Professional Cameras With Big Lens

[HyBriD54 0]

I currently have a 3.2 megapixel Cybershot.I'm interested in buying a professional camera with a huge lens because they seem to take really high quality photos, but all the extra stuff (and the sheer size of the camera) really put me off.I've seen some cameras which have a huge lens but aren't as gigantic. Does anyone have any first-hand experience with these? Do they take photos that have the 'professional' feel to them?

[onscreen 0]

I own Nikon D1x and D100 with 400mm F/2.8 lens, 90mm macro lens, 28-200mm lens and 50mm f/1.8 lens. Having big lens isnt about able to talk "professional" pictures but instead is how you "tweak" it by playing around aperture, shutter speed, white balance, stops(+/-).My first lens listed on top is the biggest among all and i can use it to take crappy pics . Filters do a huge part of the role in photography. Polarizer filter filters out unwanted glare and sun flare while boosting the contrast on shadows.The camera you inspired to have is known as DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) which allows you to swap lens in different situation. 3 types of DSLRs currently in the market, Consumer level, Prosumer level, Professional level.Consumer level (eg.) : Nikon D40, D50, Canon EOS400D(Rebel for NA), Pentax K1000D..etcProsumer level (eg.) : Nikon D300, Nikon D700, Canon EOS 5..etcProfessional level or known as the flagship (eg.) : Nikon D3, Canon EOS1D MarkIII..etcThere is many other brands like Sony, Minolta, Olympus, Sigma, Leica that comes out DSLR but they tend to have different technology applied to their range so usually, buys tend to opt for the popular ones than these.Professional level DSLR is mostly for fast shooter who wants the fastest of the line and it cost a fortune if you settle on first hand products. For you, DSLR consumer level is the best to start with. Without breaking budget and have ability to be couple with some good fast lens. I can config a set for you to set an example of what you will need. Refer below :Nikon D60 (body only) + 70-300mm f/4.5(?) (G series lens) + 28.80mm f/3.8 (G series lens) . The reason i choose Nikon is because it have a range of budget lens that does the job of its upperline. You can look "professional" with the kit above and allow you to have your image capturing under your full control.

[rayzoredge 2]

I can only throw out what I know about the Canon Rebel XT, as I own and operate one.One thing that you're going to hate is the reality that a larger lens will take better quality pictures than a smaller lens. So physically, along with a larger lens will be a larger camera housing and such. Believe me when I say that I'm with you on size being a turn-off. I love being able to put my camera in my pocket, then be ready to take the camera out at a moment's notice to snap a shot. The portability factor is an awesome thing to have.The Canon Rebel that I now own is not exactly a beast compared to other cameras, but it's not one to fit in the pocket of your jeans, either. (Not like I'll ever transport it that way anyway.) I bought a decent nylon case for it at Walmart and it's really not that much trouble in carrying it in the case. The pain that I have with it is taking it out and putting it in, not to mention having to juggle the camera and the case when I'm on the move. It's something that you'll learn to live with in order to do a little better than the usual snap-and-shoot.dSLRs, in my opinion, only make their mark on the field of photography if the user knows how to uses them effectively. I'm an amatuer photographer (just like every other college kid on the block who owns a dSLR because mommy and daddy bought them one or they survived on a diet of ramen for long enough ) and the photos that I take are a bit better than most pictures that I take with my old snap-and-shoot (an Olympus C-765), but I find that the strength in a dSLR not only lies within the power of tweaking how you take pictures, but how fast you can take pictures, how the camera processes them, etc. In all reality, with a camera you want to capture the moment. With my Olympus, I could capture a 4MP, 2288x1712 px JPG moment every few seconds between shots. With my Canon, I can take an 8MP, 3456x2304 px JPG moment in less than a third of a second between shots. The capability of being able to make more shots within a certain timeframe gives you more of a chance to catch that perfect moment instead of having to wait and possibly missing it already justifies what I paid for a dSLR. (And for all of the blurry, crappy snapshots you made on burst mode on that dSLR to get that one or two perfect shots of your child on a moving carousel, you can always review and delete. )dSLR's, as I've mentioned, are capable of making those shots that a normal snap-and-shoot can't thanks to the plethora of controls you have over your picture-taking, provided that you educate yourself on what they are and what you should use them for. Various effects, like simply opening up the lens to take a picture for half a second as opposed to an instantaneous shot to create the effect of flowing water, can make a photo seem every bit as professional as the landscape calendar photos you see at the mall. It also opens up different opportunities for photos too... like fireworks. (I've never been able to take good pictures of fireworks, but with my Canon, I can now capture the light trails of an exploding firework... "just like the pros." )Of course, with all of this power comes the sacrificial turn-offs like the size of the camera and as well as the gigantic price tag. When I chose to go with a dSLR, I went for older instead of newer... which meant that I snagged my $700 Canon Rebel XT for less than $400, and I'm pretty happy with it for the most part. There are some things that I hate about my Rebel, but I don't regret actually snagging it.Do your homework on cameras before you go out to purchase a specific one, too. I trust the guys down at CNet Reviews, but peer reviews won't hurt either.Have fun looking for a camera. You actually can learn a lot about them along the way.

