Camera Help Please???

[Yorick]

Just spoke to the missus when she got it.
Her first words...

"I'm buying you a camera for your birthday. "

Aha. So we chatted and gonna buy something as recommended above.
And she's up for putting some effort in and learning about cameras and photography

[Ant]

Air shows and motorsports events I use my SLR in full manual, using the metering I use the histogram to get the exposure set, then leave it for a while until the daylight changes. AI servo focusing is good, sometimes I'd go manual focus for certain things. I like the additional functionality of a big body canon such as buffer size, frame speed, dual cards. My Olympus OMD EM 10 is fantastic too, meaning I get a great camera in a smaller package for family days out without having a huge heavy camera with me.

[Horse]

a multi function scroll wheel where you'd imagine the zoom buttons are, it adjusts various things (shutter speed, aperture etc. Well I say "etc" Slenver's right in that there are generally only 2 adjustments )

To clarify this:
1. How big the hole is that lets light in
2. How long it's open for

e.g. Low ambient light is likely to mean, compared the same image taken in higher light, that you need either a bigger hole (aperture), longer time open (exposure), or both.

Implications are:
Bigger aperture = narrower (distance from the camera) depth of field i.e. in focus
Longer exposure = potential for blur if either/both camera or subject move

A simple guide is that bigger (diameter) lenses let in more light. Typically the glass will have coatings to reduce reflections, getting more light in.

Going back to the two examples I used [much] earlier.

'Pin sharp, spokes 'frozen' = very high shutter speed (low exposure time). This requires good ambient light.

Bike in focus, blurred background, 'dynamic'. Requires longer exposure, with the camera 'panning' to follow exactly the bike's movement.

But let's add a third. You want the bike 'frozen' and both background and foreground blurred. Here, with good ambient light, you can use a wider aperture and shorter exposure to limit the depth of field.

@Slenver & Co. I'm dredging this from my dim and distant, so please correct if wrong.

Someone else can do ISO and implications of 'Raw'

[Mr. Dazzle]

You don't need to know that stuff to take a half decent picture though, but it sure helps.

IMO the biggest and best skill is learning how to frame and "get" a shot. It's the old cliche right, the only thing you can't adjust in post is composition (with generative AI that's not even true any more!).

If you practice you get an idea of what looks good and what you want, the technical know how just means you know how to achieve your goal. More blurry, softer back ground, sharper...whatever.

However, you want some basic knowledge so you don't get completely demotivated by making only crap pics.

[Demannu]

Might be a bit late, but I have a fuji hs30exr which I can highly recommend as something a complete fuckwit can take decent images with. Comes with a 35-720 lens as standard, takes all formats inc raw, fits in my paw comfortably.

[Yorick]

This is one of the few that are available here. Bit cheaper at £370

Can this accept big lenses as necessary.
It looks as though it has a lens that goes in and out.
And a separate lens?

I'm confused???

User friendly?

I really need to ask as I have no idea

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8887892

Thanks

[Demannu]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

[Horse]

IMO the biggest and best skill is learning how to frame and "get" a shot. It's the old cliche right, the only thing you can't adjust in post is composition (with generative AI that's not even true any more!).

However, you want some basic knowledge so you don't get completely demotivated by making only crap pics.

It's a good example of the 6P principle.

e.g. You'll never get the picture you want unless you're stood in the right place, and it'll be much more likely if the camera's set up correctly. etc.

[Yorick]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

If so, doubt I'll need more

[Demannu]

https://www.canon.com.au/get-inspired/c ... al%20point.

For motorsport, I'd say 125mm lens minimum, but bigger is better, up to 300mm, then it's just willy waving or you're a long way away from the subject.

Just looked at teleconvertors, fuck my old boots they're pricey!

[Yorick]

Really appreciate your help.

Could you point me to a simple SLR body that will be easy to use.

Then can add bigger lens when we're a bit more savvy

For lenses, it's much more complicated! Zoom lenses (ones that can move between different focal lengths - nothing to do with shooting far into the distance as a lot of people confuse it with) are much more flexible than fixed focus lenses, but you lose a lot of quality, and tend not to let in as much light, so much worse for fast action and/or low light. I'd always recommend Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens. Ludicrously cheap (60-odd quid) and good enough for pro-level photos. Buy this and a body and you can learn everything you need to take day-to-day photos.

