10D - Tamron and Leica Digilux2

[voodoocat]

I would definately go for a DSLR if you feel you've outgrown that point and shoot. Either the 10D or the D70 which is coming out soon. Both have a great set of features... with the best one of them all. the ability to go into all manual mode.

 

[danalec99]

Please go to : www.fotki.com/zestfulpuma

Check out 'experiments with the S400' .[/url]

 

[markc]

If not 10D, which one would you recomend for me as a beginner? Currently I use the Powershot S400.[/color]

What is there about the camera that you don't like or would like to be different? It think that will drive where you should go next.

And re. the lenses, since I'm a beginner, instead of buying a handful of lenses, would you recommend the Tamron 25-300?

Like so many things, "it depends".

I recommend starting with a 50mm. For the 10D, the 50/1.8 is an inexpensive but decent lens. People never like to do this, because they want to take all sorts of telephoto and wide-angle shots. If you want to just "take pcitures", then the Tamron is a perfect choice. The one lens covers a wide focal range, and if you aren't going to be taking low-light images, or don't care about a really short depth-of-field, then the max aperture of f3.5 is fairly serviceable. Note that the opposite is not true. Just because you buy the Tamron does not mean that you aren't serious about photography. Most photographers I know own a decently-ranged zoom.

If you want to reduce your learning curve as much as possible, I think the best way to do that (and many instructors agree) is to reduce your choices in focal length. I ramble a bit about that here. If you do get the Tamron, I would follow what I said about using only certain set focal lengths. Your eye should develop much faster that way.

The nice thing about a prime lens (just one focal length) is that they have big apertures, which you need to reduce depth of field. You can't shoot pics like this with a zoom.

If you don't care about that style or shooting in low light like this:

f1.8, 3200 speed film pushed to 6400, and there's still motion blur!

then this won't be a big deal.

It's not that getting the Tamron will somehow make you a bad photographer. In fact, it's a great lens when you have to be mobile and don't want to (or can't) lug a lot of glass around with you. But the 50/1.8 is inexpensive enough (especially when compared to the 10D and some of the other lenses) that if you find it too limiting for what you want to do, you can get the Tamron and keep the 50 for the above special occassions. There are usually a decent number of them on eBay.

Gah. I need to shut up and do some work. The short answer: most people would get and would be happy with that Tamron. If you want to challenge yourself, get the 50/1.8 first.

 

[voodoocat]

great advice markc. I feel I learned the most after put away my zoom lens and started shooting with the prime lenses I had. I fell in love with my 50mm f1.7 lens cause it was so damn sharp (and quick) I have a 28mm, 50mm, 100mm macro and 135mm for portraits. I haven't touched my 70-210 in ages.

 

[markc]

Please go to : www.fotki.com/zestfulpuma

Check out 'experiments with the S400' .

I think reading this article that ksmattfish posted might be helpful. You have some nice images in there, but I don't know if you are really pushing the limits of that camera. If you have the cash for the D10, then I don't think it will be a bad purchase, but don't expect your photography to suddenly get better. Your images might become different because you have more to play around with, but from my own personal assessment of where you are at (which is only my personal opinion, mind you), I think focusing on composition would be a better investment (no pun intended).

You do have an eye. I just think you need to take a whole lot of images so that it will develop into something more. Looking at the work of as many photographers as possible, taking lots of pictures, and maybe a course on composition and style would all help. A course on art appreciation, even if it's just paintings, can really improve a person's eye.

 

[danalec99]

Thanks for the valuable advise markc

I'm defenitely interested in photos like the one you posted (boy in the meadow). Thats the type that I intend to shoot. And I am also interested in the motion blur effect.

'Boy in the meadow' to me is a classic shot. I would like a camera/lens that would deliver me that result. If it is 50/1.8 gives me that result. Thats what I want. Does Canon has a 50/1.8?

What is Tamron 300/25 primarily used for?

And, did you get a chance to check out 'experiments with S400' at www.fotki.com/zestfulpuma ?

 

[danalec99]

I'm not interested in taking 'just' pictures. I'm interested in taking good pictures, for example, like the 'boy in the meadow'. A camera for me would not just be a 'tourist' accessory.

I'm literally a newbie. Thanks for the ear and thoughts!

 

[danalec99]

I just checked out Matt Needham. Thats what I want to do, be it color or bw. Can I start attempting to do that with a 50/1.8?

 

[markc]

Does Canon has a 50/1.8?

Yes, and a more expensive 50/1.4. Mind you, those will become effectively 80/1.8 and 80/1.4 on the D10 because the sensor is smaller than 35mm film. It will still be a good starting lens because you will be shooting with just one focal length. You'll just be limited in the kind of landscapes you will be able to shoot.

What is Tamron 300/25 primarily used for?

Just about everything. It's like a point-and-shoot. It does a lot of thing fairly well, while each prime lens does a limited number of things really well, including some things that the zoom can't do. That's why I think going to an SLR and putting on a zoom isn't much of an upgrade. You end up giving it P&S-like attributes.

And, did you get a chance to check out 'experiments with S400' at www.fotki.com/zestfulpuma ?

Yup. That's what my previous post is based upon.

 

[markc]

I just checked out Matt Needham. Thats what I want to do, be it color or bw. Can I start attempting to do that with a 50/1.8?

Great stuff, isn't it?
The 50/1.8 (effective 80/1.8 ) will give you the shallow depth of field. The compositional quality will have to come from practice and skill.

 

[danalec99]

You said I should rather invest on composition.
Could you briefly explain a bit on 'composition'?

 

[danalec99]

50/1.8 (80/1.8)

Does all the brands make 80/1.8 lens? If so, which brand should I pick?
Or is it just a canon baby? Do you know the approximate price range for a 80/1.8?

 

[markc]

You said I should rather invest on composition.
Could you briefly explain a bit on 'composition'?

Composition is the arrangement of elements in the image. Where do you put the main subject? How close do you get? Are there strong graphical elements in the image (like diagonal lines and such)? If color, what colors are involved?

This book by Bryan Peterson is a wonderful investment for anyone starting with photography. It goes into how the various settings on your camera affect your image.

 

[danalec99]

Thank you sir! Its composition that plays the key role in a photograph. I realize that and I should get hold of the book.

 

[markc]

50/1.8 (80/1.8)

Does all the brands make 80/1.8 lens? If so, which brand should I pick?
Or is it just a canon baby? Do you know the approximate price range for a 80/1.8?

I wouldn't worry about trying to duplicate someone's equipment exactly. That's what that article Matt posted talks about. First thing I would do is read that Peterson book. You don't even need to own a camera to get something out if it. Try out some of what he talks about with your current camera. Once you have a better understanding of what focal length, aperture, and other settings do to an image, you will be in a better place for deciding what equipment you want to buy because you will know what you want it to do.

If someone buys something because it's what someone else uses, they usually end up disappointed.