Cameras

[Jonn]

wtf is a canon d90

[lowrey]

you bought something that you don't use, and ask if it was a "good purchase"? seriously, wtf...

you've also made about 25 posts in the last day, I'll go ahead delete the inane ones.

[Bubu]

My Canon G5 swivel LCD screen recently died after 7 years. It just shows a white screen.

Removed the casing and played around with the circuits and connections to no avail. It still shoots pictures though, just that I can't preview them with the LCD anymore.

[lowrey]

is it a good camera*

as Jonn above expressed, there is no such a thing as Canon D90 so I'll asume you have a Nikon D90. yes, its a pretty good camera, a good entry level DSLR.

[perplexe]

D90 is a fairly good camera, like lowrey mentioned. I'll gladly take your D90, if you're not going to use it

It has very good image quality and is recommended as an amateur SLR.
Then again, I'll be waiting years for the Canon 90D now that you have mentioned it...

[kbi]

I've got a Canon EOS 500D and use it mainly for taking pictures of design work but also more close up pictures of architecture models (Noticed MACRO lenses being reaaally expensive) .. does anyone know what I should look for in terms of a new lense? The one I'm using right now is a CANON EFS 18-55mm, which doesn't work too well imo..

[endersgame]

depends on what you want to take. 1:1 magnification will fill the frame with the subject you are taking. if you need to go even higher, you need a macro lens that can do that. you can also get more magnification by adding extension tubes or use bellows extension.

the higher you magnify, the less depth of field you get. so getting everything from foreground to background in focus requires a lot of light. a ring flash is generally a good light for this type of work. a tripod is also recommended. some macro lenses with long focal lengths requires you to be further away from the subject so hand holding is not possible.

i don't use DSLR equipment so i cannot make gear suggestions, but most dedicated macro lenses should be good and pricey.

[lowrey]

to figure out what would work better, what is it that you find lacking in the 17-55?

[kbi]

well mostly when I want to take close up pictures of a model for example (taking pictures of one room), I just don't get the depth I'd like to have.

I've got two spotlights but no matter how much light I use (also when I use natural light) I can focus in any given way but I don't get a lot of depth. I just figured that it was the quality of the lense because when I bought the camera it was like a bundle and I was told that the lense is more or less crap and they're just used to sell those mid-range entry DSLR bodies... Also when you look for CANON-made lenses on ebay they're all really expensive..

Perhaps I'm also doing something entirely wrong but at least I tried all different kinds of settings within the camera. I must say I'm very interested in photography but just started like a year ago and since I had a lot of work to do otherwize never really had the time to go into all the technical details of photography.

[lowrey]

well the particular lens is very basic like you said, the close range focus is pretty good actually, but otherwise, the image quality is not great and you'd probably be better off with something that has larger aperture and overall better image quality.

if you feel like the length of that lense is suitable for your use, a good upgrade in terms of low light performance and image quality would be Tamron's or Sigma's equivalents of the kit lens. they are very similar and share the same aperture etc.

a step further (both in quality and price) would be the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS which I use myself, this is definately my favourite lens as it can be used for anything, has excellent image quality and performs very well in low light conditions.

[endersgame]

well mostly when I want to take close up pictures of a model for example (taking pictures of one room), I just don't get the depth I'd like to have.

I've got two spotlights but no matter how much light I use (also when I use natural light) I can focus in any given way but I don't get a lot of depth. I just figured that it was the quality of the lense because when I bought the camera it was like a bundle and I was told that the lense is more or less crap and they're just used to sell those mid-range entry DSLR bodies... Also when you look for CANON-made lenses on ebay they're all really expensive..

Perhaps I'm also doing something entirely wrong but at least I tried all different kinds of settings within the camera. I must say I'm very interested in photography but just started like a year ago and since I had a lot of work to do otherwize never really had the time to go into all the technical details of photography.

from what i gather, you want everything from foreground to background in focus?

if so, you need to shoot with the lens stopped down. f16 or higher. does the lens allow manual focus and depth of field preview? this is very useful for macro work.

the light you have now is fine. as long as it's constant, the camera will expose as long as it needs to.

you have a wide-angle zoom lens that is really made for focusing to infinity or shooting things far away. it may have macro capabilities (on the widest focal length) but the distortion is probably intense and magnification is limited compared to a dedicated macro lens-which is designed like a microscope lens (but not for landscapes)

[kbi]

thanks for the tips lowrey & endesrgame!

Mostly I'm kind of shooting into boxes with roughly a depth of 10 - 60cm. The lense I've now got is useful for taking pictures of faces near the lense or generally when I just have one Object in the foreground that needs to be sharp.

What I really want though is being able to have everything sharp from foreground to background so I can clearly show the whole room atmosphere.

I also gathered that the CANON macro lenses are really pricy.. I was told that Tamron does Lenses in the same quality(?) just cheaper but haven't found any macro lenses so far.. are there any other brands that sell good SLR lenses?

[lowrey]

ok, in that case you need to shoot at a higher aperture like endersgame got it (and I kind of misunderstood).

for this, a macro lens wouldn't really help as they tend to have a more shallow depth of field whereas you are looking for the opposite. my advice would be just shoot using a tripod, with a high aperture and slow shutterspeed. your kit lens is cabable of this as well as a reasonable focus distance for a zoom lens (around 25cm if I remember correctly), but of course a higher quality lens would result in better image quality.

also, for shooting models, using the live view function alongside manual settings would probably be pretty handy.

[kbi]

something like this?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-0-5-6-USM-Lens-/150455257304?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2307d508d8

[lowrey]

yea I think that would work pretty well for your needs, and its a pretty good overall lens for any type of use.

I'd try this (either with your current lens or a new one):

shoot with a tripod, use the aperture priority mode (Av on the dial), set the aperture to something like f/22, ISO to 400, and see if you get the desired depth of field. the shutter time will be long depending on the light conditions, if you're inside it could be 2 seconds or so, hence the need for a tripod.