Seriously folks. If you’re looking to start exploring DSLR photography, this is a great way to do it.
A quick google search for reviews of this camera ought to reveal many indepth camera reviews including a couple of great sites, dpreview is more brief and factual, and Ken Rockwell is prolific if nothing else and loves his Nikon D40. Trust the technical information Rockwell gives, but keep in mind that he is pretty opinionated about preferences between one camera and another. I’ll give you the nitty gritty of it here:
Nikon D40 Quick Review:
Body: Compact and Light (for an SLR)
Lens Compatibility: ONLY AF-S lenses (Autofocus drive built into lens)
Memory: Accepts SD and SDHC
File Format: Raw, JPG, or Combination
Sensor: 6 Megapixel
Personal Experience
I’ve been using the Nikon D40 for a few months shy of a year now so I can officially tell you something useful about it. The Nikon D40 is not a Hasselblad H3DII-39MS, it is not a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR nor is it a Nikon D3. If you don’t know what any of those specific cameras are, or even recognize the brand Hasselblad, then chances are you don’t need a $44,000 39 Megapixel camera, an $8,000 21 Megapixel camera, or even a $5,000 12 Megapixel camera (top Hasselblad, Canon, and Nikon DSLR respectively).
I’ve written before about the right way versus the wrong way to chose a digital camera. It was a long drawn out article that may or may not have been useful. Quick synopsis: if you just want a camera to make a good looking image for you anytime you pull it out of your pocket, then stick with a point and shoot. If you are looking to have maximum control over the look and feel of the image (how bright/dark it is, what’s crisp and what’s out of focus) and the ability to change the zoom range of your camera without buying/learning about a whole new camera then consider a DSLR. As far as megapixels: look for something with at least 6 Megapixels and then forget about it (unless you plan on regularly printing posters larger than 11 x 14).
So IF you think a DSLR might be worth playing around with AND you don’t plan on regularly printing larger than 11x14 consider the Nikon D40.
You can check out my Flickr site to see pictures taken with it, both casually as well as more intentional “photography”. You can also check out any number of groups on Flickr that are composed entirely of D40 photos.
Look into it and if you decide to get a DSLR, use it. Don’t just stick it on a shelf somewhere. If you don’t decide to get a DSLR, then get your point and shoot and go take photos of the world and people around you. Either way, it’s up to you. Just don’t waste the technology you are lucky enough to have.
Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Amon and Mike with Liberty Bell
Just got back from Philly seeing Patti, and the various sights. I think my favorite part was the food. Marathon Grille was a nicer place, Lemon Grass was the best curry I've ever eaten (and at a Prix Fixe $9.95 for appetizer, soup, and entree very reasonable), and the cheesesteak was decent.
Click through HERE to see my 32 favorite photos from the weekend.
Click through HERE to see my 32 favorite photos from the weekend.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Cherry Blossom Kiss
Yes, the pandamonium that is the yearly Cherry Blossom Festival is upon us. This means that it's time for people who never come into DC to break out the bikes, the strollers, and the group T-shirts and clog the metro system. Smithsonian is once again hung with the banner, "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here (have ticket ready when entering and exiting, stand back - doors closing)".
Little bit of cheesy romance for the sheer fun of it.
As usual, head over to my Flickr account (a link now lives permenantly over on the right hand side of this page with the other links) to see the rest of the pictures from this year's Cherry Blossom Festival outing, as well as all my other pics I've posted to Flickr.
CHEERS!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Experimental Photography Set
I've added a new set to my Flickr account for some experimenting I'm doing with my new camera. It's nothing new in the photography world so don't get excited. I could tell you were starting to. I'm just practicing some techniques that people have been doing for awhile but that I haven't tried before. The photos that are in the set right now are for motion tracking. I was encouraged to do this by checking out the Flickr account of an acquaintance from NCC, David Russel. He made some suggestions for this type of image and I thought I’d give it a go.
