[kimleebj]

What strategy and approach do I really use to accumulate a good portfolio of photos for personal ads? I could hire a professional photographer. But I might not look great on that day, and the photos would lack variety and spontaneity. It would be more useful to have photos showing me doing interesting activities when I'm looking good. So I probably need to carry a camera and become a photo whore for a few months.

OKCupid says complicated expensive cameras produce better pictures. OKCupid Recommendations
But that confuses cause and effect. People who use SLR's with interchangeable lenses are better photographers. In practice, I might get more and better photos by handing a Point and Shoot camera to friends at parties and activities.

So I need a camera that is easy to operate. It should take sharp photos in soft, flattering morning and evening light. But it should also work at dark parties or events where I'm looking good. It should easily allow shallow depth of field with a low f-stop, so I'm in intimate crisp focus with a fuzzy background.

Feel free to give other recommendations about how to get good photos, or what pictures work.

[FilMor]

Get a Olympus EPL1 or Olympus EPL2 if you are looking at dslr cameras, you can then get a adapter for 10 bucks from amazon and you can start using legacy m43 glass on it, you can find legacy m43 lenses for 10 bucks if you know where to look.

You can go the cheap route too, get Olympus EPL-1 for 300 bucks and then sell the lens on ebay for 140 and just put a 40 dollar old school legacy lens on it like this one,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-OM-Syste...500wt_1287


The EPL-1 has image stabilization built into the body so you can throw any type of lens on it, you are basically getting a excellent camera for 200 bucks if you do that.

http://fumfie.com/product/300.5/262856-_...___EPL1_-/

$309 bucks

[ersatz]

NEX is a better camera if you want to do legacy glass.

[kimleebj]

Thanks guys, I ordered the Olympus from that link. You don't appreciate how unsophisticated I am. I infer that "glass" means lenses. I am unlikely to sell the new lens on Ebay and get a conversion kit to save money.

OKCupid said the best average pictures came from the Panasonic micro four-thirds models. Olympus shares that technology, so it should be fine. The image stabilization will be handy when drunk friends film me.

Oh, sh*t. Does this thing have a flash, or do I need to order one? Sorry, I don't have a closet of tripods and umbrella reflectors. I need to set this thing up so I can carry it conveniently and accumulate photos.

[FilMor]

(09-04-2011 09:44 AM)kimleebj Wrote:  

Thanks guys, I ordered the Olympus from that link. You don't appreciate how unsophisticated I am. I infer that "glass" means lenses. I am unlikely to sell the new lens on Ebay and get a conversion kit to save money.

OKCupid said the best average pictures came from the Panasonic micro four-thirds models. Olympus shares that technology, so it should be fine. The image stabilization will be handy when drunk friends film me.

Oh, sh*t. Does this thing have a flash, or do I need to order one? Sorry, I don't have a closet of tripods and umbrella reflectors. I need to set this thing up so I can carry it conveniently and accumulate photos.

It has flash, but it's extremely good in low light situations.. you won't have to use it much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOVXlGVhqUQ

[ersatz]

The NEX was smaller, more compact camera like and has a bigger sensor than the olympus. It would have even better low light performance.

[kimleebj]

(09-05-2011 12:14 AM)ersatz Wrote:  

NEX was smaller, more compact camera like and has a bigger sensor

NEX appears to be higher quality, and higher price. But that's probably unnecessary for me. Before this, I had never even heard of micro four thirds. I didn't know there was any difference between EP1 and EPL1. I still don't know what a hot shoe is. I will probably never buy lenses. Heck, I ordered the Olympus camera from that link without even knowing whether it has a flash. In short, I have little clue.

Arguably I should use point and shoot. But I wanted higher quality pictures with a camera that is smaller and easier to use than DSLR. There are a bunch of features I might need, but don't even know about: flash, image stabilization, a good viewfinding screen (articulated?), digital file format (.JPEG, .RAW), etc. I thank FilMor for giving me adequate advice and an actionable link.

Last night there was a guy shooting pictures at a party. He had a big-ass camera with large mounted flash. It looked expensive. So I asked him to take a few solo photos. That's great, and if I get pictures every week then eventually I will find a few good ones. I will keep my Olympus handy for that purpose.

