bradley_davis

Thank you all for the advice. I'm actually eyeing the G7 mark II now.

I am going on a Disney vacation this summer with my family and I am looking for a good photography solution for the trip. I will have my hands full with my kids and I am simply not going to lug around my DSLR all day long. I'm therefore considering the best option for a camera that fits in my pocket. I currently have an iPhone 6+, and that just isn't going to cut it; low light pictures are poor and any kind of zoom ends up with quite a bit of graininess.

 

Therefore, I am considering two possibilities. The first is to get a new iPhone, which, obviously, I will be using for more than just photography. I'd be considering the newer 8 or X models.

 

The second is to a a medium-range point and click camera. I'm not going to waste my time or money on a $100 camera that can't do anything my phone can't already do, but I was considering the Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II. I'm not 100% sold on this model and am open to recommendations, but I'm not looking for a point and shoot much more expensive.

 

So my question is, how do the newer iPhones stack up against the middle of the road point and clicks? I imagine that at Disney, my time will be split between good lighting, and dark/indoor lighting.

 

Any recommendations or personal experiences are greatly appreciated.

I have a D5100, Nikkor 18-55, Nikkor 55-300, Tokina 11-16, battery charger, filters, and memory.

 

On past trips, I have used a Tamrac adventure backpack, which is great for hauling gear from A to B, but not all that useful for switching

lenses.

 

On top of that, I now have a baby. I will likely be carrying him around in a baby carrier quite a bit, and while he's only been on my chest

so far, I think he, and I, will be much happier on vacation if he is on my back.

 

I don't want to spend a lot of money, but I'd like some ideas for a new bag. Would messenger-style work? I can swing it to my back or

side depending, and it looks like changing equipment might be easier.

 

Any advice?

Again, thank you all for taking the time to respond. I have another question:

 

Just browsing Amazon.com, there are a few xx-300mm lenses labeled as macro lenses. What makes this different from

a xx-300mm telephoto?

Whoa, I'll have to sift through that a few times! I have a D5100 with two basic kit lenses (18-35mm and 55-200mm) and

the Tokina 11-16mm for wide angle, so I'm covered on that end.

 

I'm going to Alaska ia few months and was considering a telephoto to get up close and personal with any wildlife I

stumble across, including the whales that I hope to be seeing. My 55-200mm is serviceable in a pinch, but I was

considering something more.

 

Thanks for the info.

I recently dropped my kit lens about 3 feet on to a hardwood floor and am now paranoid about photo quality. There are no apparent

cracks and the zoom motors seem to be working but I am still paranoid. Should I breathe easy, or could something be out of alignment

now? What should I be looking for as a warning sign that the lens isn't usable?

Hi!

 

I am looking for a telephoto lens for wildlife photography. A always assumed that the longer the focal length, the closer "zoom" I would

get, so I assumed 300+mm was what I should be looking at. Yet in the equipment section, I see prime telephoto lenses in the lower focal

point range like 85mm. I am thoroughly confused now as to what I should be looking for for wildlife photography.

 

Any advice for a beginner would be much appreciated.

<p>Maybe this is a stupid quest, or maybe it depends on equipment, but is learning to manual focus a valuable skill? Given a choice between manual and automatic, is there a general preference in the photo community?</p>

<p>I ask because I have a D5100, so if I purchase a lens without AF motors, I will need to focus manually. I could save money on lenses if I do so, but I'm concerned about making a purchase that I later regret. Specifically, I'm looking at the Tokina 11-16mm. The AF-S model is $150 more, I I've read a few concerns that the auto focus isn't very good.</p>

<p>Should I work on my manual focus skills, or forget about that in our modern day and age of manual focusing?</p>

I have a D5100, so my understanding is that to use auto focus, I need to have a lens with motors? I was looking at the Tokina 11-66mm

as it seems to be very highly regarded for the price. The model most people seem to use is an AF lens. By my understanding, that

means I will not be able to autofocus, correct? Is learning to focus manually a worthwhile skill? Alternately, there is an AF-S version of

the lens, which by my understanding would let me use my autofocus. It is $150 more, though, so I want to be sure I understand the

difference before I make a decision.

Upon some reflection, I think a wide angle might be more what I am looking for.

 

I call myself a novice because I will likely never be anything but, but I have been learning the ins and outs of photography

for a while and do experiment with my aperture and shutter quite a bit.

 

As much as I like wildlife, I think my focus may be landscapes and even people or objects in front of those landscapes. I

would get much more from a wide angle, I believe. You can look at my few profile pictures for am idea of how I shoot.

 

So if I go for a wide angle, what should I be looking for to have a noticeable effect on my shots?

I currently have a D5100, and the basic 18-55 and 55-200 Nikkor lenses.

 

I am going on a trip to Alaska over the summer and am interested in a new lens, but I have no idea what wold be best. In general, I

prefer landscape and wildlife photography, so that will be my main interest on the trip and in general, but I don't know what lenses I

should be looking at. Telephoto? Wide angle? I'm a novice and don't have much experience, but know that better lenses can help me

get better pictures.

 

I was interested in the Tamron 200-500 but for no better reason than that it would help me get closer to wildlife.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you.