The images will likely be familiar to anyone who’s seen photos from a race or seen a single car advertisement. The idea is that while a subject is moving you pan with them. You are then able to use a slightly longer shutter speed because, relative to the frame, they aren’t moving much. However, because the background IS moving, relative to the frame, it gets blurred out. The result is an image where the main subject is relatively sharp, and the background gives a feel of movement.
This is nice for two reasons. One reason is the aforementioned sense of motion. It’s great for giving a picture a sense of dynamics and energy. The second reason has to do with the blurring of the background. Just like using a large aperture (f/3.5-f/1.4) the motion tracking technique results in the desired subject being clear while everything else around it is blurry. Using aperture for this technique results in an out of focus background, puddles of color, while the motion tracking technique results in an environment that is, well, blurred, often with trails instead of puddles. It’s hard to describe, but definitely a different feel.
Mike's motion tracking experiment:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcolburn/sets/72157604088917873/
Also, note the difference between motion tracking blur…
And aperture/out of focus blur (lamps), (Amon)
The images will likely be familiar to anyone who’s seen photos from a race or seen a single car advertisement. The idea is that while a subject is moving you pan with them. You are then able to use a slightly longer shutter speed because, relative to the frame, they aren’t moving much. However, because the background IS moving, relative to the frame, it gets blurred out. The result is an image where the main subject is relatively sharp, and the background gives a feel of movement.
This is nice for two reasons. One reason is the aforementioned sense of motion. It’s great for giving a picture a sense of dynamics and energy. The second reason has to do with the blurring of the background. Just like using a large aperture (f/3.5-f/1.4) the motion tracking technique results in the desired subject being clear while everything else around it is blurry. Using aperture for this technique results in an out of focus background, puddles of color, while the motion tracking technique results in an environment that is, well, blurred, often with trails instead of puddles. It’s hard to describe, but definitely a different feel.
Mike's motion tracking experiment:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcolburn/sets/72157604088917873/
Also, note the difference between motion tracking blur…
And aperture/out of focus blur (lamps), (Amon)
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Nikon D40 Review
So far soo happy.
Allright thus far I've taken several thousand pictures with my new Nikon DSLR (digital SLR) and wanted to take this chance to make some comments.
Background (Skip if you're simply interested in why I like my camera):
(just a summary, go to Wikipedia for full articles about each)
Cameras come in all sizes and shapes. One way of classifying cameras is by how the light or image gets from the outside world onto the recording surface (either film or digital sensor). The original cameras were merely boxes with a bit of film stuck to the inside and a tiny pinhole on the opposite end of the box that allowed a tiny image to be "projected" onto the film. Because the hole was so small it took a long time to expose the film, but the image usually had equally crisp lines from the closest objects to the furthest (large depth of field). This was rather an unwieldy instrument though since you could only take one photo before having to change the film, and couldn't really preview what you aiming at.
Over time other camera designs sprang up including the twin lens reflex (TLR), the single lens reflex (SLR), and the point and shoot. The "reflex" in the SLR and TLR name is in reference to a surface that remains closed until you depress the shutter release at which point the surface moves out of the way to allow the light to hit the recording surface. A TLR uses two lenses, so the scene you are shooting is always visible though one lens that is dedicated to giving you a preview (often at the top of the camera and you look down onto a preview surface), and the light for the exposure is only let through the second lens when you depress the shutter release. The benefit of the TLR is that there is no point where the scene in the preview is blocked.
An SLR only has one lens, so when the shutter release isn't being triggered the light hits a mirror on the blocking surface and the image is directed to the eyepiece. When yhou press the shutter release on an SLR, the blocking surface and mirror (they are together) swing out of the way to allow the light to hit the recording surface, however this results in a temporary black out of the eye piece. This black out with the SLR is only for the time that the shutter is set for, most often less than 1/30th of a second. The advantage of the SLR is that the image you see in the eye piece is EXACTLY what is going to be recording, no paralax or offset view. Many SLRs even have an image preview that will show you what the depth of field will look like so you can predict very accurately what the scene will look like.
The other type of camera is a point and shoot. Like the TLR the view in the eye piece is slightly offset from the lens that makes the image, however there typically isn't a lens for the preview, simply a glass window from the front of the camera to the back where the photographer looks to see roughly where the camera is pointed. TLR and SLRs most often have interchangable lenses whereas point and shoot cameras usually have a single dedicated lens.
