Sony A200 , total newbie here . . .

I skipped reading most the posts to say:

A monopod just helps you be more steady but needs you to hold it

A tripod doesn't need your support meaning you can get a better image and you can even get in the shot

Auto mode will work fine for snap shots ~(you could also use Program mode (P) which allows more flexibility than auto but is essentially the same)

Dont cheap out on support accessories, the last thing you need is your camera to fall and break because you bought a cheap strap / cheap support.
Unfortunatelly good security doesn't come cheap and tbh.. opteka are terrible I have a Super telephoto from them, it is rubbish (mirror lens).

If you want true security go manfrotto or other top brands
Just remember in photography, you get what you pay for.

All the best :)

Macro filters are rubbish i have a set tbh, they arent Terribly bad but they dont work well... its basically a magnifying glass
on your lens (~next to the glass) it should say a size, most likely 58mm, these filters will fit...
 
Last edited:
So I want to buy macro lens or filter , a friend of mine told me that I need to get one that it's 55mm , is this right for my camera ??

LINK for option A

LINK for option B

Which one would you choose and why ??

Remember that I use the bundled lens which are 3.5-5.6 / 18-70

Option B. The +10 in option A is too extreme and the macro filter would be extremely curved, creating an extremely shallow focus area. Very slight camera movement from even breathing would take a +10 out of focus.

The dragon fly in my gallery would be the equivalent of a +2.

skieur
 
So I want to buy macro lens or filter , a friend of mine told me that I need to get one that it's 55mm , is this right for my camera ??

LINK for option A

LINK for option B

Which one would you choose and why ??

Remember that I use the bundled lens which are 3.5-5.6 / 18-70

Option B. The +10 in option A is too extreme and the macro filter would be extremely curved, creating an extremely shallow focus area. Very slight camera movement from even breathing would take a +10 out of focus.

The dragon fly in my gallery would be the equivalent of a +2.

skieur
Cool . . . so they do work huh ?? so if I want a set of this for my lens , how the heck do I check which one I need ?? where does it says if it's a 55 or 58mm ??
 
So I want to buy macro lens or filter , a friend of mine told me that I need to get one that it's 55mm , is this right for my camera ??

LINK for option A

LINK for option B

Which one would you choose and why ??

Remember that I use the bundled lens which are 3.5-5.6 / 18-70

Option B. The +10 in option A is too extreme and the macro filter would be extremely curved, creating an extremely shallow focus area. Very slight camera movement from even breathing would take a +10 out of focus.

The dragon fly in my gallery would be the equivalent of a +2.

skieur
Cool . . . so they do work huh ?? so if I want a set of this for my lens , how the heck do I check which one I need ?? where does it says if it's a 55 or 58mm ??

The kits come to fit your lens in various sizes, so you need to order say a 55 or 58mm kit. I even used a +2 on a 200mm telephoto for a macro shot without getting too close. You can also combine them, putting a +2 on top of a +4 etc.

skieur
 
I'm thinking about getting a grip strap myself, if only because wearing my camera around my neck makes me look 100% tourist.

Damn near pissed myself Ben. :lmao:

I have tripodS, monopod & a Gpod often with a ball head mounted & all have a place & time. Here is an example:

1. This is the set up using a tripod to shoot some wasps building a nest

P1000468sm.jpg



2. This pic taken with another camera on a monopd at the same set-up of a wasp at the nest below the subject area in the first pic.

P1000486sm.jpg



All said & done I agree a monopod or Gpod is more suitable for a traveling man.
 
Nothing I've read about macro filters makes me want to buy them. They seem to produce pretty poor quality images.

But nothing you've said about what kind of photos you want to do requires macro anyway. Macro is used to fill up the frame with something very small. Are you already thinking of other subjects for your photos?
 
Nothing I've read about macro filters makes me want to buy them. They seem to produce pretty poor quality images.

But nothing you've said about what kind of photos you want to do requires macro anyway. Macro is used to fill up the frame with something very small. Are you already thinking of other subjects for your photos?
Not really sure how to explain , all I know is that I have tried to get the same results with my A200 and I can not get them , here is a picture of what I do when I sell a phone , this pic was taken with my Canon Point and shoot camera SD630 6.0 mepixels on macro mode

img0409medium.jpg


On that topic , this picture was taken with the same exact camera and lens that I have , how the heck do you get this kind of pic ?? I mean is the blury background Photoshoped ?? or is it a setting ?? because I will love to take pics like this . . . can somebody please tell me in simple english (sorry way to dumb to understand all this picture taking lingo :blushing:)

3781645661_5c8ea651df_o.jpg
 
The look of getting the background blurred but the subject in focus like that moth is direct result of the aperture on your camera. This number is usually seen with an F in front of it (f# or f/#). A smaller number (that picture was taken at f/5.6) is what creates that look (depth of field). Hope that helps.
 
the blurry background is cause buy a very low F/Stop

(aperture)

that bokeh (the blur) looks like it might be about 1.2 - 1.8
you can achieve this with a 50mm f1.8 (no idea how much sony charge but canon chrage $100 which i think is standard between all 50mm f1.8's)
 
that bokeh (the blur) looks like it might be about 1.2 - 1.8
you can achieve this with a 50mm f1.8 (no idea how much sony charge but canon chrage $100 which i think is standard between all 50mm f1.8's)

Posted above. It's f/5.6 per the exif.
 
that bokeh (the blur) looks like it might be about 1.2 - 1.8
you can achieve this with a 50mm f1.8 (no idea how much sony charge but canon chrage $100 which i think is standard between all 50mm f1.8's)

Posted above. It's f/5.6 per the exif.

in that case, it must have been taken with a zoom lens?
 
On that topic , this picture was taken with the same exact camera and lens that I have , how the heck do you get this kind of pic ?? I mean is the blury background Photoshoped ?? or is it a setting ?? because I will love to take pics like this . . . can somebody please tell me in simple english (sorry way to dumb to understand all this picture taking lingo :blushing:)
There are several factors that affect depth of field (DOF)...aperture, focal length, distance between the camera and the subject and distance between the subject and the background. If you want a narrow DOF you would use a fairly large aperture opening (smaller f/stop value), a long focal length (the longer the lens is, the narrower the DOF gets...wide lenses will have deeper DOF), get closer to the subject (the closer you get, the narrower the DOF will become) and be sure the subject is far from the background (the farther the better).

Depth Of Field Tutorial

Examples For Understanding Depth Of Field

Also, if you didn't take the picture you shouldn't imbed it in your post...copyright laws and such.
 
in that case, it must have been taken with a zoom lens?

Yeah, exif shows 50mm focal length (Loko said it's the same lens he has, which he's said is an 18-70mm.

Camera Make: SONY
Camera Model: DSLR-A200
Image Date: 2009:08:02 14:46:45
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm (35mm equivalent: 75mm)
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv: 400
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: program (Auto)
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top