mm or 600mm) will be 0x zoom but 55mm is just the focal length. As was said above the x is simply how much further it zooms in at its max vs its min focal length.
 
Difficult concept to get your head round when you are new to this stuff :)

18 mm is the distance from the front element (The big front glass in a simple lens) to the film (or sensor) in the camera. So the closer the lens (think of it like looking out of a window) is to the film then the wider the view.

A 300mm lens like you see at sports events can't see a lot of the pitch but is good for detail of the player.
 
Suvvey said:
Appreciated. Ok, from what i understand now "the zoom" and "how wide" are two different expressions for same meaning? As in 1mm would be basically 0x zoom and 55mm is ~3x zoom.
Click to expand...

Almost, but no :) If I were you I'd forget about the Nx zoom number, it's pretty irrelevant on a system where you can change lenses anyway. All you really need to understand to begin with is, the lower the number (in mm) the more of the scene will be in the image. And conversely the higher the number the less of the scene you'll see, but everything you can see will appear larger.
 
The kit lens is ok to find your feet and get to grips with.

These were thaken with the kit lens:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon18-55is/pool/

Once you are happy with the body you might want to consider a prime lens such as:

Canon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 or may be a macro lens like the Tamron 90mm
 
The thinking behind the flippy out screen was due to starting with cars i would be taking a lot of varied angles and was hopeing this would help me out with high and low angled shots (and i like gadgets lol).

Wow i can tell this is going to be a long process. So many things to know and i know you guys haven't even scratched the suface. :thinking:

Nice photos tris101 :thumbs:

Thanks a lot guys i do understand the lenses a lot better now but am i right in saying i will understand it more when i come to using one? lol

I just saw you posted those links as i finished typing this so i will go have a look just now.
 
The pics are not mine, Flickr can be helpfull as you can get images taken with lens you are looking at to get a feel for them.

The info in the links maybe helpful to you.

I'm still very much learning myself there is always something new to try.
 
I think ive got this. If you take a DSLR with the theory that that image is always the same size. For instance if you used a 18megapixel with a 300mm focal point then you would see a lot less of that image but would have a lot of detail on the part you can see. However, if i used a 1megapixel with a 300mm lens i would still see the exact same "zoomed" image but there would be no detail whatsoever. And vice versa - a 18megapixel with 24mm would show me more of the "theorized image",not all of it, but most of it.

Haha i really dont think i explained that very well but in a strange and distorted world it makes sense to me. I think.
 
Lol but now i ask how can a Lens can improve my image quailty if it is at the exact same range. For example a 15-55mm and a 25-105mm (they probably dont exist but its just in theory lol) both set to 40mm range would surely give me the same image quality?

"Once you are happy with the body you might want to consider
a prime lens such as:

Canon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 or may be a macro lens like the Tamron 90mm"

Is this where the 1.8 and 1.4 figures kick in?
 
Suvvey said:
Lol but now i ask how can a Lens can improve my image quailty if it is at the exact same range. For example a 15-55mm and a 25-105mm (they probably dont exist but its just in theory lol) both set to 40mm range would surely give me the same image quality?
Click to expand...

No.

The lens is what resolves the image onto the sensor. Better quality lenses resolve mores details and produce a more contrasty image, so produce sharper and nicer looking images.
There is also f/stop to consider. The maximum aperture of a lens is how much light it can gather. An f/2 lens lets in 4x as much light as an f/4 lens, so you can get faster shutter speeds and shoot in lower light. Larger apertures (smaller f/stops, the lower and f/stop is, the larger the aperture) also give a smaller depth of field and so more background blur, letting you get more separation from the background and a better looking photo. Lenses with larger apertures are bigger, heavier and more expensive, but can produce images that smaller apertures can't.
Look at the price and size/weight difference between a 300mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4. The 300mm f/2.8 is a lot less practical for carrying around (and for your wallet!), but it can get images that a 300 f/4 can't, since you can achieve more background blur and get faster shutter speeds. And neither of those lenses are as flexible or easy to carry as a 70-300mm f/5.6, but they both cost a lot more. As glass gets better, it general becomes hugely more expensive and less practical.
The lens has everything to do with image quality.
The camera is just the thing you put on the back to record the images the lens resolves.
 
Last edited:
No the difference in quality is down to the glass used in the lens and the number of lens required to make a lens type of coating etc, it’s a lot more complicated than that but give you an idea.

The F number is the aperture this is not a of lens quality guide. It’s about the amount of light a lens can pass onto the sensor. Again it’s more complicated than that as it also control Depth of field.

Prime lens i.e. fixed lens with not zoom offer the best image quality. The zoom is achieved with your feet by moving the camera closer of further from your subject.
 
Think you are trying to run before you can walk :)

Read the tutorial I linked to earlier again.

Coming from compact cameras it is a lot to take in. Megapixels are much less important for a good image with a DSLR. A used DSLR with 6 or 8 MP will do much better than a 12 or whatever MP compact.

Get a camera with a 'kit' lens. By the time you have learnt enough to use it without having the camera on full auto you will have enough knowledge to make decisions on new lenses or other upgrades.
 
squishy said:
No.

The lens is what resolves the image onto the sensor. Better quality lenses resolves mores details and produce a more contrasty image, so produce sharper and nicer looking images.
There is also f/stop to consider. The maximum aperture of a lens is how much light it can gather. An f/2 lens lets in 4x as much light as an f/4 lens, so you can get faster shutter speeds and shoot in lower light. Larger apertures (smaller f/stops, the lower and f/stop is, the larger the aperture) also give a smaller depth of field and so more background blur, letting you get more separation from the background and a better looking photo.
The lens has everything to do with image quality.
Click to expand...


So the image quality depends on the quality of the lens, not the focal range. That makes sense lol
 
Suvvey said:
So the image quality depends on the quality of the lens, not the focal range. That makes sense lol
Click to expand...

Yes, the focal length is to do with how far 'zoomed in' the image is, not the image quality.
 
Lol i think you are right Robert.

So the proposed kit will be good for me in the respect that it will force me to learn? A camera with too few variables is just asking for me to get lazy lol
 
Suvvey said:
So the image quality depends on the quality of the lens, not the focal range. That makes sense lol
Click to expand...

Haha still not 100% correct :) focal length does in a way (thats not yet been explained to you!). Generally if you have a zoom lens, it will be a bit better quality at the smaller focal length! Im not sure if that counts for every lens though and don't know the reason why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top