DSLR or Point and Shoot
If you primarily want a camera to take candid snap shoots where ever you might find yourself and do the occassional artistic photo, don't get a DSLR. They are still way bigger than the standard point and shoot, and absurdly larger than the smallest point and shoot. I always have my Canon digital Elph, SD400, with me. Well, anytime I'm with messenger bag. Because this camera is so small I can pack it anywhere and always have something to take decent pictures with. A picture you can take because you actually had your camera with you is always going to be better than one you couldn't take because you didn't have your huge DSLR with you.
Now that's a bit of an exageration to make a point, because I OFTEN have my DSLR in my messenger bag as well...just not as often as my Elph. And the fact that I carry my DSLR around in my messenger bag is probably the exception. However the reason I'm willing to carry around the larger DSLR is that it can take phenomenally better pictures. It has a wider range or zoom on the lens, the lens is faster (allows more light through it allowing quicker shutter times), has a better sensor that looks decent at higher ISO settings, is a higher megapixel sensor, and I'll some day be able to afford more or better lenses.
There are just some things you can't do with a point and shoot, such as crank the ISO up to 3200 and take photos in relative dark with no flash and relatively little camera shake. Also, I can put my DSLR in to fully manual mode and control literally every aspect of the camera from zoom to focus, to shutter speed, to aperature, to ISO, to white balance, and more. If none of that meant anything to you, then you probably want a good point and shoot camera, and they are certainly out there.
I can highly recommend the Canon Digital Elphs as I have one I love and know several other people who swear by them as well.
Hope that helped. If you have any specific questions about my experiences thus far feel free to holler at me in the comment section and I'll do my best to answer.
Mike
Allright thus far I've taken several thousand pictures with my new Nikon DSLR (digital SLR) and wanted to take this chance to make some comments.
Background (Skip if you're simply interested in why I like my camera):
(just a summary, go to Wikipedia for full articles about each)
Cameras come in all sizes and shapes. One way of classifying cameras is by how the light or image gets from the outside world onto the recording surface (either film or digital sensor). The original cameras were merely boxes with a bit of film stuck to the inside and a tiny pinhole on the opposite end of the box that allowed a tiny image to be "projected" onto the film. Because the hole was so small it took a long time to expose the film, but the image usually had equally crisp lines from the closest objects to the furthest (large depth of field). This was rather an unwieldy instrument though since you could only take one photo before having to change the film, and couldn't really preview what you aiming at.
Over time other camera designs sprang up including the twin lens reflex (TLR), the single lens reflex (SLR), and the point and shoot. The "reflex" in the SLR and TLR name is in reference to a surface that remains closed until you depress the shutter release at which point the surface moves out of the way to allow the light to hit the recording surface. A TLR uses two lenses, so the scene you are shooting is always visible though one lens that is dedicated to giving you a preview (often at the top of the camera and you look down onto a preview surface), and the light for the exposure is only let through the second lens when you depress the shutter release. The benefit of the TLR is that there is no point where the scene in the preview is blocked.
An SLR only has one lens, so when the shutter release isn't being triggered the light hits a mirror on the blocking surface and the image is directed to the eyepiece. When yhou press the shutter release on an SLR, the blocking surface and mirror (they are together) swing out of the way to allow the light to hit the recording surface, however this results in a temporary black out of the eye piece. This black out with the SLR is only for the time that the shutter is set for, most often less than 1/30th of a second. The advantage of the SLR is that the image you see in the eye piece is EXACTLY what is going to be recording, no paralax or offset view. Many SLRs even have an image preview that will show you what the depth of field will look like so you can predict very accurately what the scene will look like.
The other type of camera is a point and shoot. Like the TLR the view in the eye piece is slightly offset from the lens that makes the image, however there typically isn't a lens for the preview, simply a glass window from the front of the camera to the back where the photographer looks to see roughly where the camera is pointed. TLR and SLRs most often have interchangable lenses whereas point and shoot cameras usually have a single dedicated lens.