Many lower-end bodies will come with 'kit' lenses. Often something like 18-55m. Perfectly usable but normally shit. Worth nothing on eBay as most bodies come with them anyway so they don't add value to a body. Good enough to learn how to use a camera, but best discarded and replaced with something better when at the next stage.

Canon 500D with 18-55mm kit lens and only 4,800 shutter actuations - £170



Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens £65

Tamron 70-300mm lens £69

The EOS2000 camera I quoted above comes with the 18-55, but you said it was shite? So should I avoid it ?

But you showed 18-55 on Ebay???

[Mr. Dazzle]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

If so, doubt I'll need more

50mm is roughly 1x zoom on an SLR, what you'd consider a normal photo. The number refers to how long the lens is but to get a zoom you need to know the camera its being combined with...however common or garden SLR is gonna be the same in that regard pretty much.

[Slenver]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

If so, doubt I'll need more

It will zoom to 55mm, the full length of the lens.

The frame will always be filled - what with just depends what you point it at and how far away it is

As a rough guide, the human eye is approx equivalent to a 48mm lens on a 35mm equivalent camera. A 50mm lens is usually referred to as a 'standard' lens as it's as close as any to the eye just looking in front of you. So 55 is about 10% enlarged compared to the eye.

It's complicated by cameras with smaller sensors not following this rule, but they're often quoted as the 'equivalent' to the above.

But for the cameras we've been talking about above, you need to multiply by 1.6 to account for the smaller sensor.

[Yorick]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

If so, doubt I'll need more

50mm is roughly 1x zoom on an SLR, what you'd consider a normal photo.

So if it's 55m away, it will seem tiny ?

[Horse]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

Keep asking. At the moment, you're at a level I can answer

Very very roughly, for an SLR, 50mm is about what you see, just looking (ie no camera), holding a frame up ahead of you. If you'd want to see more detail, then you'd walk closer to the subject if you could. If you can't, then you need a zoom lens.

Move the frame closer, so it shows more of what's ahead (wide angle) = smaller mm number, hold it further away = bigger mm, smaller area in the frame (zoom).

[Mr. Dazzle]

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

If so, doubt I'll need more

50mm is roughly 1x zoom on an SLR, what you'd consider a normal photo.

So if it's 55m away, it will seem tiny ?

Unless it's something huge

It'll look "naked eye".

The big stuff you see pros with track side is sort of high hundreds of millimeters.

[Yorick]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

If so, doubt I'll need more

It will zoom to 55mm, the full length of the lens.

The frame will always be filled - what with just depends what you point it at and how far away it is

As a rough guide, the human eye is approx equivalent to a 48mm lens on a 35mm equivalent camera. A 50mm lens is usually referred to as a 'standard' lens as it's as close as any to the eye just looking in front of you. So 55 is about 10% enlarged compared to the eye.

So basically a waste of time ?

[Horse]

And this shows why you need to get your mate with photo kit and selection of lenses, Penny, and you and a bike.

In fact, park the bike so you can see for yourself.

[Yorick]

Takes EF-S lenses
And for a decent 250mm will set you back €250 or thereabouts

Am I right in thinking that a 18-55 will zoom to 55m? Will that fill the frame ? Might seem obvious to you lot.

Keep asking. At the moment, you're at a level I can answer

Very very roughly, for an SLR, 50mm is about what you see, just looking (ie no camera), holding a frame up ahead of you. If you'd want to see more detail, then you'd walk closer to the subject if you could. If you can't, then you need a zoom lens.

Move the frame closer, so it shows more of what's ahead (wide angle) = smaller mm number, hold it further away = bigger mm, smaller area in the frame (zoom).

Aha. Now I see it. I was confusing MM and metres.

So I'd need at least 200 to get a decent piccy on track

[Mr. Dazzle]

Sounds obvious, but the best way to get a decent pic is to find/blag a good place to stand!

I got some really good shots at Spa by climbing up a fence and looking 'down' the track and Eau Rouge (until I got told off ) using a 350mm lens...but the same lens from the Grandstand would only really get a 'wide shot'.

To get the sort of pics you see in the press you either need to be well inside the normal spectator barriers, have an ginormous lens, or more typically both.