• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Help me pick first DSLR

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
elitejp said:
If you just want to take some snap pics that are still very good quality then something like the Canon G11 would be an excellent choice. Im a member of a photography forum and people are always asking what lens to use in taking a trip to disney world or other places and many times the response is to keep the dslr at home and take a smaller type camera. So all these things need to be considered.
Click to expand...
G11:

Continuous Shooting
Normal: approx. 1.1 fps; AF: approx. 0.7 fps; LV: approx. 0.8 fps (Large/Fine)

One of my main reasons to want another camera (see OP) is response. My P&S takes about 7 seconds between shots. I'm not certain that if flash is off it's somewhat faster, maybe maybe not. It's dog slow and I miss a lot of shots. The G11 is way faster, but nothing like the Pentax K-x with it's 4.3 shots/second (a review at imaging-resource.com says this is what they tested, although it's said to be 4.7/sec). The K-x is relatively compact for a DSLR, I'm told. Haven't seen one yet. Traveling, I'd likely just take the 18-55mm kit lens.

I've seen it said in this forum that someone seriously into photography needs 3 types of cameras:

DSLR
midsize, such as the G11
compact P&S

I got my Samsung P&S before the really compact P&S's started appearing. It's kind of a cross between midsize and compact, having a viewfinder. Other than that it doesn't have a lot going for it. It's OK for some things, but for any kind of action it sucks.

When I told an acquaintance a couple of years ago that I wanted to get a DSLR, she simply said "Nikon or Canon?" She has a 5D. I told her I was looking at other brands. At the time I didn't know about buying into a system, what it entails to be seriously into the DSLR world. From where I am, I'm not sure I want to or will get that into it. A DSLR and a couple of lenses and a flash, some filters and hoods may be as far as I go, so maybe I'd be OK and happy with a Pentax or Sony, is my thinking.
 
Ya at those prices i am more than willing to go new as well. Take a look at the Canon 40D if you want to go used. Its a very capable camera that shoots 6.4fps (?)and it isnt be expensive.

Your quoted response to me reminded me of another consideration. If you still have that acquaintance that uses the Canon 5d I would see if he or she would be willing to share lenses with you. Or if you have a bunch of friends that shoot Nikon I would try to borrow lenses from them. Buy into whatever system that they are using. Lenses are SOO SOO much more important than the camera body. This is mainly why most people will recommend canon or nikon.
 
Muse said:
I've seen it said in this forum that someone seriously into photography needs 3 types of cameras:

DSLR
midsize, such as the G11
compact P&S
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that. To me, there's only two sizes: "Fits in my pocket" and "Doesn't fit in my pocket". Compact P&S's fit in my pocket for when I don't want to lug any gear around. I still have a midsize superzoom (Panasonic DMC-FZ20) from my pre-DSLR days, but I haven't used it in years.

When I told an acquaintance a couple of years ago that I wanted to get a DSLR, she simply said "Nikon or Canon?" She has a 5D. I told her I was looking at other brands. At the time I didn't know about buying into a system, what it entails to be seriously into the DSLR world. From where I am, I'm not sure I want to or will get that into it. A DSLR and a couple of lenses and a flash, some filters and hoods may be as far as I go, so maybe I'd be OK and happy with a Pentax or Sony, is my thinking.
Click to expand...

It's hard for a photography gearhead to make a recommendation for a Pentax or Sony. It is sort of like you saying you want to build a new computer system, and saying you want a motherboard with a soldered VIA chip and integrated graphics (for the sake of argument, this is back in the early 2000's when VIA still had somewhat competitive processors). Will it work and probably meet your needs? Yes, but the fact that you can't swap in one of the two most common processor brands on the planet make it so that it would be hard for one of us to recommend. The Pentax will have certain advantages (size among them) but it will always be "quirky" and incompatible with most of the rest of the photo world. Canon and Nikon both offer a huge amount of current lenses (over 50 for Canon, probably 30 or so for Nikon); 3 or 4 current model lines of bodies (entry consumer, consumer, prosumer, pro) with at least 2, but in some cases as many as 7, previous models in each of those model lines; 4 or 5 current flash units; and enough accessories to fill a room, both first-party and third-party.