DSLR or Point and Shoot
If you primarily want a camera to take candid snap shoots where ever you might find yourself and do the occassional artistic photo, don't get a DSLR. They are still way bigger than the standard point and shoot, and absurdly larger than the smallest point and shoot. I always have my Canon digital Elph, SD400, with me. Well, anytime I'm with messenger bag. Because this camera is so small I can pack it anywhere and always have something to take decent pictures with. A picture you can take because you actually had your camera with you is always going to be better than one you couldn't take because you didn't have your huge DSLR with you.
Now that's a bit of an exageration to make a point, because I OFTEN have my DSLR in my messenger bag as well...just not as often as my Elph. And the fact that I carry my DSLR around in my messenger bag is probably the exception. However the reason I'm willing to carry around the larger DSLR is that it can take phenomenally better pictures. It has a wider range or zoom on the lens, the lens is faster (allows more light through it allowing quicker shutter times), has a better sensor that looks decent at higher ISO settings, is a higher megapixel sensor, and I'll some day be able to afford more or better lenses.
There are just some things you can't do with a point and shoot, such as crank the ISO up to 3200 and take photos in relative dark with no flash and relatively little camera shake. Also, I can put my DSLR in to fully manual mode and control literally every aspect of the camera from zoom to focus, to shutter speed, to aperature, to ISO, to white balance, and more. If none of that meant anything to you, then you probably want a good point and shoot camera, and they are certainly out there.
I can highly recommend the Canon Digital Elphs as I have one I love and know several other people who swear by them as well.
Hope that helped. If you have any specific questions about my experiences thus far feel free to holler at me in the comment section and I'll do my best to answer.
Mike
Thursday, January 31, 2008
True Confessions
For the first time in my life I'm really, truely excited about a season premier. True, I was looking forward to the Season 2 premier of Project Runway, but that was nothing compared to how excited I am for Lost Season 4 to premier tonight.
There, I've confessed it and you can all judge me. Or not judge me. Whatever, I can feel myself NOT being judged right now.
In a somewhat redeeming turn of events, I went to the National Community Church annual retreat last weekend. It was the second time I've been to this particular event and it was great. I've posted some new pictures on my Flickr account, a couple taken from that weekend and many that weren't.
Head over and check out the new pictures.
-Flickr Account-
Mike
There, I've confessed it and you can all judge me. Or not judge me. Whatever, I can feel myself NOT being judged right now.
In a somewhat redeeming turn of events, I went to the National Community Church annual retreat last weekend. It was the second time I've been to this particular event and it was great. I've posted some new pictures on my Flickr account, a couple taken from that weekend and many that weren't.
Head over and check out the new pictures.
-Flickr Account-
Mike
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Camping on Cloud 9
Just a short post today to celebrate the news I got yesterday. While working furiously on some drawings, an Outlook window popped up temporarily blocking my view. In annoyance at all the incoming emails, my cursor darted down to close the window. Before I could click though, something caught my eye and I opened the message.
It's official. I passed my CTS-D certification. For those that didn't know back in September (23-29), I took a week long course followed by a take home test on a Friday night, and a10 hour (straight, no break for lunch) test on a Saturday that involves creating an entire Audiovisual design package (plan views, device locations, elevations, reflected ceiling plans, device wiring, heat load calculations, equipment rack layouts, siteline calculations, sound level calculations, brightness calculations, and more) as well as an oral evaluation where you get interegated for ten to thirty minutes depending on how well you're answering the questions.
You then wait over a month not knowing how you did. So after over a month I know, I passed. Not too shabby either, 80 on the practical (giant design package); 92% on the take home and 95% on the oral. Considering how short a time I've really been doing AV (as distinct from acoustics) I felt really good about those numbers.
Oh, and I FINALLY ordered my digital SLR I've been drooling over for 3 years. Amon told me to, and I found a good deal on an entry level SLR from Nikon (D40) that I've read excellent reviews about. It isn't a cadillac, but it should do everything I need it to, it's a huge step up from a point and shoot, and it's in my budget. I'm very happy about that.