[FilMor]

(09-05-2011 12:14 AM)ersatz Wrote:  

The NEX was smaller, more compact camera like and has a bigger sensor than the olympus. It would have even better low light performance.

The Sony NEX 5 is $599 on amazon and the difference in image quality is hard to notice, I rather save $300 and spend it on lenses.

Also the NEX does not have image stabilization built into the body

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-NEX5A-Digital...552&sr=8-3

[kerouac]

Two websites that will give you a lot of info on photography + cameras:
http://www.dpreview.com
http://www.photo.net

Check this link out:
http://www.dpreview.com/camerareviews/?c...der=rating
and try to buy the best camera for the price you are willing to pay according to this list

[kimleebj]

(09-05-2011 01:48 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Two websites that will give you a lot of info on photography + cameras:

Those are good sites. I am really happy with FilMor's recommendation, even though I haven't yet received the camera. The OKCupid article ranked attractiveness of profile pictures based on the camera. The best ones were by complicated, big, heavy SLR's. The exception was an advanced $700 Leica Point and Shoot. But Leica is an expensive, snobby brand. My dad took crummy pictures with his Leica! It's not the camera, it's the photographer and the whole photo system (lens, flash, tripod). Complex cameras produce better photos, largely because better photographers use them. The question is what camera will take the best photos for me.

Different cameras have different advantages. There is sensor size. Availability of wideangle lenses and other accessories. Zoom. Burst and movie capability. Focus speed. Size of viewfinder. Stabilization and low light performance. Digital (.RAW) file format. And other advanced features. Again, I'm clueless about what I need.

Professional photographers worry more about tripods and lighting accessories than about cameras. An old survey of professional photographers said the best camera was one they could easily fit in their pocket. Many old pros kept cheap Canon Powershots in their glove compartments and jacket pockets.

My priorities are portability and ease of general use. I will have a better portfolio from convenient pictures taken every week than from expensive pictures taken infrequently. The mirrorless micro format was designed to be small and light, with near-SLR quality. That's probably why it topped the OKCupid list. In principle more complex cameras will have better performance. But in practice people end up with more pictures and better pictures from simpler, portable micros. More pictures = better pictures.

The Olympus EPL1 seems like a simple, solid, general choice, with image stabilization and built-in flash. If I can't get laid with photos it takes, then a more expensive camera will not help. I will only need to upgrade for underwater photography or close-up infrared movies of bees in-flight.

[Vicious]

My recommendation would be the Canon G12/G13 unless you absolutely want to go DSLR. Unless you are a good photographer and have a clear understanding of focus, composition and shutter speeds and ISO count a DSLR will usually take worse pictures than a G12/G13 because it is more demanding on the photographer.

[ersatz]

(09-05-2011 12:48 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  

(09-05-2011 12:14 AM)ersatz Wrote:  

NEX was smaller, more compact camera like and has a bigger sensor

NEX appears to be higher quality, and higher price. But that's probably unnecessary for me. Before this, I had never even heard of micro four thirds. I didn't know there was any difference between EP1 and EPL1. I still don't know what a hot shoe is. I will probably never buy lenses. Heck, I ordered the Olympus camera from that link without even knowing whether it has a flash. In short, I have little clue.

Arguably I should use point and shoot. But I wanted higher quality pictures with a camera that is smaller and easier to use than DSLR. There are a bunch of features I might need, but don't even know about: flash, image stabilization, a good viewfinding screen (articulated?), digital file format (.JPEG, .RAW), etc. I thank FilMor for giving me adequate advice and an actionable link.

Last night there was a guy shooting pictures at a party. He had a big-ass camera with large mounted flash. It looked expensive. So I asked him to take a few solo photos. That's great, and if I get pictures every week then eventually I will find a few good ones. I will keep my Olympus handy for that purpose.

I suggested the NEX because it was much easier to use interface wise and about 100g lighter than the olympus PEN camera series (you'll notice the difference when you hold the two). The NEX is really like using a point and shoot camera and you'll love the consumer stuff like sweep panorama. It was expressly made for guys like you who wanted better photos compared to their point and shoots but not the complexity and size (P&S upgraders). The bigger and heavier a camera is, the less you'll want to use it and the more uncomfortable and intimidated people get. The NEX has the bigger sensor so it would be easier to take good photos with it. I have both kinds of cameras (PEN m43 size and NEX APS-C sized) and you do notice the difference that a bigger sensor makes.