So, while it may seem (and in fact it is true) that we are somewhat... navel-gazing, closed-minded, stuck in the mud, etc.... we are that way for a reason. The K-x does look like a great body, especially for the price, but as enthusiasts, we can't imagine being stuck with a relatively limited range of choices vs. Canikon. At the same time, we can't really imagine using the same Samsung P&S for eight years either. So we're living in somewhat different worlds. We're giving the best advice that we know how, but it might simply not be so applicable to you.
 
elitejp said:
Ya at those prices i am more than willing to go new as well. Take a look at the Canon 40D if you want to go used. Its a very capable camera that shoots 6.4fps (?)and it isnt be expensive.

Your quoted response to me reminded me of another consideration. If you still have that acquaintance that uses the Canon 5d I would see if he or she would be willing to share lenses with you. Or if you have a bunch of friends that shoot Nikon I would try to borrow lenses from them. Buy into whatever system that they are using. Lenses are SOO SOO much more important than the camera body. This is mainly why most people will recommend canon or nikon.
Click to expand...
She's very nice and if practical we probably could share lenses. Thanks for that idea. So, basically any lens she has for her 5D would work with any Canon DSLR I might have?

The other guy I know (who's local) into photography might have lenses, I don't know. He worked in camera stores for many years, I believe, until recently. However, he prefers film and has some fancy big film cameras. I don't know if he has any lenses I could use with a DSLR. I'll ask him.
 
slashbinslashbash said:
So, while it may seem (and in fact it is true) that we are somewhat... navel-gazing, closed-minded, stuck in the mud, etc.... we are that way for a reason. The K-x does look like a great body, especially for the price, but as enthusiasts, we can't imagine being stuck with a relatively limited range of choices vs. Canikon. At the same time, we can't really imagine using the same Samsung P&S for eight years either. So we're living in somewhat different worlds. We're giving the best advice that we know how, but it might simply not be so applicable to you.
Click to expand...
What I might do is buy something used, an entry level DSLR like the XS, XSi or an early Rebel or one of the older Nikon entry level DSLRs with one or two kit lenses and wait until the next generation Pentax comes out and see how I feel about things. If I still like the Pentax and especially if it's corrected what just about everybody thinks is an oversight in not having illuminated AF points in the viewfinder, I could sell my used equipment and get the new Pentax.

I ordered my Samsung P&S on January 3, 2004, so yes, it's been my only digicam ever for 6 1/2 years. Sigh... 🙂
 
Last edited:
Muse said:
She's very nice and if practical we probably could share lenses. Thanks for that idea. So, basically any lens she has for her 5D would work with any Canon DSLR I might have?

The other guy I know (who's local) into photography might have lenses, I don't know. He worked in camera stores for many years, I believe, until recently. However, he prefers film and has some fancy big film cameras. I don't know if he has any lenses I could use with a DSLR. I'll ask him.
Click to expand...

Yep, any Canon EOS lens will work on a Rebel. There are full-frame lenses ("EF" in Canon parlance) and crop-frame lenses ("EF-S"). A Rebel is a crop body, so it will accept both full-frame and crop-frame lenses. A 5D is full-frame, so it can only accept full-frame lenses.

Full-frame sensors are the same size as 35mm film, i.e. 24mm by 36mm. Crop sensors are roughly half that, usually roughly 25mm x 16mm. A crop-only lens is lighter and smaller because it produces a smaller image. The compatibility issues arise because of this and because, on Canon at least, the crop lenses stick out into the frame of the body a little bit. On a crop body, the swing-up mirror is small enough to miss this protrusion, but a full-frame mirror will hit an EF-S lens and the camera will be unable to function.

Nikon makes the same distinction: "DX" is crop-frame, "FX" is full-frame. The lens compatibility listing for Nikon is a little more complex, however. Nikon's full-frame FX bodies are able to accept the DX lenses, but the sensor will auto-crop to DX size for use with those lenses (essentially wasting half the sensor when used with DX lenses). The mirror issue doesn't exist with Nikon because of the way they designed their lenses.

The bigger lens compatibility issue with Nikon is the focusing system. Nikon's older lenses use a mechanical connection between the body and the lens to focus. The newer lenses (like all Canon EOS lenses) use electrical connections between the body and the lens, and the focus motor itself is in the lens instead of the body. At one point, Nikon eliminated the focus motor from its cheaper DSLR bodies (D40, D60, D3000, D5000) in order to save money, and since all of Nikon's newer lenses all work based on the electrical connection anyway. However, this creates a situation where a lot of the existing stock of Nikon's lenses will not autofocus on these cheaper bodies. That is why I would not recommend one of those cheaper bodies... I would take a used D70 over a new D5000.