So I'm a happy camper right now. And I get to go to small group tonight and be with all my fellow Narnians.
Mike
It's official. I passed my CTS-D certification. For those that didn't know back in September (23-29), I took a week long course followed by a take home test on a Friday night, and a10 hour (straight, no break for lunch) test on a Saturday that involves creating an entire Audiovisual design package (plan views, device locations, elevations, reflected ceiling plans, device wiring, heat load calculations, equipment rack layouts, siteline calculations, sound level calculations, brightness calculations, and more) as well as an oral evaluation where you get interegated for ten to thirty minutes depending on how well you're answering the questions.
You then wait over a month not knowing how you did. So after over a month I know, I passed. Not too shabby either, 80 on the practical (giant design package); 92% on the take home and 95% on the oral. Considering how short a time I've really been doing AV (as distinct from acoustics) I felt really good about those numbers.
Oh, and I FINALLY ordered my digital SLR I've been drooling over for 3 years. Amon told me to, and I found a good deal on an entry level SLR from Nikon (D40) that I've read excellent reviews about. It isn't a cadillac, but it should do everything I need it to, it's a huge step up from a point and shoot, and it's in my budget. I'm very happy about that.
So I'm a happy camper right now. And I get to go to small group tonight and be with all my fellow Narnians.
Mike
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Detroit Photos
Finally got around to uploading some of the photos from Detroit. Didn't get the camera out too much, but when I did catch you can see below. It was great getting to see Ian and Mike, as well as Amon's Mom and Allen. Plus I made it to some parts of Detroit I hadn't been to yet. The last thing that I know of in Detroit that I really want to do is see the Zoo, still haven't done that yet.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Megapixel Madness
DO NOT BUY A CAMERA JUST BECAUSE IT HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS THAN ANOTHER CAMERA!!!
I’ve been reading more and more articles lately saying that the number of Megapixels (how much information your digital camera captures when you snap a photo) is getting to the point where most people aren’t well served to simply look for the camera with more Megapixels.
Check out this link to West Coast Imaging for a fantastic (and colorful) chart illustrating how different megapixel ratings affect print quality at various sizes. (Hint: the number inside each little rectangle is the effective DPI. DPI is the dots per inch and is how you measure what quality a print is.)
200 DPI or higher is recommended for photographic quality prints.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t find myself printing out two foot by 3 foot prints that often. Ok, never. The largest I’ve ever printed out is 8x10, and that was in photography class in college. That means that for most people, the biggest concern is that they want to crop their picture down and only print part of it.
Let’s say you crop your picture down so that you’re only using the bottom left corner of the image (throwing away 75% of the image…seriously, shoot more discriminately). If you did this with a 4 megapixel image (2464 x 1632 pixels), the remaining image (after cropping) would be 1232 x 816 pixels. Tiny, right? Well that image could still be printed at roughly 204 DPI as a 4x6 image (remember over 200 is considered photo-quality). 4x6 is the standard size for prints from a photolab.
Bottom line…if you are going to be lazy and shoot pictures that have to be cropped to one quarter of their size, a 4 megapixel camera will still let you print photo quality images at the most common size. If you are going to print photos as 8x10s (without cropping) you only need 4 megapixels. Everything above that only serves to allow you to crop more and still print at the same size, or to print larger than 8x10 with minimal cropping.
This tells me that the most important thing in cameras, 4 megapixels and higher, is how well they capture color, sharpness, how good the lens is, how small or easy the camera is to use, and how much it costs.
Last thought. If you are only going to post your photos to your website then keep in mind that most photos get posted at a maximum of the screen resolution. Screen resolutions right now range from 1024x768 to 1920x1200. However, much more common is for images to be used on websites inline with the text at resolutions of less than 640x480. You could do this with less than 25% of a 2 megapixel image Please, please, please, do not spend a couple hundreds dollars extra JUST to move from 6 to 7, or even 6 to 9 megapixels. If the camera has other features,GREAT, if you absolutely know that you are going to crop most of your pictures, then consider it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
