Photography help
 

I'm looking for a digital camera. I would like to spend around $2000. Something like Nikon D100 or Canon D60. Any suggestions?

either one they are both great
i'm partial to the canon
i have the d-60's virtually identical predesessor the d-30
awesome camera
you will be happy with the d-60 and i believe it's a tad less than the Nikon.

Cheers,
BV

P.S.:
the canon 550 EX Speedlight
and a good wide angle zoom lens like the canon ef 24-85 arealso excellent choices that you should also consider.

I've got the Nikon CoolPix 5000. I love it and it takes fantastic pictures, but it is crap for low-light fast action photography (like Mardi-Gras at night). As soon as I can afford it, I'm going with the Nikon D-100. I checked it out and it is AWESOME. Closest thing I've found to my regular 35mm.

:stoned

vik

Nikon D100 is the way to go, it's basically the refinement of the Nikon D1X made for those with $2000. The color system is good, the files size options are better.

It's better than the Nikon D1X and 1/3 the price:(

Remember with the best body in the world the camera is only as good as the lens it is "looking" through. Go for a fixed 50 mm which with the digital effect moves up to 85mm or a lens from 50 to 135 *Not sure of the exact size* avoid a wide angle lens, digital hates flair *Light coming into the lens*

And remember to back light correctly.

Thanks :thumbsup

FYI: The wider aspect ratios of these Canon and Nikon digital cameras reduce the widening effect of the lenses, and since they are not making the lenses specifically for these cameras, you have to go wider with your lens angle in order to achieve the same effect as if that lens was on a camera witha normal aspect ratio.

for example: the size i use (24-85) on my d-30 would yeild similar results as a (35-85) on a regular aspect ratio slr film camera.

I have minimal problems with glare or too much light and I usually am shooting in very bright conditions.
:Graucho

Cheers!
BV

Hey Laura...Sorry I forgot to get back to you on this. The D60 would make more sense for you.

Laura,

I have to agree with Charly. Biggest problem I have with the Coolpix is keeping the zoom high to avoid the wide-angle blues. It makes my models look like crap - Ask Charly, he's reviewed my portfolio. And I've looked at a lot of his pics - he does EXCELLENT work. So my advice is to take advice from someone who has the experience and does super high-quality work like Charly. One thing I've learned while becoming an old (ok then, "older") man is I'm not too proud to copy those who are already doing things right. And he's right about the lighting. I used to get by with 2 or 3 lights with my 35mm and 6x7, now I use 4, and am thinking of going to 5. In my 11 months of digital work (well, it has been more of an experiment unfortunately, but I do have some good shoots), I'm finding out that you really can't have too much light with digital. I read on another post that Charly uses 7 lights in his shoots . . .

One more thing, while at the Internext in Florida in August, a good fried of mine was using his brand new Olympus for the first time, I can't remember the model but it's the equivalent to the D-100, and no offense to him, but my Nikon CoolPix BLEW-AWAY his Olympus I think in terms of quality. These were just snapshots, not studio pics. Some of the samples can be seen here at Photonudity.com.

Anyway, I think the D-100 would be the way to go.

:stoned

vik

Have had nothing but good experiences with the d1x here, couldent say for the others though :thumbsup

Shooting for the web and not print publication? In that case, $2000 is too much money. Buy something in the 2 or 3 megapixel range (2 megapixels will give you a decent 8x10 if you want prints, and 3 megapixels will give you a great one). Nikon and Olympus make very good cameras at $700 or less, leaving you with enough from that $2000 you're willing to spend to apply to an external flash, studio lighting, or whatever.

What do you think about this one? http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=...cat=83&scat=84

It is a digital still camera that says Sony on it. I would stay away from that...but...I have seen a lot of positive feedback on that camera.

How about if I sell you my camera since I am orderig a D60 anyway? :)

What kind of camera do you have now Aaron?

We looked at this one today: http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=...cat=83&scat=84

I like that camera it's interface is identical to the Mavica we already have...the media is super cheap...maybe 50 cents a cd...ease of use would be great...and it takes a 4 megapixel photo. I think for the type of site I want pictures for...it would work.

I mean...I'm gonna be reducing these photos to 50k for TGP and maybe 100k for my pay site.

I hate the canon...nice for outdoor shoots but almost impossible to get sharp shoots inside. Go with the olympus.

I switched to a Canon Powershot G2 a few months ago. I have shot with the D60 as well as the D1x and personally, I like the D60 better. I have always been a die hard Nikon fan for 35mm but Canon has them beat hands down on the higher end cameras. Higher quality and lower prices....at least from my experiences.