All of this goes back to the 80's when camera companies were first figuring out how to do autofocus on their SLR's. Canon created the entirely new EOS system with the EF mount and did away with compatibility for their older manual-focus FD mount. Nikon kept compatibility with their F-mount (so manual-focus Nikkor lenses back to the 60's will still work on modern Nikon bodies) but had to create a kludgey (IMO) AF system based in the body.
 
slashbinslashbash said:
The Pentax will have certain advantages (size among them) but it will always be "quirky" and incompatible with most of the rest of the photo world. Canon and Nikon both offer a huge amount of current lenses (over 50 for Canon, probably 30 or so for Nikon); 3 or 4 current model lines of bodies (entry consumer, consumer, prosumer, pro) with at least 2, but in some cases as many as 7, previous models in each of those model lines; 4 or 5 current flash units; and enough accessories to fill a room, both first-party and third-party.
Click to expand...

How many of those lenses and accessories actually matter? A large majority of people are not going to be buying $1000+ lenses, and will stick with either the kit lens or go with a modest upgrade to something in the sub-$600 range. Pentax has just as many excellent lenses in the reach of the common consumer as Nikon or Canon do.

Most people will never touch a L lens, much less mount one on their body.
 
GoSharks said:
How many of those lenses and accessories actually matter? A large majority of people are not going to be buying $1000+ lenses, and will stick with either the kit lens or go with a modest upgrade to something in the sub-$600 range. Pentax has just as many excellent lenses in the reach of the common consumer as Nikon or Canon do.

Most people will never touch a L lens, much less mount one on their body.
Click to expand...

Nobody can touch Canon's consumer primes for variety and pricing.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($105) (Pentax SMC-F 50/1.7 seems to be discontinued - $200 eBay)
Canon 50mm f/1.4 ($350) (same for Pentax)
Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($380) (Pentax 77mm f/1.8 is $1000)
Canon 28mm f/1.8 ($460) (Pentax 31mm f/1.8 is $1100)

Now.... with the Canon, you can often find these lenses used and in good shape for significant discounts. I have seen 50/1.8 for $80, 50/1.4 for $300, 85/1.8 for $315, 28/1.8 for $400. And those are fairly normal used prices, not really stretching things.

I'm not saying that all of those lenses are completely comparable. I'm sure the build quality is better on the more expensive Pentaxes. Plus, the in-body image stabilization is worth something, although AFAIK it's not as good as the current-gen in-lens stabilization from Canon. (And I'm just going by the list of lenses on pentaximaging.com, so if there are other comparable, current Pentax lenses out there, please let me know.) But I'm just showing what Canon has available for relatively cheap prices, still within "consumer" reach, and readily available for purchase both new and used from a wide variety of sources. The Pentax stuff is just harder to get in general. The market, both new and used, is less robust.

I will also note the sub-$1000 "L" lenses...
70-200 f/4L ($635) (often used for $500-$550)
200mm f/2.8L ($760) (used for $650)
17-40 f/4L ($745) (used for $600-$650)
100mm Macro IS ($940) (new enough that used market is not robust yet)
 
GoSharks said:
How many of those lenses and accessories actually matter? A large majority of people are not going to be buying $1000+ lenses, and will stick with either the kit lens or go with a modest upgrade to something in the sub-$600 range. Pentax has just as many excellent lenses in the reach of the common consumer as Nikon or Canon do.

Most people will never touch a L lens, much less mount one on their body.
Click to expand...
If this is the case with the OP then i would recommend against buying a dslr. The OP would be better off buying a Canon G11 or the Panasonic ZS7. I dont really think in real world difference that you would see much of a difference in picture quality between a cheap kit lens and the lens that is paired with these all in one digital cameras. Not only that but the zoom range is normally so much better than a normal kit lens and can be had for a lot cheaper. Im not saying that you must buy L lenses for Canon bodies but you do need to understand that you will be spending some money. Of course slash gave a good example of buying primes. Many primes are very cheap and the picture quality is outstanding yet you lose the convenience of having a zoom. There are always trade offs.