[onscreen 0]

Oh i miss out something. Larger lens have larger aperture that allows you to capture more light, balanced contrast to your image. And the result is better image like what rayzoredge said. Smaller lens have aperture that is small but sufficient for general shooting without the need of carrying a 908g lens around for a simple assignment.That is why when you peep into a professional photographer, they will have a 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 lens, a 70-300mm or 28 - 200mm lens and their large bazooka, a 400mm F2.8 or 450mm lens. The mix of the lens is different depends on their assigned task. But i am here just to give you a general idea of why those lens are big compare to the standard lens.

[BuffaloHelp 24]

That is why when you peep into a professional photographer, they will have a 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 lens, a 70-300mm or 28 - 200mm lens and their large bazooka, a 400mm F2.8 or 450mm lens. The mix of the lens is different depends on their assigned task. But i am here just to give you a general idea of why those lens are big compare to the standard lens.

It's not only the reasons why you think they carry such lenses. If you look at professional photographers, they have multiple camera bodies with multiple lenses--not just multiple lenses. And when they are on the field they usually carry one or two; not everything to cover all range (distance). As pros, they study and plan before they head out to the field--they will not be caught dead not carrying necessary tools.

50mm lens is to be the ideal 1:1 ratio of human's view of the world. That is, it is often called the "life size" photography. Majority of field journalists carried this lens because it gave the quickest and sharpest shot that can portrait the view from first person's point of view. And since it's a fixed lens it has small profile that can be packed with any type of bags.

Professional photographer, the word itself, is biased. A portrait specialist would prefer fixed lens while an event photographer prefer high powered zoom or telephoto lens. So a professional photographer who is covering a car racing event would not carry the 50mm lens. And conversely, a wedding photographer will not carry 300mm lens for indoor, tight party shots.

And not all lenses must be in the range of F1.2 ~ F2.0. This give greater depth of field but also one of the hardest to get a sharp focus. And when taken during bright sunny days, lower the F stop number the higher the outcome of photos being over exposed. The trick is knowing when you are going to be and the lighting conditions, relevant to the subject you're going to be covering.

[onscreen 0]

Thank you for the correction. I missed that out totally as well as some other points. About the 50mm, i am a car racing and nature photographer and would like to add this point. 50mm is important too when in car racing photographer. It works for still shots on the car. I once did a silly thing is to use a 28-200mm lens for still shots of the racer and the car till another photographer shared that tip with me. Been 5 years now i am still doing the same

[HyBriD54 0]

Thank you all for all your (very detailed) advice! :lol:dSLRs seem interesting, but I'm not really looking for something THAT professional. What do you people think of bridge digital cameras like Sony's DSC-H10?

Edited November 11, 2008 by HyBriD54 (see edit history)

[onscreen 0]

You can consider prosumer point and shoot like Canon Powershot Pro series. It is actually a ZLR (Zoom Lens Reflex) with a flexible back LCD. Here is the link for further reference : https://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controllfcategoryid=113

You can consider the Powershot SX range as well as Powershot G range. I onced handled a Powershot G9 once, i could tell you it do wonders once you get to understand its limit and its potential.

[BuffaloHelp 24]

What do you people think of bridge digital cameras like Sony's DSC-H10?

I personally do not have a working experience with the model mentioned. But I used to have hybrid models like DSC-H10. I believe they were once called semi-pro line.

I was impressed with what these semi-pro lines can do. They perform very similarly to professional lines--full manual functions and adjustments--yet the ease of point-and-shoot automatic cameras. The whole reason for this semi-pros is to take the guess work out of the equation. One minute you can decide to shoot all automatic. There's no need for guessing the proper exposure number, shutter speed or focus--just point and shoot. But the next minute you can select the manual options and take a closeup photo of a bee.

And not only the operation is ease of usage, to carry this verses 3 lenses and a camera body on a trip is a back pain saver! I can tell you how many times I cursed at my equipments while I was vacationing. Sure I love to take photos. But if I can take all the photos I want and not carry my equipments, I will be the first one in line trading all my stuff. Although I am not quite ready to trade in for a semi-pro series I am getting very close to that point. The digital cameras these days are so far advanced that unless I am try to make profit with my photos or succeed as a professional photographer I think semi-pros or even some point and shoot cameras are perfectly alright.

[stevenjackson39 0]

i'm just going to say that the camera i own, a sony alpha 200 (dslr), cost $500 w/ the 18-70 mm lens.also, i found a deal to get a 75-300 mm lens for only $50 extra.if you want a huge lens, either nikon's p80 or canon's new 20x zoom (forget the name) would do as well.