<p>I have only the basic 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens as well as a basic 55-200mm 4-5.6 lens. I like photographing wildlife and would be interested in a lens with a higher focal length, but they are awfully expensive for my level of skill (or lack thereof). I've seen some teleconverter lenses that double the focal length of your lenses for roughly $150-200 and wonder if those might be a good way to start. I understand the importance of nicer lenses, but they are a bit out of my budget right now. The way I see it, the teleconverter can give me up to 400mm focal length, which might be good for getting the birds in my backyard.</p>

<p>Any advice?</p>

<p>DoF is not a huge concern of mine since I can control it well with still photos - unless it is for some reason relatively hard to control in video.<br>

<br />What I consider "quality" is probably relatively low. My initial thoughts were to look for entry-level camcorders, which really are a small step up from my iPhone. My big concerns were HD, clear videos that I could potentially watch on my television without too much eyestrain. I'm not looking to be very artistic with the video, just capture the precious moments.</p>

<p>I appreciate the feedback.<br>

<br />Concerning the size and bulk that Lex brings up, I'm not sure that it a huge concern of mine. For one thing, I have my D60 with me all the time anyways, so even if I have a camcorder handy, my DSLR will be right next to me or in a pack on my back on vacation. I also don't anticipate shooting video for great lengths of time. 2-3 minute shots here or there of my son laughing or taking his first steps is my biggest concern. I suppose some day I may be recording sporting events or piano recitals, but that is still in the future.<br>

<br />So size aside, are there any more opinions on the actual quality of the video?</p>

I have a new baby at home and I am also going to Alaska this summer so I was looking in to digital camcorders to take HD video. I have

an iPhone, but I like the image stabilization and low-light capabilities of a real camcorder. I would probably be spending $200-300 if I

went that route.

 

But then I was thinking that this could be an opportunity to upgrade my DSLR. I have an old D60 with a few lenses. I could get

something along the lines of a D5100 for $500 or so and have a newer DSLR and also a camera with video capability.

 

But how do DSLRs compare to entry-level digital camcorders? Can they handle low-light? Do they have image stabilization? Do any of

you have any advice for my situation?

 

Thank you.

<p>Thank you for the input. I've been reading on ways to replace the focusing screen but it looks like too delicate a procedure for me. I may try to find a repair store in my area to help me out.</p>

<p>I do appreciate any other advice others may have on the issue.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D60 and lately I've been noticing quite a bit of debris when I look through the viewfinder. Upon close inspection, it looks like there is some dust and a rather annoying hair on the prism of my camera. Just to clarify in case I am using the wrong term, when the light is reflected off the mirror, it is reflected up - the piece this light is reflected on to is what seems to have the debris. What's more, it looks as if there is a protective cover over it and the dust/hair has gotten behind the cover. I know this has no impact on the actual pictures but I find it quite distracting.</p>

<p>Is there any way I can safely clean the debris out of my camera?</p>

<p>Thank you for any advice.</p>

<p>I only have a D60 with the kit lens and the basic 55-200. I don't have a speedlight yet so I can only use the camera's flash. I've got UV filters on my lenses.<br>

I do plan on shooting some landscape shots to capture some of the monuments. I will have to include the sky in a number of these, especially with the Washington Monument. I understand the benefits of an overcast sky but I am just worried everything I shoot will come out looking rather drab, especially since there really isn't any natural color this time of year. <br>

I appreciate all your advice.</p>

<p>I am going out to Washington D.C. at the end of the week and the weather situation looks bleak. In addition to the general lack of colors due to the season, it looks like we will have mostly overcast skies and (I'm guessing) a little haze in the sky. Does anyone have any advice on shooting in this kind of environment? Thanks.</p>

<p>I would like to photograph my pregnant wife and our baby when it is born in black and white with the pure black in the background. These pictures seem to be common, especially for baby pictures. Are these pictures possible without studio equipment, and if so, how should I set up the shots?<br>

I have a Nikon D60 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 telephoto lens. I don't have any other equipment.<br>

My question isn't about shooting black and white, I already know how to do that - it is more on creating the contrast between the subject and the background. I hope I've explained my question adequately.<br>

Thank you for any advice.</p>

<p>I am a novice photographer and am having fun learning the tricks of the trade. With the 4th of July coming up in the States, I am curious what the best way to shoot fireworks is.</p>

<p>For reference, I have a Nikon D60 with the kit lens and a 55-200 VR zoom.</p>

<p>Thank you for any advice.</p>

<p>I'll be honest, I wish I could be more specific with my needs but I just don't really know yet. I am still experimenting and don't know my specific needs. I would like to take 1:1 pictures of insects and the such, but I think my biggest passion is for wildlife (not the creepy-crawly kind). I'd like great close-up shots of birds and the such. However, If I want to get really up close and personal and fill my frame with a bird's eye, for example, what kind of lens do I need?</p>

<p>I'm sorry if I am being vague, I am still very uch a novice trying to find my niche.</p>

<p>Are there lenses that allow photographers to take macro shots from a distance? From what I have read, most macro shots are taken with the lens close to the subject but when outdoors, I don't always have the luxury of getting up close.</p>

<p>For reference, I have the Cannon XSi.</p>

<p>Thank you for any input.</p>

<p>Thank you for the insight.</p>

<p>I am a novice digital photographer who is, more or less, self-teaching myself through bookwork and continual practice.</p>

<p>One of my questions is in regards to lighting and color effects. I have been using Cannon cameras (a PowerShot point and click and an XSI) and they have functions to contol color and lighting effects. I have been practicing taking black & white shots, highlighting certain colors, etc.</p>

<p>Do photographers usually use these functions on their cameras, or do the rely on Photoshop more often? Or does it not matter?</p>

<p>Thank you for any advice.</p>