The point of buying into a dslr is to buy the more expensive glass because thats whats going to make your pictures shine. The kit lens just doesnt do it. Neither do these all in one zooms such as the 50-500mm for example. Their great for travel etc but no one buys these types of lenses for their remarkable quality. These things arent an overnight purchase. You build your lens collection. They can last you for a lifetime. The camera bodies get worn down broken or just become obsolete in a matter 4-5 years. So as the saying goes; bodies come and go, but lenses last forever.
 
Muse said:
She's very nice and if practical we probably could share lenses. Thanks for that idea. So, basically any lens she has for her 5D would work with any Canon DSLR I might have?

The other guy I know (who's local) into photography might have lenses, I don't know. He worked in camera stores for many years, I believe, until recently. However, he prefers film and has some fancy big film cameras. I don't know if he has any lenses I could use with a DSLR. I'll ask him.
Click to expand...
If she has a 5D she probably has a crop as well. Most people dont buy full frame first because of the expensive price. If she still has the crop you should have her take you out one day and show you how to use it and see if you like it.
 
elitejp said:
If this is the case with the OP then i would recommend against buying a dslr. The OP would be better off buying a Canon G11 or the Panasonic ZS7. I dont really think in real world difference that you would see much of a difference in picture quality between a cheap kit lens and the lens that is paired with these all in one digital cameras. Not only that but the zoom range is normally so much better than a normal kit lens and can be had for a lot cheaper. Im not saying that you must buy L lenses for Canon bodies but you do need to understand that you will be spending some money. Of course slash gave a good example of buying primes. Many primes are very cheap and the picture quality is outstanding yet you lose the convenience of having a zoom. There are always trade offs.

The point of buying into a dslr is to buy the more expensive glass because thats whats going to make your pictures shine. The kit lens just doesnt do it. Neither do these all in one zooms such as the 50-500mm for example. Their great for travel etc but no one buys these types of lenses for their remarkable quality. These things arent an overnight purchase. You build your lens collection. They can last you for a lifetime. The camera bodies get worn down broken or just become obsolete in a matter 4-5 years. So as the saying goes; bodies come and go, but lenses last forever.
Click to expand...

No.

Even a kit lens will easily capture images that a P&S will be unable to. DSLR High ISO performance and DoF are unmatchable in a P&S.
 
GoSharks said:
The 77 and 31 are FA Limited lenses. The DA Limited line is nice because they are generally optically outstanding, and come in a very small package.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, the 55-300mm lens in the K-x dual kit lens package is a DAL lens, at least I saw it so designated. Does this mean it's exceptional quality?

Here, at BHphoto it says:

# DA L 18-55mm Zoom Lens
# DA L 55-300mm Zoom Lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/651673-REG/Pentax_15801_K_x_Digital_SLR_with.html
 
GoSharks said:
How many of those lenses and accessories actually matter? A large majority of people are not going to be buying $1000+ lenses, and will stick with either the kit lens or go with a modest upgrade to something in the sub-$600 range. Pentax has just as many excellent lenses in the reach of the common consumer as Nikon or Canon do.

Most people will never touch a L lens, much less mount one on their body.
Click to expand...
elitejp said:
If this is the case with the OP then i would recommend against buying a dslr. The OP would be better off buying a Canon G11 or the Panasonic ZS7. I dont really think in real world difference that you would see much of a difference in picture quality between a cheap kit lens and the lens that is paired with these all in one digital cameras. Not only that but the zoom range is normally so much better than a normal kit lens and can be had for a lot cheaper. Im not saying that you must buy L lenses for Canon bodies but you do need to understand that you will be spending some money. Of course slash gave a good example of buying primes. Many primes are very cheap and the picture quality is outstanding yet you lose the convenience of having a zoom. There are always trade offs.

The point of buying into a dslr is to buy the more expensive glass because thats whats going to make your pictures shine. The kit lens just doesnt do it. Neither do these all in one zooms such as the 50-500mm for example. Their great for travel etc but no one buys these types of lenses for their remarkable quality. These things arent an overnight purchase. You build your lens collection. They can last you for a lifetime. The camera bodies get worn down broken or just become obsolete in a matter 4-5 years. So as the saying goes; bodies come and go, but lenses last forever.
Click to expand...