Honestly, you can not go wrong with either. The ONLY reason I am switching to the D60 is because I want to get back into nature photography and possibly some print work....for web use, in most cases, the high end cameras are overkill.

I have not personally shot with any of the CD Mavicas but I have heard feedback from some that have and they did not like the write speed. Perhaps Sony has improved on that by now though.

Laura,

Check out these sites and do your own readin and make up your own mind:

http://www.dpreview.com

http://www.stevesdigicams.com

I am a Nikon and OLY E10 user, but a good friend of mine has a Canon D30/D60 and the Canon does AWESOME stuff.

Good Luck!

Sorry got to disagree, I tried the Olympus E10 & E20 and found both of them gave me "soft" pics and were slow. Sharpening in Photoshop will eliminate one problem a bit, but it's better to start with the right images in the first place.

When working with people speed is essential, nothing annoys a model more than me having to change film. So I have two cameras and an assistant to load. With digital and a 250 meg chip I do not have that problem so often. But when testing the Olympus E10 & E20, I found they take 5-7 frames and then stop to download to the chip. The cheaper cameras are even worse.

When shooting amateur style with any kind of model, you need the session to flow. This keeps the model, fresh, happy and involved. If she has to stop every 6 shots, because your camera is not keeping up, think of the thought process that is going through her head. She is very likely to get frustrated and start "going through the motions". You lose "contact" with her and all of a sudden an "Amateur model" shoot becomes an "Amateur photographer" shoot.

If you work slowly now you will speed up as you get more experience, so buy a camera for today and tomorrow. Also get a good zoom lens and learn how to use it properly, you can double your impact by this method.

Always invest in the best you can afford, not what will just about do the job. Cos it will not tomorrow.

Unseenworld is right, unless you are working outdoors with reflectors you will need some lights. Digital tends to give a "Flat" effect unless well back lit and how you do this tends to change in every location. But be careful of light going into your lens, this gives flair and makes the image look "out of focus".

But photography is far more than your equipment, with the best kit a bad photographer is still bad. You need an "eye" for a shot. Shooting porn is far more difficult, you need firstly to find the right model, know how to "handle" them, know how to pose them, when they need a rest, when you need to speed up. And the most important thing is when to click the camera.

Photography is technical and physiological
Shooting Porno is all physiological, we are trying to put the thought into the viewers mind that this girl was ready and willing to fuck him and not their to earn some money.

Thanks for the kind words VIK.

What you have to remember is I've been doing this 25 years. So had a lot of time to make mistakes and learn.

Should have seen my work after 3 years, it was CRAP.:1orglaugh

So I know it hasn't changed a lot!!!

Unless the viewer is turned on by a girl doing things for money. ;) Personally, I could never whack it to the girl in Playboy with a big smile on her face. I prefer the girls to look scared, bored, or at least a little nervous.

He married me for the bored look. lol.

This is WAY too much info from you two.

You need counseling.

That's the understatement of the year! lol.

Fortunately you are in the minority. But there are some real whackos out there.

Most guys like a look that says "Yes you can fuck me" That is the skill of the pornographer to get the right look and it does not have to be a smile.

The "Penthouse" look is not the "Barely Legal" look and I doubt if many guys who are reluctant to spend $29.95 for a months whacking off are going to go for the "Playboy" style.

Can they fantasise that this Miss World contestant is really going to say yes to them. Or are they more likely to go for the girl next door type? Know the desires and motivations of your target audience.

I believe they've (Sony) been working on it, not sure how fast it is now though.. they increased the buffer size and write speed and I think are kinda pushing towards the video clip market. That's the beauty of having the CD in there, you can store 700Mb of data on a 50cent CD that would cost a fortune in compact flash or memory stick.

Aaron, do you do photography work outside of the adult industry? I'd like to talk to you more about this kinda stuff, for myself and a friend who is more serious about it as a hobby than I..

I like the girls in Naughty Neighbor magazine, especially the reader submitted pics that were taken with a polaroid in the bedroom. Heh.

Reality check.

How many US 18 year olds will let their boyfriend take a nude picture of them?

Then how many will let that picture be published in a men's magazines?

Then imagine the checking that has to be domne to make sure the magazine is not going to find itself in court on an "Invasion of Privacy" suit. Because a jilted boyfriend sent them in and forged the paperwork.

You might find a lot of those pics are not quite the amateurs you wish they were.:1orglaugh

Sorry, but the Sony's are not very good for shooting nude girls. I think I wrote this for 100 times, but you can't compare the skin colour of Sony cams with that of Nikons or Olys. And it's hard to say, but the Mavicas don't work with 50 Cent CD's from the supermarket. You need small CD's and those are expensive...