walter_karroll

<p>Good...Sounds like I made a good choice! I meant the 1.8lcd is not a problem because I mainly use the viewfinder. On the point and shoots I used, you only had the screen which is a pain 8 out 10 times. </p>

<p>Thank you for your input. My dad has had the camera since 04 I believe with no problems he complained of. Says he loves it. I am really looking forward to it. i think I am going to go with the 55mm F1.8 and also get like a 18-85 or 10 105mm. I used the 55 all the time on my Canon, and the image quality was fantastic. you can't beat simplicity. </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I have used 35mm slr's for awhile now. I had the Canon AE1p that I got from my dad, and then I had the black version, and I also had the Nikon N70, which I loved. Then I went to the digital point and shoots for awhile then back to 35mm because I couldn't afford dslr. Film gets expensive to process, so the price tag for a dslr isn't bad. Still money doesn;t grow on a tree in my back yard. I decided to get a DSLR. I was looking at the 3000d, 400d, d40x, and the sony a230. They are all about the same to me. Small, light, with a cheap feel. I did some more research and came across the Nikon d70. I think its everything I need to get into the DSLR world. My first one. I know I like the camera because my dad has one. It feels nice in my hands, has the right weight, and doesn't feel like a cheap piece of plastic. A bigger screen would be nice, but I am a fan of the view finder. I love the AF motor in it, and lens you can buy. Anyway I bought it used for 230.00. Has everything but a lens to start. I am going to go with the Sigma 18-200mm or it might be 24-200mm. The camera looks perfect. I couldn't afford the 499.00 price tag for a new one, and the N70 seemed better then the new ones even thought is only 6.1mp. I seen 20*30 that looked great . anyway, I wanted to know your opinion, if you thought this is a good buy to get into the DSLR world, and if I will be happy with it for awhile. Thanks for your input.</p>

<p>Walt</p>

<p>I was getting discouraged too, but I have noticed that the photos with a lot of responses are photographers that have been subscribers for awhile, and are frequent posters. If you put in your time, and do your best to help others, and ask questions in the post it will come. Like all the advice here, be patient. Thats what I am trying anyway. I am new here as well. By the way if anyone would like to view my photo from my portfolio landscapes - "old Farmshed redone", I would appreciate if you looked at that one, and the first one I uploaded to tell me if the new one is better. I just wanted to know this because I am in the process of learning photoshop and wanted to know if my efforts are paying off, and what I can do to improve and make the photo even better for next time.</p>

<p>Thank you for your input. Added them all to my favorites.</p>

<p>Well, I have seen great photographs of owls on this forum, some are flying others are sitting in snow. No your not discouraging just annoying by your post. My whole agenda is to capture the beauty of an owl. I don't watch birds. I wanted to start photographing them. I don't want to jeapardize their safety or bother them in anyway, just record their essence. So next time time you decide to post on a forum to someone that you don't, it would be best to understand my intentions first, instead of trying to discourage a photographer trying to learn something new. It would be better to offer advice, what kind of lens, what should you wear so your not seen, how far away should you keep away, film, what to look for, ect. By the way your whole post seems contradicting. No photgraph is worth harming an owl, owls don't need to be bothered by photographers, the bugges threat to owls is not photographer, but bird watchers them selves. !? </p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p>I am wondering does anyone know of great bird watching spots in northeastern PA? I would love to try my luck at taking photo's of owls, but do not know where to begin. Direction would be helpful.</p>

<p>Thanks for that. I am not sure if there is a costco around me. I know there is a bj's which is about the same. Not sure if they have a photo lab. Plan to find out though.</p>

<p>Thanks. I have to find a lab that will put the photos on cd while maintaining resolution. Walmart and rite aid don't cut. I wonder if I scan them if I will have better luck.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great advice. Going to and use it now. Now that I think of it the digital camera saturates the color as the canon isn't caple of this. I guess I got so used to diital tha I forgot what film is like. However, I always thought that film offer hier resolution, but when I compare it to general photos on the digital it seems like the digital offers higher resolution.</p>

<p>Dull, and grainy. A little sharper. Not much. I guess my main concern is the color is washed out. I was expecting better.</p>

<p>also just so you know the flower in real life is a vibrant red...fire truck red. not washed out.</p>

<p>here is an eample of a digital<br>

<img src="http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp352/walterkarroll/100_1348.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I just don't get. I have this great ae-1P, and all my photos seem grainy and very lifeless and dull. I am using fujifilm 200asa and a tonika 28mm-80mm lens. I took the photos using program mode. Do you think the exposure metering system sucks, or most likely just me? When I take photos wih my Kodak dx digital (small point and shoot), my photos are vibrant and full of life. I was hoping that this Canon would take great pics. I just dont understand. below see an example using a 50mm 1.2 and tube:<br>

<img src="http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp352/walterkarroll/flower.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for your posts. Helped out. One of my biggest problems is over exposing the sky in a landscape shot. It makes it more of pain because then you need try and make your sky. Would be easier to to you lets say a polorizer filter to deepen the color of the sky but still get the detail of the land scape. Thanks again. Going to google the hyper focal distance.</p>

<p>Hi, I am semi new to photography and extremly new to adobe photoshop. My question is this. Why should I buy lets say a cokin filter set when you can be more creative in adobe? Also I have a canon ae1-program with the motor drive. Is there any advice on focusing fast so you don't miss out on a great shot? I was at the zoo the other day, and there was a girafe bent down towards the ground with his knees sticking in and his butt towards me. Great background too, but he moved right when i focused him in. It was frustrating.</p>