The Panasonic ZS7 apparently has no viewfinder. I've never owned a camera without one and I'd feel odd being forced to compose my photos on an LCD. Power on time is 2.5 sec, pretty slow. Shot to shot time 2 seconds, again slow. Continuous speed: 1.82 fps (3 shots), worse than the Sony A330's supposed 2.5 and the Pentax K-x's tested 4.3 fps for ~25 shots.

The Canon G11 is not much better. Has a viewfinder, I believe. Power on 2.5 seconds, shot to shot 2.29 seconds, which is slower than the ZS7. Continuous speed 1.10 fps, again slower than the Panasonic.

The continuous shooting speed and shot to shot performance and fast start up are the biggest reasons for me to want to get my next camera, and these have me thinking DSLR, not so much the extra glass I can get.

I am a total noob to the DSLR world except what I've seen online: in the forums, reviews both professional and by consumers. Well, I've picked up and handled a few at Best Buy and a shop or two. Based on what I've read in threads, I figure I might want to pick up a prime. People seem to think you get a lot of bang for your buck with a prime, maybe an f1.8 50mm for $100 or something like that. I seem to remember people saying they got a Sigma prime for their Pentax. If true, I think that would very much undercut the $200 Pentax prime mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
The K-x you have in mind is perfect, another vote for that one.

The DA L 55-300mm Zoom Lens is a great zoom, with much better image quality than the 55-200.

On the other hand, in the dSLR world, there are only 2 flavors: very good and excellent. I don't think you can pick a bad dSLR even if you tried. Anything you get will be very good. The importance of the indoor performance is usually overlooked, but as the majority of users shoot the most inside, hence why the K-x should be at the top of the list.

have fun!


Edit: As far as lens selection, while it is important if you plan to get serious, at the beginning it is not. I know quite a few people who have dSLRs, and almost all of them use the kit lens... the only exception is someone who uses a 55-200 VR on a D300 to take indoor shots 😛 Yes, I eventually suggested getting a prime.

For the comparison of the best P&S vs the lowest dSLR, well, there is no comparison. The very best truck will not outhaul a train 😛 I have a Panasonic ZS1, virtually the same performance of the ZS3, ZS5 and ZS7. I would't even dare to compare the ZS1 against a Pentax K100D with the DA 18-55 kit lens, the Pentax steamrolls the Lumix in everything except portability. The ZS1 is my personal backup camera when we get lazy to carry the K100D or the K-x.
 
Last edited:
Muse said:
If I'm not mistaken, the 55-300mm lens in the K-x dual kit lens package is a DAL lens, at least I saw it so designated. Does this mean it's exceptional quality?
Click to expand...

No, DA L does not mean DA Limited. They are totally separate lines. DA L lenses are optically the same as their DA cousins, but come with fewer bells and whistles such as quick shift focus.
 
GoSharks said:
No, DA L does not mean DA Limited. They are totally separate lines. DA L lenses are optically the same as their DA cousins, but come with fewer bells and whistles such as quick shift focus.
Click to expand...
What is "quick shift focus?"

Edit: From
http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_Star_50-135mm_F2.8_ED_%28IF%29_SDM/

"The PENTAX-original Quick-Shift Focus System allows instant switching from autofocus to manual focus operation."

So, I guess it isn't so easy to switch between AF and MF with a DA L lens. What exactly is at play here?
 
Last edited:
You have to hit the AF/MF switch on the camera body before you can move the focus ring. With quick shift, you don't need to do this. Not a huge deal, but it is nice to have sometimes.
 
GoSharks said:
You have to hit the AF/MF switch on the camera body before you can move the focus ring. With quick shift, you don't need to do this. Not a huge deal, but it is nice to have sometimes.
Click to expand...
I see. Thanks. Seems like not a big deal. If I get the K-x I might want to look at some older Pentax non-AF lenses. Pentax has been around for a long time. IIRC, they were one of the top SLR lines back in the 1960s. Not exactly targeted at professionals (that was Nikon or Hasselblad for 2 1/4), but very high quality. I wonder why they are such a small player in the DSLR arena now.
 