The price difference isn't too big either, you can get a NEX-3 with the small pancake lens for about $440 (see amazon.com) and the EPL1 for $400 (also see amazon.com), not much of a difference. The NEX-3 was recently for sale at $300 at Fry's. Goto a photography shop (or Best Buy/Fry's Electronics) and just play with them and you'll see what I mean.

If I was going to suggest something on purely photographic quality alone, but still the same size category, I would of suggested the Samsung NX200 coming out soon. It's an APS sized sensor, a much much better lens lineup than Sony's NEX line up and the same weight as the NEX-5, and you can put a hot shoe flash on it! But the interface isn't as easy to use compared to the NEX, but it's much faster to use for general photography.

You could also get the NX100 that's on clearance for about $280, it's the same weight as the Olympus PEN cameras and you can use sweet lenses like the 30mm f/2.0 pancake and the 20-50mm compact zoom that comes with the NX100.

But since it's more expensive (the NX200 at least), heaver and not simplified like the NEX, I suggested the NEX for you instead.

[kimleebj]

These all seem like good recommendations. At this point I am awaiting delivery, and must learn to use the darned thing.

The Fumfie store's recommendation for accessories (memory card, extra battery, charger, UV filter for lens protection, cheap carrying case, tax and shipping) basically doubled the price to $700.

Eventually prices will come down, technology will improve, and I can find bargains on Ebay. But by then I will be old and ugly. I need this sh*t now.

[PDX]

Shit, wish I could've caught you before you ordered. The camera will be fine, but if you have any misgivings when you get it, you can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. (I'd go with Canon for point & shoots, Nikon for dSLR's.) There's a reason they're the industry leaders, and the mainstays of professionals. Also, they hold their value for resale much better than other brands.

Also, the OKCupid article is skewed. Most semi- and professional shooters (who are using Nikons & Canons) are going to compress images themselves before uploading, so the exif data will be removed (exif data is how they know what camera was used.) So the only data they'll have is for the shots taken with average consumer-grade cameras. This leaves not really a good data set to draw any conclusions from.

But really, if you want good pictures, take them in soft light or shade, or in morning or dusk light. Avoid flash.

[babelfish669]

If you want a cheap DSLR, get a canon s90 or s95 for under $400.

Anyways you shouldn't be spending a bunch of money just to get a few good pics of yourself. Take a guess why high end cameras outrank point and shoots? Its not the optics but because the people with high end cameras know how to take pictures.

Good picture is pretty much all about getting the lighting right. The post-production lighting adjustments from the RAW files DSLRs take is icing on the cake. Just find a friend who is a good photographer and have them take a bunch. That little photo rating tool on okcupid will give you an idea which ones are good or not.

[JayMillz]

Do you guys copywright/trademark your photos? If so, which software/service do you use? I'm starting to accumulate a lot of nice work that I want to put online and I'm looking for a way to protect it from unauthorized use and also show ownership. Thanks

[Super Etoile]

(01-06-2012 05:13 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

Do you guys copywright/trademark your photos? If so, which software/service do you use? I'm starting to accumulate a lot of nice work that I want to put online and I'm looking for a way to protect it from unauthorized use and also show ownership. Thanks

Try this......

Faststone Photo Resizer

[Pilgrim37]

If you want to drop some ca$h on a serious camera and kit choose the Nikon D9....professional standard.

Then you can pass yourself off as media,papparazzi,gmamour photographer..whatever you choose!

[kimleebj]

I got a few usable pics, but ultimately needed only one or two.

A standard kit lens is fine for snapshots or landscapes. My biggest difference in picture quality came from getting an old f/1.8 portrait lens and adaptor off Ebay for under $100. This lens allows narrow depth of field, in low light, so the subject is sharp while the background is fuzzy. You need to focus manually, but that is typical with a portrait lens. I have taken some beautiful pictures of friends at parties.

That's the issue. Do you wait until you have worked out and gotten a tan, then hire a pro photographer and dress up? Or do you just keep a camera around for when you look cool?

I have not tried a camera with an autofocus portrait lens. That would probably be great, but the micro 4/3's format does not have good and cheap portrait lenses available.