Well, I finally pulled the trigger on my first DSLR: The Pentax K-x 2 lens kit including the DA L 55-300mm ED lens. I was right on the cusp of confirming the order this morning but when I looked in my cart again at Amazon (seller Portable Guy) the price had jumped $20 (up to $719.99). 😱 Argh! Well, that's an extra 2.8%, and I figured I'd buy it anyway and did, figuring "you snooze, you lose). Camerakings.com still had it for $699.99 but looking closer I noticed it said that it was an "Import Item," and the fine print said that it wasn't through normal USA distribution channels and would therefore not have the manufacturer's warranty, just CameraKings' warranty. I guess that's equivalent to "gray goods," and I figured screw that, I'll go through Amazon. However, it's not direct Amazon but this party called Portable Guy. I don't see any info about warranty, but I guess I can assume that it enjoys the manufacturer's warranty. Got no extras yet, except I did order another 4 Eneloop AA's, so now I have 2 sets of 4. I don't know what kind of filters or hoods to get yet, so I will wait to order those. Might need lens caps too, don't know. I'll look at my local flea market for an acceptable bag and if I don't find it maybe get this one:

Lowepro Adventura 170 Camera Case (Black) $27.69 with free Super Saver shipping

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002P3KY7Y/ref=ord_cart_shr?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Saw a customer review for the K-x by a guy who said he got that and liked it.
 
Last edited:
Too bad about the $20. That bag looks like it will work fine for your body + 2 lenses, since the K-x is a fairly small body.

You probably won't need lens caps other than the ones that will come with the lenses. They might come with hoods as well.

Filters... looks like your 18-55 will use a 52mm filter, while the 55-300 uses a 58mm filter. (The size refers to the diameter of the filter.) That is kind of a pain. For your less common filters I would recommend that you buy 58mm, and a 52mm to 58mm adapter that will let you use the 58mm filters on your 18-55. It will make no difference in image quality. Most people buy filters to fit the biggest lens they own, and adapters for them to fit their smaller lenses.

There's a big debate (one could almost say a holy war) about UV filters. I probably wouldn't worry about protective UV filters for kit lenses. Personally, I don't use them even on my expensive "L" glass. A good quality UV filter that won't degrade image quality is $100 or more in the 77mm filter size. I can send any of my lenses in to Canon and get the front element replaced for not much more than that. So I just don't see the point. UV filters serve no purpose with digital cameras, other than lens protection (they help with film, but digital doesn't have the UV exposure problems that film does). I use hoods for protection and, as I said, I can afford to send my lens in to Canon every couple of years for a new front element just as much as I can afford to get a new UV filter every couple of years after it gets all scratched up. Then again, I am in the minority, and you will find many people who swear by their expensive UV filters they bought to protect their lenses from scrapes, scratches, and dust. Hop on to any photography forum and you will be able to find pages and pages of debate over this. UV is the only filter type that, if you bought them, you would need to get one filter for each lens, in its respective size.

Other filters... Circular Polarizer is the next most common. It eliminates reflections from objects like windows and still water. It also causes a darkening effect with the sky to give you bluer skies on bright sunny days. It also dims the image very slightly, making the exposure slightly darker. Most photographers have a CP filter that fits their largest lens, and adapters to make it fit all their lenses. (I don't have one, but there have been times when I have sworn at myself for not having one. It's on my to-buy list.)

Neutral Density Filters. Basically this is like sunglasses for your camera. It simply makes the whole scene darker, ideally without altering the colors of the image. This can be useful when you want to use a slow shutter speed, but you're already at the limits of how dark you can make the image by manipulating ISO and aperture. There are also Graduated Neutral Density Filters which are clear on one half of the filter and dark on the other half, with a gradation in the middle. You put the dark half on the sky, the light half on the ground, and you can get a super dramatic dark sky (looks very effective with clouds) while still having the foreground be properly exposed. It's sort of a way of creating in-camera, single-exposure HDR. Half the image is stopped down by a stop or two, while the rest is exposed normally.

Other filters. These are primarily color filters and aren't really necessary in the digital age. Film used to have a color balance, say Daylight. When you used daylight film indoors with Flourescent or incandescent lighting, your colors would seem all screwy because daylight has a different spectrum than flourescent or incandescent lighting. So you would use a flourescent filter or an incandescent filter to remove the color cast. With a digital camera, you can do all of this in either in-camera or in post-processing by changing the white balance. There are other color filters (red, blue, purple, etc.) that just cast the whole image in that color. No reason to use a filter for this when we have Photoshop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top